Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-10-02 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, October 2, 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 September 17, 2019 City Council Minutes b. Approval of the September 24, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge the August 27, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes d. Acknowledge the August 13, 2019 Parks and Rec Minutes e. Approval of Fire Grant Application f. Approve Purchase Order for Off-leash Dog Park Fence g. Amend Joint Powers Agreement for Recycling Coordinator Services h. Approval of August 2019 Treasurer’s Report i. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period *see guidelines below 7. Public Hearing - none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2019-71 Approve Variance for a New Gymnasium Addition at Somerset Elementary School, 1355 Dodd Road (Planning Case No. 2019-25) b. Resolution 2019-72 Approve Critical Area Permit for New Single Family Dwelling in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, 1135 Orchard Place (Planning Case No. 2019-26) c. Ordinance No. 545 Amend Title 12, Article G. I Industrial District, Chapter 1 General Provisions Regarding Floor Area Ratio (Far) Standards in the I-Industrial District (Planning Case No. 2019-21) d. Resolution 2019-73 Approve Conditional Use Permit for a New Personal Self-Storage Facility in the I-Industrial District, 1178 Northland Drive (Planning Case No. 2019-20) e. Ordinance No. 544 Amend And Restate City Code Section 3-6 Regulating Therapeutic Massage Enterprises and Approve the Summary Publication f. Resolution 2019-74 Order Feasibility Report for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements g. Approve Wentworth Park Playground Improvements 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 ai r 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, September 17, 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, Paper, and Petschel were also present. Councilor Miller was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) PRESENTATIONS UPDATE ON FIRE STATION EXPANSION/REMODEL BY PAUL OBERHAUS, CPMI Mr. Paul Oberhaus provided an update on the fire station expansion and remodel. He explained that the summer has been very wet, which is impeding the progress. They are optimistic that they will get back on schedule. Approximately 90% of the concrete masonry walls are built and about 85% of the special metal stud walls framed, which is the perimeter of the building. The iron workers are on site. Next week they hope to start completing the underground if the site remains dry. 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.) Acknowledge July Par 3 Financial Report and h.) Approve Professional Services Change Order for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements. a. Approval of September 3, 2019 City Council Minutes page 3 b. Approval of September 10, 2019 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge July Par 3 Financial Report d. Approve Grading Permit for St. Thomas Academy Baseball Field Improvements e. Approve Resolution 2019-65 Calling for a Public Hearing on Mendota Heights Industrial Park Easement Vacation f. Accepting Wetland Delineation Report at 1178 Northland Drive g. Authorize the Recruitment of a Public Works Maintenance Worker h. Approve Professional Services Change Order for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvements i. Approve Building Activity Report j. Approval of Claims List Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) ACKNOWLEDGE JULY PAR 3 FINANCIAL REPORT Councilor Duggan noted that the Par 3 has made a profit this summer. He commended Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence for keeping the Par 3 on track. Councilor Duggan moved to acknowledge the July Par 3 Financial Report. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) H) APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CHANGE ORDER FOR THE TOWN CENTER/VILLAGE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOULDER RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENTS Councilor Duggan asked for clarification on this change order, noting that the new costs are estimated at a 23% increase which is significant. He questioned the unforeseen conditions and inclusion of additional tasks noted in the memo. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained the unforeseen conditions was a typo and that should be stricken from the memo. The additional work was the addition of the retaining wall on the Victoria and Walsh Lane, which was not included in the original scope of the project. Councilor Duggan asked about the additional time at an estimated amount of $16,453. Mr. Ruzek replied that is for the work on the retaining wall at Victoria and Walsh that was not in the original scope of the project and the inspection of additional walls at The Village site due to The Village HOA’s concerns. That was determined to be on private property and the HOA may be making those improvements. Councilor Duggan asked if the HOA would be billed for the inspection work. Mr. Ruzek replied that the city would not bill them for that, however, they will be taking on additional costs with the improvements to their own wall. page 4 Councilor Duggan moved to authorize a Professional Services Contract Change Order for the Town Center/Village of Mendota Heights Boulder Retaining Wall Improvement Project. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) ADOPTING PRELIMINARY BUDGET AND LEVY Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained that the Council has held two work sessions to discuss the proposed budget and levy for 2020. The action before the Council is to approve the preliminary budget and levy so it can be certified to Dakota County. Ms. Schabacker shared that the proposed levy for 2020 is $10,121,786, representing a 7.28% increase over 2019. The budget for all funds is $16,636,927. The taxable market value for the city is approximately $2.3 billion, representing an increase of 8.89% over 2019. The 2019 city tax rate was 39.294, and the proposed 2020 tax rate is 38.544. The average residential home value increase is approximately 7.39% for 2020. The median home value in Mendota Heights is approximately $408,407. A home valued at the median will be paying $1,618 for city property tax; last year the median home value was $380,000 and would have paid $1,538 – the average increase is 5.17% or $80/year. Included in the preliminary budget is one park maintenance worker, one office assistant position for Parks & Recreation and Administration, the workers compensation cost increase of $46,500, the fire fighters pension contribution increase of $18,000, a cost of living adjustment for employees, and the health insurance contribution which increases the City’s contribution by 10%. Capital items to be paid for out of the fund balance or from special funds include a Mack truck for the Street Department, a 3/4 ton pickup truck for Public Works, an asphalt hot box trailer, planning costs associated with a Natural Resources Plan, a sprayer for the Streets/Par 3, a backstop at Friendly Hills Park, a Par 3 greens mower, and a jetter truck for the Sewer Department. She noted that the individual department budgets for 2020 are proposed to increase as follows: • Police Department – 6.15% • Administration – 3.49 % • Elections –125 % page 5 • Engineering – 5.86% • Recreation – 20.72% • PW-Parks--.5% • Street Department – 7.93% • Fire Department – 7.9% • Code Enforcement – flat • Community Development—13.46% • IT – 15.44% • Planning/Recycling/Council – 8.85% The total General Fund budget increase is proposed to be 6.43%. The budgeted revenues are projected to be: • Tax Levy – up 7.4% • Licenses / permits – up slightly • Fines – adjusted to more actual numbers • Charges for services – down slightly • Intergovernmental revenue – up 7.6% • Miscellaneous revenue – remaining flat Ms. Schabacker said that this is a balanced budget so the revenues are also projected to increase by 6.43% The levy percent changes are projected as: • General Fund – up 7.4% • Office Assistant position—increase by $55,000 • Legal/Contingency/Emergency Preparedness – remained the same • Fire Relief – up by $18,000 • Infrastructure/Facility Reserve – reduced to $0 with the understanding that once The Village lots were sold those reserve funds would be replenished • Fire Station Bonds – higher by $103,611 • Special Levies – relatively flat • Street Light District – 0% change Total Preliminary Tax Levy – up 7.28%. Ms. Schabacker explained that once the Preliminary Tax Levy is adopted, it cannot be increased but it can be decreased before the final budget and levy are adopted in December 2019. At the December 3, 2019, City Council Meeting, a public meeting will be held concerning the budget. The final levy and budget would be certified to Dakota County prior to December 30, 2019. Upon a question from Councilor Duggan, Ms. Schabacker replied that Emergency Preparedness is a smaller budget and that is what the city uses to pay for siren maintenance. The Equipment Reserve is an account that can be used to pay for equipment expenditures as opposed to bonding for them. City Administrator Mark McNeill also replied that typically these are savings accounts, especially for page 6 equipment. The intent is that these would be built up over time so that in the future the city would not have to sell bonds to purchase larger pieces of equipment. Councilor Duggan then asked for confirmation that as the funds become available from sale of The Village lots, they would restore the funds in these accounts. That was affirmed. Councilor Paper asked if the sewer jetter truck was part of the list of the capital items to be purchased in 2020. Ms. Schabacker confirmed that it would be purchased and paid for out of the Sewer/Utility Fund. Councilor Duggan asked how the budget could be lowered going into next year. Mr. McNeill replied that there are discretionary items like the office assistant position. There are not a lot of other discretionary types of spending being proposed. The majority of the budget increases are from the increased cost of insurances and employee cost of living. Councilor Duggan asked if there would be any savings going to half-day Fridays [topic later on the agenda] and if that was reflected in the budget. Mr. McNeill replied that there would not be any savings as the City still has to to heat and cool the building. The City does not pay overtime for people to stay later, so closing early is revenue neutral. Councilor Petschel made the observation that this is not the first time the Council has reviewed this budget. The Council reviewed the budget line by line. Fortunately, because the city has a balanced budget and the Council has tried to keep it as lean as possible, many large capital purchases have been paid for from the savings, rather than bonding for them. There are positive times coming once the city gets the Par 3 bonds paid off. She is hoping that, once the fire station becomes a permanent part of the budget’s bottom line, the only significant changes in the budget would be insurance and cost of living. Mayor Garlock noted that the city still was not certain on the employee health insurance increase. Ms. Schabacker confirmed that that is another option that may show a reduction. Councilor Duggan commended Ms. Schabacker on her work, as she is primarily the finance department and puts in many, many hours. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-66 APPROVING PROPOSED 2019 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2020. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-67 ADOPTING THE 2020 PRELIMINARY BUDGET. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) page 7 Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-68 APPROVING THE FINAL 2019 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. 1 COLLECTIBLE IN 2020. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) B) RESOLUTION 2019-69 PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $3,195,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2019B Finance Director Kristen Schabacker explained this request was to approve the sale of bonds to finance the 2019 Wesley Street Improvement Project, the Village Wall Improvements, and the refunding of the 2010 and 2011 Bond Issues in the amount of $3,195,000. The refunding issues account for $1,865,000 of the bonds to be issued, for a savings of $81,800. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2091-69 PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $3,195,000 GENERAL OBLICATION BONDS, SERIES 2019B. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) C) RESOLUTION 2019-64 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF SWEENEY ADDITION Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Edward Sweeney was seeking final plat approval for “Sweeney Addition”, a new three lot subdivision located at the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue. He shared an image of the subject property, which is just over three acres in size. Dakota County reviewed this plat and recommended the following conditions of approval: i.) Developer will provide 40-ft. right-of-way dedication along Wentworth and Wachtler Avenues; ii.) Lots 1 and 3 will each be approved with a 30-foot wide, shared (dual) driveway access opening onto Wentworth Avenue, while the existing driveway serving 770 Wentworth Drive (Lot 2) will be considered a temporary access until such time when Lot 2 is split or subdivided in the future. iii.) The two new lots created by any split of Lot 2 must tie into the shared driveway accesses provided for Lots 1 and 3. iv.) Developer shall restrict access along all of CR 8, except for the two 30-foot access openings along the new right of way line. A temporary access permit with the County would be required to allow the existing driveway, which would expire only if Lot 2 is split again into two lots. A quit claim deed to Dakota County for restricted access is required with the recording of the plat. v.) No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County Recorder’s Office. These conditions, as well as the original conditions in the original preliminary plat, have all been incorporated into this final plat resolution of approval. page 8 Councilor Duggan asked if there are ‘partial access points’ similar to this, located elsewhere in the city. Mr. Benetti replied that there are a number of shared driveways; however, they are not of this caliber. Staff requested this separation of access points to provide allowance for snow or grass removal but mainly because of drainage issues between the properties. Councilor Duggan asked for further clarification on the driveway locations, which Mr. Benetti provided. Councilor Paper asked if the only difference now from what they approved previously was the driveway access. Mr. Benetti replied there was also a decrease in the width of the right of way dedication from 50 feet to 40 feet. Councilor Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2019-64 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT (SUBDIVISION) OF “SWEENEY ADDITION” LOCATED AT 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-17). Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) D) RESOLUTION 2019-70 ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE 2019 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was asked to approve the acceptance of bids and awarding a contract for the 2019 Storm Sewer Improvement Project. The City received seven bids which were opened on September 11, 2019. The low bidder was Alcon Construction Corp. out of Rochester, MN. Based on work they have done, it appears that they will be able to complete this project. Their low bid of $226,717.90 was higher than the Engineer’s Estimate of $201,158.50; however, staff recommended moving forward with this project. Councilor Duggan asked if there have been any projects in the recent past that have come in under budget. Mr. Ruzek replied that The Village Retaining Wall Project came in under budget. In the last two years, it has been the norm that the city estimate has been low. Mr. Ruzek also stated that based on discussions with other cities, it seemed like projects that got out early this year received some standard pricing. Staff is looking to get the Marie Avenue project out to bid in mid-February or early-March. Councilor Paper asked if there was a reason to wait until mid-February to seek bids on the Marie Avenue project. Mr. Ruzek replied that they have not completed the design on it; however, he could contact the consultant and see what their recommendation would be. Councilor Petschel noted that everything on the ‘summary of improvements’ for the storm sewer improvements needs to be done; completing these will go a long way to addressing some of the more egregious situations. Mayor Garlock moved to adopt “RESOLUTION 2091-70 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE 2019 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 page 9 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) E) CITY HALL HOURS City Administrator Mark McNeill explained that on April 27, 2019 the Council approved summer operating hours at City Hall. The hours have been 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and from 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday. City Hall was then closed on Friday afternoons. It was noted that the City has not received any negative feedback from the public regarding the closure on Friday afternoons, and from a staff perspective, the changed hours were well received. It was the intention to return to regular hours in October 2019; however, staff was now requesting Council approve extending the revised hours for another year to see how it would work over the winter. These adjusted hours would only be for City Hall. The Police and Public Works departments would not be affected. Councilor Duggan suggested that a larger sign be installed on the front door explaining that the Police Department is in the lower level and stating the hours they are open. Mr. McNeill agreed. Councilor Petschel asked that the Council review these hours in one year, and she asked that a date be set for that review. Mr. McNeill proposed September 2020. She also suggested that staff keep track of all feedback received over the winter. Mr. McNeill stated that if staff or the City Council finds that there are issues, more immediate changes to the hours could always be discussed. Staff received consensus from the Council authorizing the City Hall hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday, through the end of September 2020. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the Par 3 is still open and fall rates have been implemented. He reminded residents to check the city’s website for registration for the field trips over MEA week. Gymnastics will be starting in December, and registration is online. The Glow Dash was scheduled for September 21st. Fire Safety Week is October 6–12, 2019. The Fire Department will host an Open House at Mendakota Park on October 12 due to the fire station being under construction. The next three regular City Council meetings will be held on Wednesdays (October 2, October 16, November 6). COUNCIL COMMENTS page 10 Councilor Petschel recognized City Administrator Mark McNeill for currently being the President of the Board of Directors for Metro Cities. Mr. McNeill is also the Executive Committee Chair for the Dakota County Communication Center, and is on the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors. Mayor Garlock reminded everyone to register for the Warrior 5K being held on September 28th. This is a fund raiser for their foundation. Councilor Paper reminded residents of the Homecoming Parade being held on September 20, starting in West St. Paul at Heritage Middle School going to the Henry Sibley High School for a 7:00 p.m. football game. Councilor Duggan stated his experience has been that by attending meetings with these various organizations (i.e. League of MN Cities, Metro Cities, Dakota County), one can learn a lot about what is going on in other cities, and you can bring ideas back to your own city. He complimented the people running the soccer league this fall and stated that the condition of the fields is fine. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Miller) Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held September 24, 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 4:00 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 AMENDMENT TO CODE REGARDING MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING City Administrator Mark McNeill and City Clerk Lorri Smith reviewed a revised code amendment to update the City Code Section 3-6 Therapeutic Massage. Ms. Smith reviewed the major changes being proposed. It was noted that all of the currently licensed massage establishments and therapists have been notified of the proposed changes. To date, no one has contacted the City with questions or issues with the changes. The Council members questioned how thorough the background investigations are for these types of licenses. Police Chief McCarthy stated the investigation is very thorough and the data is searched nationwide on each applicant. Councilor Petschel questioned if a therapist could practice from their residence. Ms. Smith stated that massage establishments must be located in the B1 zoning district. A therapist could not practice from a residential neighborhood. It was noted that if this issue comes up in the future, then the Council could take a closer look at possibly allowing this. Councilor Duggan provided some grammatical corrections to the proposed ordinance. After discussion, the Council directed staff to bring this ordinance forward at the next City Council meeting of October 2, 2019. DISCUSSION OF ALLOWING CHARITABLE GAMBLING IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS City Administrator Mark McNeill and City Clerk Lorri Smith reviewed with the Council proposed City Code language to allow charitable gambling in the City. It was noted that staff has been contacted by two nonprofit groups that wish to conduct charitable gambling in the city. page 12 Sept 24, 2019 City Council Work Session page 2 of 3 They said that charitable gambling would only be allowed in establishments that have an on-sale liquor license. The gambling proceeds could only be used for allowable expenses identified by state statute. The proposed ordinance would require an organization to expend at least 50% of its expenditures on lawful purposes within Mendota Heights or within the trade area defined in the ordinance as the abutting cities. The proposed ordinance would also require the organizations conducting charitable gambling to contribute 10% of their net profits monthly to a fund administered by the city. The city could then disburse the funds collected as allowed by the state of MN. It was noted that these dollars could be spent on the 4th of July fireworks display. The Council discussed if the charitable gambling dollars collected by the nonprofit would be worth the effort. A majority of the Council members were not in favor of allowing charitable gambling in Mendota Heights. As a result, the proposed ordinance will not be brought forward. DISCUSSION OF CODE LANGUAGE REQUIRING A CERTAIN DISTANCE BETWEEN CHURCHES/SCHOOLS AND LIQUOR LICENSED ESTABLISHMENTS The current city code language which requires liquor establishments to be a certain distance from houses of worship and schools was discussed. The current Code requirement is that liquor establishments cannot be located within 1,000 feet of a school, or within 750 feet from a church. City Administrator Mark McNeill presented maps showing the proximity of the churches and schools in Mendota Heights to the licensed liquor establishments. Some are currently not in compliance with the restrictions. It was discussed that an on-sale liquor establishment in Mendota Heights must be a restaurant. It cannot only serve liquor on-sale. The Council discussed that this language may be dated, and that cities are getting away from these distance restrictions. The results of a survey of Dakota County cities, and the City of St. Paul were discussed. The Councilors were in agreement to remove this language from the City Code. An ordinance will be brought forward to the October 16, 2019 Council meeting to amend the Code. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY COMMISSION The Council discussed a suggestion from Mendota Heights resident Gail Lewellan to create a commission to discuss and advise on the future of the Pilot Knob historic site. A Pilot Knob Advisory Council would be composed of key stakeholders who will use their expertise to recommend short-term and long-term goals, management objectives, and enhancements for this area. The Commission would make recommendations to the City Council. It had been noted that by having a commission, there may be a greater opportunity for receiving grant funds for this area. The Council also discussed the possible purchase of privately owned land abutting the Pilot Knob Hill area. The new area could be used for additional parking space for school buses that are frequently visiting this area. page 13 Sept 24, 2019 City Council Work Session page 3 of 3 The Councilors were in agreement to further look into both the possible land purchase, and the creation of a commission proposal. City staff was directed to meet with Gail Lewellan to gather more ideas, and return to the Council with a plan. Councilors Petschel and Duggan would also be involved in those discussions. OTHER TRAIL ALONG DODD ROAD Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director, discussed with the Council the proposed trail improvements along Dodd Road. He reported that residents in the section between Mager Court and Wesley Way were not in favor of the trail construction, unless it was part of a more encompassing construction to Marie Avenue. Mr. Ruzek reported that the City’s engineering consultant was preparing a graphic which would show an option for a future 10 foot wide trail to be constructed adjacent to the TH 149 curb—he said by doing that, it would reduce any impacts on the adjacent homeowners, but would require a deviation from State standards. Councilor Miller said that he could work with one of the property owners who is in the area north of Mager Court regarding placement of the trail. Without resident support, the City Council felt that the construction of the trail should not take place this year. Councilors Miller and Paper left the meeting at 5:18 pm. Mr. Ruzek also discussed the impacts of not constructing the trail on a storm sewer extension. Based on the uncertainties of the ability to get agreement from the neighbors, and an issue of support from the Council, it was determined to not construct the trail with this contract. If, however, the right of way issue can get resolved in a timely manner, the Council felt that the topic could be revisited for a possible 2020 construction. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 14 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 27, 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 July 23, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2019 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (NOONAN) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE –CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE for NEW SELF STORAGE USE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC was requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. The storage facility would be located on the vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55 (1178 Northland Drive). Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. The parcel is 2.2 acres in size and is currently guided and zoned I-Industrial. The property was previously owned by General Pump (next door) and has been sitting vacant for a number of years. The initial review of this application revealed the possibility of a wetland on the site. According to the Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. The applicant hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform page 15 a wetland assessment. The report came back and indicated no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. Metro Storage provided some concept images of their proposed building – a new three-story, 117,810 square foot, fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. It has light-colored limestone features, precast panels along the front, nice break-up of color with some glass curtain walls on the entryway. Mr. Benetti shared images or renderings of what the building would look like. Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses: • Not more than 50% of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings o Current plan occupies 41% of the lot area • Structure Height: no structure shall exceed 45-feet in height o Current building roof line is 42.5-feet with the upper parapet at 44.5-feet • Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than 40-feet in width (40-feet from Northland Drive and 40-feet from Highway 55); 30-feet from the side yard; and 50- feet from the rear yard o Facility will have a setback of 40-feet from Highway 55 and off of Northland Drive o The east side roadway is not technically a roadway – it more of a private drive • Floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5 o The sites FAR equated out to 1.24%; thus the need for the Variance request • Minimum Lot Area Requirement is 1 acre with a minimum lot width of 100 feet o This site is 3.76 acres in size and is 153-feet wide along Northland Drive and 255- feet along the MnDOT ROW • Parking setbacks require 20-feet and 10-feet from the side yard • Parking population netted out to approximately 15 required spaces; they are providing over 22 spaces Interior Space: • Front entry point and office in the front • Exit point in the back • Internal hallways separated out • 11 interior parking spaces for loading and unloading • 21 new track wall-mount style lights – no pole lights Grading/Drainage/Utility Plan: • Very little grading on the site • Infiltration Basin on the south side of the building with drainage swales and inlets; to be tied to an existing 15-inch storm pipe leading out to a wetland feature in the Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way (MnDOT ROW) • Infiltration Basin along the west side of the building till take stormwater drainage from the north parking lot area and roof drains from the building • Building utilities will be tied into the existing main service lines underneath Northland Drive to the north page 16 • Water service will be provided to the building by a 1-inch copper service line for typical/potable water needs • Fire suppression or interior sprinkler systems will be serviced by a 6-inch ductile iron pipe • Sanitary service will be provided by a new 6-inch PVC pipe, with a clean-out located at the angled junction of said line Landscape Plan: • Reviewed by the city’s Master Gardeners, who suggested the following changes (recommendations, not requirements: o Substituting ironwood trees for the river birch o Replacing the velvet crabs with serviceberry species o Replace tor spirea bushes with Little Bluestem species o Replace sumacs with honeysuckle, serviceberry, chokeberry, or prairie drop seed grasses o Replace the proposed rock mulch bed with shredded wood mulch o Substitute the MnDOT 25-121 seed mix with a preferred MnDOT or other native seed mix • Landscape plan was revised and resubmitted with some of the recommended changes Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria to be met in the granting of a CUP (Title 12-1L-6): a. Not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community b. Nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards c. Nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. That the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan He then reviewed the conditions to be met per the code amendment that now allows for personal self-storage uses as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. Staff believed that all of these conditions / standards have been met. Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria or standards to be met when granting a Variance and the applicant’s response to those standards: page 17 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties The Variance is required because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), at 1.24, exceeds the allowable 0.5. Mr. Benetti researched other neighboring cities and beyond and found that the buildings in their Industrial Zones ranged from 30%-35% (Inver Grove Heights and Eagan) and up to 50% (West St. Paul). The maximum lot coverage ranged from 70%-75% to 95%. Bloomington and St. Paul are the only ones that have an FAR, and they range from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of the neighboring cities do not use or apply an FAR. We also limit out building height and footprint and impervious surface percentages. Mr. Benetti explained that the applicant’s plans demonstrate that all of the Industrial Zone standards are being met, except for the FAR. Staff recommended that the Commission give serious consideration to this application because the FAR is probably a bit more of what they should expect in a community of the size of Mendota Heights and that this Variance is only for the personal self-storage use and shall apply specifically to this site and its use only. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked why there was not an option to approve the Conditional Use Permit but deny the Variance. Mr. Benetti replied that this is an option if the Commission so wished. However, the applicant would prefer that the Variance be approved. If the Commission were to approve the CUP without the Variance, they would essentially be approving a 1-story building. Commissioner Noonan asked if they were to only approve the CUP, would the applicant have to come back and rework their site plan and thus, get a renewed approval of the CUP. Mr. Benetti replied that may be a possibility. Commissioner Petschel asked if denying the Variance would cause time penalties for re- application on the site. Mr. Benetti replied that it would not cause any time penalties, as there are no time penalties for CUP’s or Variances. Chair Magnuson, noting that the city only has an FAR of 0.5, stated that they were limiting any development of any remaining area within the Industrial Park to single-story structures. Mr. Benetti concurred. She then asked, when the City Council considered the amendment to the ordinance, was there any conversation about changing the FAR requirement. Mr. Benetti replied that he had a discussion with the former planner and he indicated that this FAR never came up in the discussions on the page 18 ordinance. He was shocked when he heard about it because it had never been an issue but that he probably should have changed it when the ordinance was updated several years ago. Commissioner Noonan disagreed as the Industrial Park was developed under an FAR of 0.5 and it was never brought up as an issue before. This is an interesting one because it is proposing an FAR of significantly higher than what others in the Industrial Park have worked with. To suggest a 3- story building cannot be done with a 0.5 FAR is not an accurate statement. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the 0.5 FAR rule has existed as the Industrial Park has developed. It does not mean that the Industrial Park was developed under the 0.5 FAR; it was just in code. The Sun Country headquarters is just one example of a multi-story building in the Industrial Park that was developed under a time when they had to have an expansive surface parking lot for the building. Their lot is big enough to lower their FAR. This is a unique situation under consideration; where the lot is small, the building being proposed fits on the lot. It is important to realize that this FAR rule applies to the entire Industrial Zone and he would be willing to provide an expensive dinner if every lot in the Industrial Zone were developed within the 0.5 FAR; but that is that they weren’t. Commissioner Petschel asked what if they wanted to build a 7-story building. Commissioner Mazzitello replied they would run into the height restriction. Commissioner Petschel stated that it was only a restriction; to apply a one restriction arbitrarily as opposed to another. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that his point was that the FAR was an antiquated requirement. FAR, antiquated or not, conversations continued. It was pointed out that if the proposed building were to remain inside the current footprint and have only one story, it would be below the required FAR of 0.5. Commissioner Toth, going back to the timeframe between 2009 and 2014, this lot was identified as a wetland. Now coming back to July 26, 2019 it is not a wetland. He asked if there was a misunderstanding or if additional soil was placed on the property. Mr. Benetti replied that it has been his experience working with wetland mapping, especially from a National Wetland Inventory, it is generalized or best estimate sometimes. Sometimes it is based on old historical interpretation of aerial mapping. The GIS mapping flags the city to inform owners or applicants that there is potential for a wetland and they need to investigate for accuracy. If the Wetland Report, done independently, comes back and says there is a wetland, then they would have been talking about how to mitigate that on site or do some other type on-site mitigation. Fortunately, that is why they hired these people to come out and do an independent testing or analysis and they came back and said there was no longer a wetland on the site. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage, Mr. Quinn Hutson of CNH Architects, and their engineer from Wier & Associates came forward. Mr. Heilman answered the question regarding the wetland by stating the parcel, through their investigation in Phase 1, was an area that was used by MnDOT as an off-ramp relocation when they did the roadwork. There is approximately 6-feet of fill on that site – it goes from 6-feet to approximately 12-feet. None of that is natural material. This was done before the 2000’s. page 19 Mr. Heilman then gave a brief history on Metro Storage and their footprint in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. As for the FAR, Mr. Heilman stated that what they have experienced is that the issue is the intensity of their use is so low – basically the lowest use; however, the FAR is high and the intensity of the use is so low that they offset each other. Also, in this case, they are meeting all other aspects of the code – height, building coverage, impervious surface coverage – he could essentially build the same building but with only one floor and no one could tell from looking at the outside. They find this to be inconsistent with the FAR – it does not match the other codes to be found in the zoning code. Mr. Hutson continued with highlights of the specific building by sharing an image of the site plan and explaining that they are not pushing the limits of the site but putting in a building that is proportionate to the site. He also shared a rendering of the building elevation. Addressing the FAR issue, Mr. Hutson noted that looking at the building from the outside it matches other buildings in the Industrial Park – including ones with high ceilings inside. They are just a different type use and that is what makes it different. This use is different than other industrial uses permitted in the park. The only thing that brings up the FAR is how they use the inside of the building. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Hutson could provide any type of argument as to why they have a practical difficulty. Mr. Hutson replied that they feel that the practical difficulty is that the FAR is inconsistent with this particular approved industrial use – because of its extreme low intensity the FAR does not consider that in the way that it would for other types of industrial buildings. They feel that is a hardship for this particular type of use. Commissioner Noonan stated that the FAR is a standard across the entire Industrial Area; it is not specifically targeted to this use. So it is a standard that applies across the industrial and it is not specifically targeted to this site or to this use. Commissioner Noonan was having a hard time with that explanation as a practical difficulty since it is a universal standard across the entire Industrial Area. Mr. Hutson agreed that the standard is universal across the Industrial Area; however, it would be a hardship for any site that would be considering this use. Commissioner Noonan asked, when the zoning was amended to add personal storage in the Industrial Area, why was that not raised as a discussion point given the fact that the standards were published and existed. His understanding was that all that was asked for was to add personal storage as a permitted use within the Industrial Area and not seek to do any modifications to the zoning standards. Mr. Heilman replied that they had an idea on the design of the building; however, they were just attending to the use at that point in time. It was a general use for the area and that was their concentration at that time. Commissioner Noonan noted that one could suggest that a general use should operate under the zoning standards that were there and were posted. If there were a fundamental difficulty they should have been raised and discussed as part of the zoning change. Mr. Heilman replied that he could see Commissioner Noonan’s point; however, this is a use that is fairly new to zoning – it page 20 was never conceived even ten or fifteen years ago. That is why Metro Storage is here, they are asking for the change based on this new type of use of storage – multi-story, climate controlled, interior, generation five storage. A lot of municipalities he goes to have nothing in their code regarding self-storage. So they go along and develop it as they go through the approval process. Their stance is that FAR is partially to limit intensity on a property. They are coming from the equation with the lowest, other than cemetery, intensity of use for a building. Commissioner Toth asked approximately how many storage units would be in the building. Mr. Heilman replied that based on rentable square footage of 83,000, the units on average are approximately 100 (some at 25 square feet and some as high as 300 square feet) – so that would equate to approximately 810 to 830 rental units. Commissioner Toth then questioned the amount of traffic that the building may see on the average day with the number of parking spaces they have – how did they come up with those numbers. They have said many times that this would be a low traffic area, but now they are looking at 800+ rental units and they are saying that it would be a low volume of traffic. Metro Storage was estimating (one space per 6,000 square feet). Mr. Heilman replied that this comes from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers and their manual, which includes key studies for various different uses of facilities. Commissioner Katz asked if their personal data for Metro Storage matched the data from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers. Mr. Heilman replied that within the storage sector, the typical product is about the same size as is being proposed. Commissioner Katz clarified his question by asking if Metro Storage had other facilities of this size and are they seeing traffic of only six (6) trips per day. Mr. Heilman replied in the affirmative and said he could back up what they were claiming. Chair Magnuson asked when the issue of the Variance became apparent, did they give any consideration to scaling back the size of the building so it would be more compatible with the FAR. Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make a project viable to meet the FAR; no matter what, he would have had to be here for a Variance on the FAR. Commissioner Corbett asked how long it would take to fill this facility or to become stable. Mr. Heilman replied that the pro-forma is roughly three years. However, their facilities in Blaine and Burnsville the lease up was less than two years. Mr. Heilman concluded by stating that the stormwater report obviously works for all of the regulations and they are not changing anything other than what is existing. They are maintaining the water on their site because of their development. 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 21 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson suggested that the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance be considered separately; and that the Variance be considered first. Commissioner Noonan agreed since the outcome of the decision on the Variance may necessitate modification to the plans under the Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the Commission were to deny the Variance, technically they should deny the Conditional Use Permit because they are intertwined with each other. Commissioner Noonan replied that they could only deny the Variance. A CUP cannot be denied; it can only have conditions imposed upon it. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the Variance is denied, then the Commission could table the Conditional Use Permit. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 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 fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; 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). page 22 Commissioner Noonan added that he had considerable difficulty finding the ‘practical difficulty’ in this instance. The last comment of the applicant was quite telling; the only reason they were pursuing the floor area they had, and therefore the Variance, was because it did not work from an economic point of view. That is not a basis for approving a Variance. Either the city has a Zoning Ordinance or they do not, that applies across the board. He has sensitivity to the discussions on intensity but it is also massing as well. For the reasons being is that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are very clear and have been very clear from day 1. In this case of Variance of 1.25 he finds is beyond what is reasonable in this consideration. Commissioner Petschel stated that the argument that other cities do not have a similar requirement does not hold any water. It looks like fine project and he does not disagree with the project; however, the Commission cannot change the ordinance through a Variance. Especially since they have been nick picked in court over their own code and their own procedural application of that code. Given that there was not even an attempt to offer a practical difficulty other than they need this to make money, he could not support it. Chair Magnuson stated that she personally could see where this is one of those situations – it reminds her a little bit of schools in a residential zone where there is a requirement in place that seems to be perhaps no longer necessary or potentially outdated and that is creating a hang up. The fact of the matter is that it exists. She asked, time wise what would it take if there was any inclination to change that code to either modify the FAR or eliminate entirely, and would that pose a significant time problem for this application. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the applicant’s action deadline was set for October 6, 2019; they are still within the first 60-day rule under this application. It could be extended another 60 days or they could provide a letter stating that they waive the statutory review period. In the meantime, if they wish to come back and apply for an amendment to the code – they could easily come in and they would like to have the FAR restricted or they could amend their own CUP standards to allow for a higher FAR. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be more comfortable changing the code if the code needs to be changed, rather than trying to work around a long-standing standard by Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with Chair Magnuson’s comment about issuing Variances where the code if flawed; it would be better to amend/correct the flawed code. The FAR does not match up with the other requirements within the code. He then asked if there was a FAR standard in the Business District (no), is there one in the High-Density Residential District (no), so why is it here. His argument is that it either should not be here or it should be a number that is consistent with 50% lot coverage and a height of 30-45-feet. The FAR is inconsistent with the rest of the code. That is the practical difficulty. Therefore, he would not support the motion for denial. He would support either granting this Variance or a tabling so there could be a code amendment to change or eliminate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard from the Industrial Zone. AYES: 3 (Noonan, Petschel, Magnuson) NAYS: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Toth) ABSTAIN: 1 (Katz) page 23 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 2019 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DURING WHICH TIME STAFF IS INSTRUCTED, OR THE APPLICANT IS INSTRUCTED, TO COME UP WITH A CODE AMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE CODE TO ALTER THE FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD AND REQUEST THE APPLICANT ENTERTAIN AN EXTENSION OR WAIVE THE STATUTORY REVIEW PERIOD AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-23 GARLAND’S INC. / JBT LLC, 2240 ENTERPRISE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for OUTDOOR SALE LOT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Garland’s Inc. is purchasing the former Manna Freight property, located at 2440 Enterprise Drive. They wish to relocate their headquarters and their main distribution center. Garland’s Inc. is a distributor of pre-made casters, wheels, shelving units, hand-carts, and a wide variety of material handling products for commercial/industrial based businesses. They are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an outdoor sales lot to display their very small box trailers, or job-site trailers. This would be under a new enclosed fenced-in area. This item was presented under a public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments of objections have been received. The property is zoned I-Industrial, is 3.33 acres in size, and contains a 31,320 square foot office/warehouse building. This office/warehouse building would become the new office/headquarters/distribution center for Garland’s Inc. The office space consists of two floors with 5,874 square feet on each level. The first floor office space would be used by 20 employees and the upstairs office space would be converted into a new showroom space. The back warehouse area is approximately 18,512 square feet in size. There are currently 62 parking spaces on the lot with seven (7) loading bays and one (1) at grade bay on the backside. The initial plan that was submitted by the applicant showed a new fence coming in off of the mid-point of the building and back to the rear property line. Storage of trailers would be on the outside. Mr. Benetti shared images showing the types of box trailers or job-site trailers that would be stored on the site. Garland’s Inc. does not manufacture the trailers, they broker them. The customer comes to them and asks for these type of trailers through direct sales or Internet sales. page 24 Open sales lots do require a CUP and are defined as “land devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade where such goods are not enclosed within a building”. Garland’s Inc. plans to utilize only the rear portion of the property for the storage/display of the trailers. Staff raised the question early on if these trailers constituted a “vehicle” under this land use category. After discussing this question with the Police Department and researching definitions under the Minnesota State Statues, they discovered that a ‘trailer’ on its own is not considered a ‘vehicle of transportation’ as it does not have the capability to move or travel on its own power. The applicant did share with staff images of fencing on the front of the site; however, Mr. Benetti would like to see fencing on the northwest side as well and asked for the Commission’s opinion on that. The rear of the property does contain an old railroad right-of-way bed that has been vacant for a number of years. It is also heavily landscaped on the opposite site. There may not be any need for screening; however, for security reasons fencing should be considered. Again, Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria to be met in the granting of a CUP (Title 12-1L-6): a. Not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community b. Nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards c. Nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. That the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan Commissioner Noonan noted that Condition 2 recommended all new fencing be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing; yet the images shared were board-on-board. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed the board-on-board would be too much for the front edge; he believed the black chain- link fencing would probably work better. He recommended that the whole fencing area be replaced with the black chain-link fencing with decorative (insertable) slats. Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to the fencing ordinance code amendment recently passed, asked if the city requires fencing on industrial lots. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; only if they are adjacent to residential are they required to have fencing. Mr. Bob Smith, one of three brothers that own Garland’s Inc., came forward. He stated that Garland’s Inc. is currently headquartered in Minneapolis, with locations in Minneapolis; Burnsville; Des Moines, IA; Denver, CO; and Green Bay, WI. They are one of the top five distributors of material handling products in the United States; they are very good at what they do. They believe it would be a very good addition to their company to move to Mendota Heights. Commissioner Toth noted that he looked at their website and it did not identify trailer sales as of yet. He asked if this was a new entity that they are building into their market, building into Mendota Heights. Mr. Smith replied that this is a new product line and they feel that it will add to their current product line. Commissioner Toth then asked if they would be selling used trailers or could a potential buyer trade-in their old trailer for a new one. Mr. Smith replied that they are not planning on doing that; their focus is on selling of new trailers. Their emphasis is to not sell junk; there would not be piles of junk in their yard. page 25 Commissioner Corbett asked if the two runs of fencing that was included in their original proposal and not as a recommendation, was that born from them or born from their work with the city. Mr. Smith replied that they asked the city what they thought and they thought it would be a good idea to fence in the front and the sides. Commissioner Corbett asked if they had a genuine security concern. Mr. Smith replied that security is a concern. The backside is all wooded so they assumed a fence would not be necessary. The missing fencing on the west side was because he simply forgot to put it in there. They would be more than willing to put a fence there is the city believed it would be a good recommendation. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation that if someone wanted to steal a trailer, the only logical way they are going to get it out is through a locked gate. Mr. Smith confirmed. The back wooded area is heavily overgrown and would be very difficult for anyone to even walk back there. Chair Magnuson asked how they would feel about putting a fence back there. Mr. Smith replied that if the Commission and staff recommended it, they would do it. 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 TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-23 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The parking and display of any new trailers at this location will be confined only to the fenced-in area and in the space(s) noted on the Site Plan submitted under Planning Application No. 2019-23 and presented in this Planning Report. No trailers will be allowed to be stored at any time outside the fenced-in lot or any unpaved (grass) areas of the subject property. 2. All new fencing shall be black vinyl coated chain-linked fencing, with decorative inserts for added screening measures, and must be a minimum of 6-feet in height at all locations. 3. The Applicant shall provide additional fencing along the northwest corner and along the north (back) line of the property. 4. A fence permit shall be required for the installation of the new fence. 5. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. No temporary signs, special sales event signs, flags, balloons, page 26 pennants or similar attention attracting devices will be allowed or permitted for the promotion, advertisement, or sale of trailers at this location. 6. The Applicant agrees to install a “Knox-box” or similar key/switch feature for fire and police emergency access on the outside of the gate/fence area. AND THE ADDED CONDITION: 7. The site be enclosed with screening fencing. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 3, 2019 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: Planning Case 2019-21 Andy & Natalie Hunter, 1175 Orchard Place Critical Area Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 2019-22 Tim & Jessica Carlson, 2319 Swan Drive Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Besides the Metro Storage application, next month the Planning Commission will be reviewing and application from ISD #197 - Somerset Elementary for a Variance - added building height. Chair Magnuson asked for a status update on the ordinance changes for schools located in residentially zoned areas. Mr. Benetti replied that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan needs to be adopted first. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is still in the jurisdictional review period. Staff has heard from four or five of the jurisdictional (there are 22) and will be sending out reminders for soon, even if the response is ‘no comment’. The 6-month review period ends December 11, 2019. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:28 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 27 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING August 13, 2019 The August meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, August 13, 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 Patrick Cotter, Pat Hinderscheid, Bob Klepperich, David Miller, and Dan Sherer. Absent: Stephanie Meyer and Student Representative Matthew Boland. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek and Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter. 2.a Introduction of New Commissioner Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence introduced Patrick Cotter as the new Parks and Recreation Commission member, appointed by the City Council on July 16, 2019. A brief biography was included in the Commission meeting packet. Each of the Commissioners present introduced themselves and provided a brief background to Commissioner Cotter. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Hinderscheid/second Klepperich to approve the agenda as presented. AYES 6: NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 5. Approval of Minutes from June 11, 2019 Motion Miller/second Sherer to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) There were no citizen comments. 7. Acknowledgement of Reports 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, noted that she did not have the financial report available before the packet went out to the Commissioners; however, it was provided to them at their seat. Currently, the Par 3 is showing a profit of approximately $15,000. There were some issues in June with the irrigation system due to what was believed to be a lightening strike. A new irrigation system has been installed and the City Council approved those funds coming from the General Fund rather than the Par 3 Fund. The cost of the irrigation system was approximately $30,000; which includes two new satellites and wireless capabilities. page 28 Ms. Lawrence also provided an update on the new equipment that was purchased last year and earlier this year. A new greens mower has been proposed to be in the budget for 2020. 7.b Recreation Update There were no questions from the Commission on the Recreation Update. 7.c Natural Resource Update Natural Resource Technician, Krista Spreiter, provided an update on information on curb-cut raingardens; Valley Park Pollinator Corridor, EAB Management, and Partnership with Great River Greening. Commissioners asked questions regarding EAB Management and the Partnership with Great River Greening; to which Krista Spreiter provided additional information. Ms. Spreiter also provided an update on the Valley Park Xcel Pollinator Corridor. This project is a partnership with Xcel Energy and Great River Greening. They have started the restoration work in the Xcel Energy Corridor getting ready to plant native plants. This work is being done directly under the power lines. When questioned, Ms. Spreiter expressed that she believed the city is on the right track as far as their partnership with Great River Greening on the removal of invasive species in Valley Park. The goal of continuing to control invasive species and restore the area is paramount; and she is looking to work with the water conservation district to obtain grant funds to enhance the area and the stream bank for the Valley Creek. 7.d Parks Improvement Update Commissioner Sherer expressed his appreciation on the quick action taken on the basketball expansion at Hagstrom King Park. He asked if the work would be put out for bid or if it was in the realm of capabilities of Public Works? Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied he received three quotes and Council awarded the project to a contractor. It appears that the expansion will take place towards the end of August 2019. Playground improvements are still on schedule for mid-September 2019. Commissioner Hinderscheid asked if the Marie Park resurfacing would be an acrylic surface? Mr. Ruzek replied that it would an acrylic surface, just like the adjacent tennis courts. It will have markings for pickleball. Commissioner Sherer asked if the use of the $180,000 grant funds were going to be applied to both the playground improvements and the warming house at Wentworth Park? Mr. Ruzek replied that it applies to both and would also include parking lot and trail improvements. Commissioner Sherer asked what kind of budget is being considered for the warming house at Wentworth Park? Mr. Ruzek replied that even with the grant dollars, City Council was looking at having a maximum budget of $150,000. There has been some discussion with the City Council and if they can get the cost down to $200,000 or $250,000, the City Council may be willing to move ahead with that project. Options are still under consideration to reduce the costs. page 29 Upon request, Mr. Ruzek provided background on the proposed Ivy Hills Sylvandale Trail, which he plans to present to the City Council sometime in the near future. It was noted that this is different than the Par 3 Trail Connection requested by a citizen at a previous Commission meeting. Motion Klepperich/second Miller to acknowledge receipt of the staff reports. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 8. Unfinished Business 8.a Park Visit Agenda Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reminded the Commissioners that at their June meeting they set Wednesday, September 25, 2019, for the next parks tour with a starting time of 4:30 p.m. The first location is proposed to be Marie Park, followed by Ivy Hills Park, Friendly Hills Park, and Kensington Park. Members of the community are welcome to attend. Ms.Lawrence then asked for the Commission to confirm the agenda for the Parks Tour, which was confirmed as presented. She also agreed to take notes and document questions and concerns raised by the Commissioners during the tour. 8.b Outreach Meeting Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reminded the Commissioners that at their June meeting, they discussed the Commissioners meeting with various community groups / stakeholders to gain insight on community parks and recreation needs. She then asked if there was anything she or staff could do to assist the Commissioners in this engagement effort. It was noted that Commissioner Meyer had provided the Commissioners with a protocol template at the last meeting. Chair Goldade suggested adding Review Outreach Protocol to the September 2019 meeting agenda. After the September 2019 meeting, each Commissioner group should hold their outreach meeting and report back to the Commission at the November 2019 meeting. 9. New Business 9.a Fee Schedule Discussion Ms. Lawrence explained that each year the City Council approves a fee schedule that would be used to assess fees for services. Staff requested the Commission review the current Parks & Recreation Fees in order to give direction or recommendations to City Council. The City Council would begin reviewing the fee schedule at their budget meetings. The list of approved fees for 2018 and 2019 provided in the Commission packet. A comparison chart of surrounding community golf rates was also included. Staff recommended that the Par 3 fees for 2020 remain the same as 2019. Ms. Lawrence did not recommend the Par 3 consider season passes at this time. Motion Cotter/second Klepperich to keep the Par 3 fees for 2020 the same as 2019. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 page 30 The Commission then discussed the picnic area/shelter fee schedule. Lawrence noted that the city’s fees were slightly lower than the surrounding communities; however, many residents use the picnic areas/shelters for family events. Staff recommended keeping the fees the same from 2019 to 2020; although an increase would be fair. Motion Miller/second Klepperich to keep the Picnic Area/Shelter fees for 2020 as they were for 2019. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 9.b Tennis Court Replacement Discussion Mr. Ruzek explained that staff was proposing to rehabilitate a tennis court in 2020, to be funded through the Special Park Fund. Staff would also propose applying for a USTA grant, most of which are approximately $20,000. The last improvement to Marie Park was approximately $80,000 (included complete pavement replacement, re-stabilization of soft areas, replacement of the chain link fencing, new acrylic surfacing, and striping), and staff would anticipate a similar cost to either one of the tennis courts at Friendly Hills or Wentworth Park. Points brought up during discussion included: • The tennis court improvements at Wentworth Park could possibly be included in the parking lot / trail improvements bids • The Friendly Hills tennis courts are used more often than the Wentworth Park tennis courts • Pickleball striping could be considered • Condition of the tennis courts under consideration • USTA recommendation on the number of tennis courts per number of residents • Staff is getting regular calls for rehabilitation of the tennis courts at both parks It was determined that the Commissioners, on their own time, will look at the tennis courts at Friendly Hills and Wentworth Parks and make a recommendation at the next month’s meeting. 10. Staff Announcements Ms. Lawrence made the following announcements: • Recreation program season is winding down • Fall programing is beginning; hoping to offer gymnastics and fall field trips • Movie night coming up on September 7th • Superhero Masquerade will take place again in November 11. Student Representative Update None. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner David Miller: • Not a lot to add about Victoria Highlands • It is in good shape, there are no issues or problems page 31 • He complimented staff in terms of being knowledgeable, having good information, and being responsive to the Commission’s questions and requests Commissioner Pat Hinderscheid: • He asked if the survey responses would be shared at some point – Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson, replied that they would be reviewed with City Council at their budget work session on August 20, 2019. Afterwards she would issue a memo with a summary of those results. Discussion, if necessary, can be added to a future agenda. • Ivy Hills – challenges with mowing because of the low spots and the ground being saturated • The pond was dredged last year; however, it is completely covered again with green algae. Mr. Ruzek noted that this would be duck weed, not algae. Ms. Spreiter noted that stormwater ponds do tend to get green this time of year, whether it is duck weed or algae, or both. The function of stormwater ponds are to filter out pollutants and extra nutrients; sometimes a stinky green pond actually means it is actually doing its job. • He also expressed his appreciation for all of the information that was put together as it was very helpful. • Welcome Commissioner Cotter Commissioner Patrick Cotter: • Noted that he is just now getting onboard; however, in terms of Rogers Lake he and his family had a great experience with the fishing tournament • He has enjoyed his first meeting and expressed his appreciation for all of the great information Commissioner Dan Sherer: • Friendly Hills Park is in good shape; tennis courts are getting regular use; he has personally enjoyed the shade available on the playground • Hagstrom King Park continues to be a busy playground; a lot of people anxious for the new playground; no complaints on the portable toilet location Commissioner Bob Klepperich: • Visited the Civic Center baseball field and it is all quiet; the season is pretty much over • Visited Mendakota Park and there were a number of people using the playground, very peaceful scene • Looks as though the striping of soccer fields has started for the fall season • Very impressed with the condition of the parks – cleanliness, pristine, a real tribute to the people who are doing the work • Attended the final Concert in the Park at Mendakota, the crowd was huge and the atmosphere was fantastic Chair Steve Goldade: • Valley Park continues to be the crown jewel in Mendota Heights • Encouraged everyone to go as it is a fun place to walk • Quality of the path in some areas seems questionable and will need to be addressed in the future • Excited for the basketball court at Hagstrom King • Thanks to Ms. Lawrence and her staff for offering all of the free programming throughout the Summer page 32 • Thanks to staff for all of the work they do • Welcome Commissioner Cotter to the Commission 13. Adjourn Motion Klepperich/second Miller to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 PM AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Minutes Taken By: C. Darlene Oehlke Independent Contractor page 33 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Approval for Grant Application COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Mendota Heights Fire Department is asking for City Council approval to apply for a grant from the Minnesota State Fire Marshal’s office for the purchase of turnout gear washer/extractor/dryer equipment. BACKGROUND Firefighters experience cancer at a higher rate because of exposure to toxic combustion byproducts. Implementing turnout gear decontamination procedures after a fire helps reduce firefighter exposure to toxic combustion byproducts. Currently, the fire station has one washer/extractor. This requires members to make a dedicated trip back to the station to place a new load of gear into the washer as it becomes available. Gear is then hung to dry in the hose tower. It can take two or more days for gear to completely dry in this manner. Additionally, the department does not have a sufficient supply of extra turnout gear to take all soiled gear out of service until clean without also impacting the department's ability to be ready to respond to the next call. The State Fire Marshal’s office is offering grants to help offset the cost of purchasing a commercial turnout gear washer/extractor and turnout gear dryer which can cost upwards of $10,000. They are granting up to $10,000 for gear washer/extractors and up to $8,000 for gear dryers for the year 2020. A local match of the grant award is required. The required matching percentage is based on population of the city applying and our percentage of required match percentage would be 25%. A grant application was submitted in 2018 and we were not successful in receiving any grant money. BUDGET IMPACT If the grant money is awarded the city would need to match 25% of the funds according to the grant requirements. Quotes were optioned for the turnout gear washer/extractor and for a turnout gear dryer. Money is available in the 2019 operating budget. The prices quoted are: • One turnout gear washer/extractor - purchase price of $9,475.00. • One turnout gear dryer - purchase price of $8,425.00. page 34 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the application for the matching grant money for the purchase of a turnout gear washer/extractor and a turnout gear dryer from the State Fire Marshal’s office and authorize the Mayor and Fire Chief to sign the application for submittal. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs, it should pass a motion to approve a grant application submittal to the State Fire Marshal’s office for a turnout gear washer/extractor and a turnout gear dryer. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 35 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for a Fence at the Off-leash Dog Park COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to install at fence at the Off-leash Dog Park to create a separate area for small dogs. BACKGROUND The dog park was installed in 2015. Recent discussions on possible improvements included a separated area for smaller dogs. Staff solicited quotes for this separated area according to the attached map. DISCUSSION Staff reached out to three fence contractors to solicit quotes to install a 4 foot tall galvanized chain link fence, and two vendors responded. The fence is proposed to be 380 feet in length as installed per the attached map. Two 4 foot gates will be added long with a 10 foot maintenance gate. The quotes are as follows: Dakota Unlimited $6,058 Town & Country Fence $10,175 Research online has provided a range of weights to consider for a large dog versus a small dog. Staff is proposing a 35 pound maximum dog weight for the new area, however this weight limit is open for discussion. A sign will need to be created and added to this area. BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this installation are proposed to be paid for out of the Special Park fund. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the Council authorize the purchase order for the additional fencing at the Off- leash Dog Park to Dakota Unlimited for their quote of $6,058. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize staff to execute a purchase order to Dakota Unlimited for $6,058. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 36 ? ?(((((G!.G!. G!. G!. 66 666666666666666666 6666"" " "" " " ! *666666666!!2 !!2 1360 2170 2200 2250 ACACIA BLVD PILOT KNOB RD388350292Off-Leash Dog ParkFence Addition Date: 9/11/2019 City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 250' Chain Link 75' Chain Link 10' x 10' chain link enclosure with gate on north and south 10' maintenance gate page 37 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Recycling Coordinator Services – Amended Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve a JPA which allows the City to continue to utilize a shared recycling coordinator position with the Cities of West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake and is being amended to add Lilydale. BACKGROUND The City Council approved a JPA in January of 2017 to join forces with the Cities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul, to share a Recycling Coordinator position for 10 hours per week plus benefits. Sunfish Lake joined this JPA in 2018. Mendota Heights is proposed to receive approximately $22,000 in community funding from Dakota County in 2019 to assist in its recycling efforts. This funding was used for this position, cleanup day and other recycling efforts in the parks and city buildings. DISCUSSION Mendota Heights will be reducing its share of the recycling coordinators time from 33 percent to 32 percent of 32 hours per week). Lilydale is requesting to join the four cities currently in the JPA at 2 percent of 32 hours per week which matches that of Sunfish Lake. The position will remain as a West St. Paul employee. BUDGET IMPACT The 2018 Mendota Heights preliminary budget does include $18,200 in funding for the position. The cost of this position will be slightly reduced due to less hours. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that the City Council authorize continued participation in a shared recycling position with the Cities of West St. Paul, South St. Paul and Sunfish Lake, and include the addition of Lilydale to the quad City JPA. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the attached AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE RECYCLING COORDINATOR SERVICES to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 38 AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE RECYCLING COORDINATOR SERVICES THIS AMENDED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE RECYCLING COORDINATOR SERVICES (Agreement) is made and executed this day of , 2019, by and among the City of West St. Paul (“West St. Paul”), the City of South St. Paul (“South St. Paul”), the City of Mendota Heights (“Mendota Heights”), the City of Sunfish Lake (“Sunfish Lake”), and the City of Lilydale (“Lilydale”) (hereinafter individually referred to as a “City” and collectively referred to as the “Cities”). RECITALS WHEREAS, on October 10, 2016, West St. Paul and South St. Paul entered into a joint powers agreement entitled “Agreement to Provide Recycling Coordinator Services,” which was amended on February 27, 2017 to add Mendota Heights, and amended on November 21, 2017, to add Sunfish Lake; and WHEREAS, Lilydale has expressed interest in joining with South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and Sunfish Lake in sharing the services of a Recycling Coordinator to assist with performance of basic recycling program related services within Lilydale; and WHEREAS, each City is eligible for Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grants to assist in performing basic recycling services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows: AGREEMENT 1. AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §471.59. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide Recycling Coordinator services for the Cities. 3. RECYCLING COORDINATOR SERVICES. A Recycling Coordinator will be hired as an employee of West St. Paul, and shall perform the basic services of the recycling program (the “Program”) for the Cities. A. Hours. The Recycling Coordinator shall complete the work allocated for each City as identified in the Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Applications. B. Program Services. The basic Program Services include Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant requirements as outlined in the Grant Application, Grant Guidelines, and Grant Agreement, which may change from year to year. page 39 4. FINANCE. A. South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, and Lilydale shall use their respective Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant monies to reimburse West St. Paul for the costs of wages, benefits, and other costs necessary to employ the Recycling Coordinator and operate the Program, the costs of which are identified in each city’s respective Community Waste Abatement Grant Application. West St. Paul shall invoice the remaining Cities for the costs of wages, benefits, and other costs necessary to employ the Recycling Coordinator and operate the Program, and each City shall pay the invoice within thirty (30) days. Such costs shall be limited to the amounts in each City’s Community Waste Abatement Grant Application. B. West St. Paul shall act as fiscal agent and shall maintain a separate fund for the purpose of operating the Program. West St. Paul is authorized to pay claims submitted by the Recycling Coordinator. C. For each calendar year of the program, the Cities shall meet to review the Program and establish a budget for the following year. The Recycling Coordinator shall prepare and submit the Grant Applications on behalf of each of the Cities. D. Each city shall submit a reimbursement request to the County that complies with the Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Program Guidelines and the respective City’s Grant Application by the deadline established in the Grant Guidelines. E. If any of the Cities desire additional services outside of the scope of the basic Program Services, then such City may enter into a separate agreement concerning those additional services, to be funded with source(s) other than Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant funds. 5. CONTRIBUTIONS OF FACILITIES BY CITIES. A. Each City shall determine which of its assets will be available to the Program, but at a minimum each City will provide a workspace with appropriate office supplies and equipment to allow the Recycling Coordinator to fulfill the requirements of the Program. B. Each City shall maintain public liability insurance coverage on the assets made available for the Program. C. Assets made available to the Program will be promptly returned to the City that provided them upon that City’s withdrawal from the Agreement. D. The Recycling Coordinator will be supervised by the designated contact in West St. Paul, in coordination with the primary contact in the remaining Cities. Required page 40 safety, legal and related reporting shall be through the designated contact in West St. Paul. Each City shall, annually and upon any changes, identify the supervisor and primary contacts in their City. 6. PERSONNEL. West St. Paul shall establish standards and qualifications for its personnel. The Recycling Coordinator shall be deemed an employee of West St. Paul and shall be subject to the personnel and other policies of West St. Paul. 7. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION. A. General Liability Insurance. Each City agrees to maintain comprehensive general liability insurance equal to or greater than the maximum liability for tort claims under Minn. Stat. §466.04, as amended B. Workers’ Compensation Insurance. Each City shall be responsible for injuries to or death of its own employees. Each City shall maintain workers’ compensation coverage or self-insurance coverage, covering its own employees while they are providing services pursuant to this Agreement. Each City waives the right to sue the other Cities for any workers’ compensation benefits paid to its own employee or their dependents, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of the other City or its officers, employees or agents. C. Indemnification. Each City shall be liable for its own acts to the extent provided by law. The Cities agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other and each other’s respective employees, trustees, directors, officers, subcontractors, agents, or other members of its workforce, each of the foregoing referred to as “indemnified party,” against all actual and direct losses suffered by the indemnified party and all liability to third parties arising from or in connection with any breach of this Agreement or from any negligence or wrongful acts or omissions by the indemnifying party or its employees, trustees, directors, officers, subcontractors, agents or other members of its workforce in connection with the indemnifying party’s performance under this Agreement. Accordingly, on demand, the indemnifying party agrees to reimburse the indemnified parties for any and all actual and direct losses, liabilities, lost profits, fines, penalties, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) which may for any reason be imposed upon any indemnified party by reason of any suit, claim, action, proceeding or demand by any third party that results from the indemnifying party’s breach of any provision of this Agreement or from any negligence or wrongful acts or omissions by the indemnifying party or its employees, trustees, directors, officers, subcontractors, agents or other members of its workforce in connection with the indemnifying party’s performance under this Agreement. Under no circumstances, however, shall a City be required to pay on behalf of itself and other parties to this Agreement any amounts in excess of the limits of liability established in Minn. Stat.§ 466.04. The limits of liability for some or all of the page 41 Cities shall not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for any one City. 8. DURATION. Any City may withdraw from this Agreement as of December 31 of any year. Written notice of termination must be given to the other Cities at least ninety (90) days prior thereto. 9. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. In the event of termination, any property obtained shall be distributed to the Cities in proportion to the percentage allocated to each City of the total Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant funds received by the Cities. 10. PRIOR AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDED. This Agreement supersedes and repeals all prior agreements among the Cities related to the Recycling Coordinator, including the October 10, 2016 and the February 27, 2017 Agreements, and the ___________ (current/most recent agreement). 11. NO PRESUMPTION AGAINST DRAFTING CITY. The Cities acknowledge that: (a) this Agreement and its reduction to final written form are the result of extensive good- faith negotiations among the Cities through themselves and/or their respective legal counsel; (b) said Cities and/or their legal counsel have carefully reviewed and examined this Agreement prior to execution; and (c) any statute, common law, or rule of construction which provides that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting City(ies) shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement. 12. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to its conflict of laws provision. The Cities agree that any action arising out of this Agreement or with respect to the enforcement of this Agreement shall be venued in the Dakota County District Court, State of Minnesota. 13. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and the counterparts shall together constitute one and the same agreement. 14. EXECUTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. The Cities are to execute and deliver to the other party, as requested, any additional documents and/or instruments that may reasonably be determined as necessary to consummate this transaction. [remainder of page intentionally blank] page 42 Dated: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Neil Garlock Its: Mayor By: Lorri Smith Its: City Clerk page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 page 48 page 49 page 50 page 51 page 52 page 53 page 54 page 55 page 56 page 57 page 58 page 59 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Variance for Somerset Elementary School (ISD #197) (Planning Case No. 2019-25) Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Variance from building height standards in the R-1 One Family Residential district, which in this case is the new gymnasium addition for Somerset Elementary School. The property is located at 1355 Dodd Road. Background City Code states all principal buildings in the R-1 Zone shall not exceed 25-feet in height. The school is proposing to add a new 56’ x 86’ (approx.) gymnasium addition, which will be added to the existing school gymnasium/cafeteria space off the northwest side of the school. The gym addition will be 30-ft. in height, therefore the city needs to approve a 5-ft. variance to the 25-ft. height standard. On September 24, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this variance item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of the 09/24/2019 Planning Staff Report, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are appended to this memo. 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 for the new gymnasium not to exceed 30-ft. height; based on findings of facts noted in the draft resolution included in this memo packet. Action Required If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-71 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR THE NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AT SOMERSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - LOCATED AT 1355 DODD ROAD. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 60 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-71 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION AT SOMERSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1355 DODD ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-25) WHEREAS, under Planning Case No. 2019-25, Independent School District No. 197 (as “Applicant”) and acting on behalf of Somerset Elementary School, applied for a Variance of five- feet (5’) to increase the structure height for a proposed new gymnasium addition to the elementary school facility, located at 1355 Dodd Road (the “Subject Property”), and legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided S-School [Institutional] in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and is located in the R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential Districts; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1E-3.D states no structures or building shall exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in height in the single-family residential zones; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking permission to construct the new gymnasium addition with a height not exceed 30.0-ft. as proposed in the site and elevation plan sets submitted as part of Planning Case No. 2019-25; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the commission elected to recommend approval of the Variance (by 7-0 vote) with certain findings of fact to support such approval and with certain conditions. page 61 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Variance of five-feet (5’) for the new gymnasium addition at Somerset Elementary School, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-25, can be approved 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 the proposed gymnasium building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1 One Family Residential District to 30-feet, by the following: i.) the proposed increased structure height for the new gymnasium addition is considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as an elementary school facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school gymnasium and building on the property; and is considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this proposed gymnasium addition [and the related school facility buildings] are not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District; and therefore warrants the approval and granting of such a variance in this particular case; iii.) the excess height of the new gymnasium addition is less than what exists today on the elementary school facility, so the overall impact of this addition will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the school site; and iv.) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility improvements such as this gymnasium addition, is considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. Furthermore, the Applicant has demonstrated an effort to reducing the impacts to the neighboring single-family uses by planting new trees and landscaping along the north edge of the property, which will provide a natural screening to the neighbors. page 62 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 ISD-#197 (Somerset Elementary School) 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. 2019-25, dated and presented September 24, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-71. 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 Variance transaction are as follows: 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance of five-feet (5’) for the new gymnasium addition at Somerset Elementary School, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-25, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 63 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1355 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights MN 55118 PID Nos. 27-03800-20-010; 27-03800-20-020; 27-69702-01-151; 27-03800-23-010 (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 340845): All that part of Lot Twenty (20) in Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, according to the plat thereof filed of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County and State, lying North of a line One Hundred Fifty-Nine (159) feet due North of and parallel to the South line of said Lot Twenty (20). Subject to an easement Twenty (20) feet in width in favor of the Village of Mendota Heights for sewer and water purposes dated November 3, 1962, and filed in the office of the Register of Deeds of and for Dakota County, Minnesota, on November 5, 1962 in Book 279 of Deeds at Page 357-358. AND (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 344434) Lot Twenty (20) in Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, according to the plat thereof, filed of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County and State, except so much thereof as is lying north of a line One Hundred Fifty-Nine ( 159) feet due North of and parallel to the South line of said Lot Twenty (20). Subject to an easement Twenty (20) feet in width in favor of the Village of Mendota Heights for sewer and water purposes dated November 3, 1962 and recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of and for Dakota County, Minnesota on November 5, 1962 in Book 279 of Deeds, page 359. AND (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 143883) Lots One (I), Two (2), Three (3), Four (4), Five (5), Six (6), Seven (7), Eight (8), Nine (9), Ten (10), Eleven (II), Twelve (12), Thirteen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15), Block One (I), T. T. Smith's Subdivision No. Three (3), in the county of Dakota, State of Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County of Dakota, Minnesota. Together with vacated streets and alley as recorded in Doc. No. 437331, recorded July 30, 1974. Lot 23, Auditor's Subdivision No. 3 (No deed found but Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Plat of T. T. Smith's Subdivision No. Three (3), and tax documents show this as school lot.) No documentation found vacating street north of Lot 23, Auditor's Sub. No. 3 Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 64 Planning Staff Report DATE: September 24, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-25 VARIANCE APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Somerset Elementary School PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1355 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional) ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2019 INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is seeking to construct three (3) new additions to the existing Somerset Elementary School. One of these additions is a gymnasium addition, which requires a variance from the maximum height standards for structures in the R-1 One Family Residential District. This legal notice of this public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 750-feet (instead of the standard 350-ft.), which is consistent with past notices mailed out on other school district related projects. The city has not received any letters of opposition or objection, but does note one objection from the immediate neighbor to the north, due to perceived visual and light impacts on their own property. No other comments or objections were received. BACKGROUND The subject property generally located on the north end of the city, near the intersection of Dodd Road and Emerson Avenue. The school is located in the R-1 One Family Residential zone, and guided for S-School (Institutional) use. The subject parcel consists of approximately 9.3 acres of land area, and contains a one and two-story, 33,194-sq. ft. school facility, with visitor/staff parking lot, bus/delivery service areas, with a playground and small ball field located in the back of the school (see image –right and next page - below). page 65 The original school house was built in 1936.; and the addition to the rear of the original school house was completed in 1953; followed by another larger expansion in 1969. In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and handicapped accessibility. SITE PLAN ISD-197 intends to construct three additions, as shown in the image below (red shaded areas): page 66 The first improvement is a small, elevator addition, which is not subject to a variance, located in the area behind and between the original school house and the 1953 addition of the school (see image- below): The second is a new classroom addition off the back side of the school, which meets the 25-ft. height limitations, and is also not subject to the variance request (see image-below): The third and largest of the new additions is the new 56’ x 86’ (approx.) gymnasium addition, which scheduled to be added to the existing school gymnasium/cafeteria space off the north side of the school. This addition is shown with a 30-ft. height on the east (front) and north (side) elevations, and a 41-ft. height from the back side. As was the case with Friendly Hills Middle School project, the District is also seeking to reconfigure and improve the school’s bus drop-off and visitor/staff parking lot areas (shown in red-dashed outline – image right). Currently, the parking is one large combined area, with regular vehicle and bus parking striped out in the front lot area, and regular vehicle in the north parking area. The new plan now calls for the parking to be split or separated into two areas: the front lot will be re-striped and page 67 reserved for student drop-off and visitor/staff parking only; while the north parking will be reconfigured with a turn-around section for bus drop-off and limited number of regular vehicle parking spaces, which will likely be available throughout the school hours when not being used/occupied by school buses. (Refer to Main Site Plan – above). Applicants have also provided a new landscape plan that includes new landscaping materials near the north edge of the expanded bus parking/turn around lot. The landscaping will be used to help screen or lessen any visual impacts of buses entering/exiting this area, or temporarily parking. ANALYSIS Variance The R-1 Zone requires all structures to have no more than 25-feet in height. Flat-roofed structures such as these are measured at the upper-most edge of the building. The existing gymnasium addition is shown with a 27-foot building height. Search of city records indicate a CUP and Wetlands Permit for grading and playground work was approved in 2005; followed by a CUP for Fill and a Variance for reduced parking lot setbacks in 2006. There does not appear to be any variance granted for the added two-feet in height for the existing gym section. The new gymnasium addition will exceed the 25-foot maximum height standard for the R-1 Zone by five (5) additional feet, for total front (measured) elevation height of 30-feet. Although the elevation plans submitted by the District’s architect indicates a 41-ft. height off the back side, City Code defines or prescribes the measurement of all buildings as: “The vertical distance from the average grade of the front building line, as established in the approved grading plan for the lot, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof.” So although the back side of the new gym is well over the 25-foot maximum height standard, the variance requested only applies to the 30-foot vertical measurement at the front building elevation. When considering variances, the City is required to consider an Applicant’s response to certain questions, and carefully weigh certain findings as they apply to these standards. As part of the variance application, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): 1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance; meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter? “The height of the new building additions proposed for Somerset Elementary School are all shorter than the existing bell tower structure of the existing school. The existing bell tower structure is approximately 46’-0” above the main level finished floor elevation. The new class room building additions is 14’-0” above the main level finished floor elevation.” Staff’s response: The use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a school, even with the additional gym space, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the overall Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s desire to construct an addition to the current gym facility is reasonable. 2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? . “The granting of this variance is consistent with the current circumstance unique to the existing property, that allows for a school to exist within this Zoning District.” page 68 Staff’s response: One of the primary reasons for this recent school bond approval, was to provide upgrades and additional space for the students that utilize these local schools, and provide effective levels of service and spaces for the students. The plight of the landowner and restrictions on building heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Therefore, granting a variance is warranted. 3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? “The height of the proposed Somerset Elementary School building addition are less than the current height of the existing elementary school. The iconic existing bell tower continues to be the focal point (tallest structure) for Somerset Elementary School.” Staff’s response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-25, 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.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed gymnasium building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1 One Family Residential District to 30-feet, by the following: i.) the proposed increased structure height for the new gymnasium addition is considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a an elementary school facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school gymnasium and building on the property; and is considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this proposed gymnasium addition [and the related school facility buildings] are not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District; and therefore warrants the approval and granting of such a variance in this particular case; iii.) the excess heights of the new gymnasium addition is less than what exists today on the elementary school facility, so the overall impact of this addition will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the school site; and iv.) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility improvements such as this gymnasium addition, is considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and page 69 enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. Furthermore, the Applicant has demonstrated an effort to reducing the impacts to the neighboring single- family uses by planting new trees and landscaping along the north edge of the property, which will provide a natural screening to the neighbors. 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 ISD-#197 (Somerset Elementary School) 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- 25, dated and presented September 24, 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 Variance transaction are as follows: 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 2. Recommend denial of the Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-25, 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 fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this variance for increased height related to the proposed gymnasium addition in the R-1 District. The City further finds the proposed gymnasium addition with an increased height standard is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the school property; and there are other alternatives on the property, such as reducing the proposed gymnasium addition to meet the 25-ft. height limits, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. page 70 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 Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-25 and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1, the Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-25, based on the findings of fact and conditions noted therein. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Planning Application, including Narrative 3. Building Addition Elevation Plans 4. Site & Landscape Plans page 71 2019-25300.00500.0008/27/201910/26/2019page 72 2019-25ISD #197-Somerset Elem.1355 Dodd Roadpage 73 page 74 page 75 Somerset Elementary School West St. Paul - Mendota Heights - Eagan Area Schools (District 197) » News and Events » Facilities Design & Construction » Somerset Elementary School Thanks to the support of voters, Somerset Elementary School is in the process of making renovations and repairs to its facility. We will update this page weekly as construction progresses. UPDATE FOR AUGUST 13, 2019 Completed for week ending August 9, 2019 • Project is in Design Development Phase. • Weekly design meetings being held at LSE Architects. • Solutions to the 1936 additions entry addition roofing are being explored. BUILDING PROJECTS Academic and Program Improvements • Sitework includes separating bus and parent drop-off/pick-up • Handicapped accessibility improvements • Rightsized kindergarten classrooms to meet state guidelines • Create collaboration/small-group commons for grades 1-2 • Two-story addition for classrooms and collaboration space • Renovation to provide handicapped access to 1936 structure • Creation of dedicated gymnasium space • Renovations to improve kitchen and serving area • Repurpose space for lab Building Maintenance Improvements • Site improvements include drainage, concrete and retaining wall • Exterior improvements include tuck pointing, sealants and painting • Interior finishes include doors, lockers, flooring, and gym equipment • Electrical improvements include lighting, PA system, and fire alarm system PROJECT TIMELINE • Design and Planning: March 2019-October 2019 • Construction Phase: April 2020-August 2021 • Construction - Exterior Additions: Last Spring-Summer 2020, Summer 2021 • Construction - Interior Renovations: Summer 2020, 2021 • Completion: Late August 2021 page 76 DODD RD1ST AVE LAURA ST2ND AVE 3RD AVESYLVANDALE RDSOMERSET RDEMERSON AVE IVY FALLS AVE DORSET RDCOLESHIRE LN STAPLES AVE SUNSET LN ME A R S A V E BROOKSIDE LN VANDALL STLAURA CT City of Mendota Heights0410 SCALE IN FEETDate: 9/17/2019 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. SOMERSET ELEMENTARY 1355 DODD ROAD page 77 page 78 page 79 page 80 page 81 page 82 page 83 page 84 page 85 page 86 page 87 page 88 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 24, 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 August 27, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2019 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-25 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #197 (SOMERSET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Independent School District #197 is looking to construct three new additions on the Somerset Elementary School; the gymnasium addition was the only one requiring a Variance due to the height. Notices for this public hearing were mailed to all properties within 750 feet of the school and was published in the Pioneer Press. Staff met with one homeowner to the north of the school site and shared her concerns later in the meeting. She was also in attendance. In 2018 voters approved a $117M building bond for the school district for upkeep and modernizing outdated educational spaces. Somerset Elementary is located in the R-1 District and guided for S- School (Institutional) use. Height limits in this district are restricted to 25 feet. The parcel is located right off of Dodd Road, is 9.3 acres in size, a contains a 33,194 square foot, two-story, school facility with parking for visitors and staff, a bus/delivery service area, and playground with a small ball field. page 89 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 11 Part of their plan is to reconfigure the parking lot to improve the school’s bus drop-off and visitor/staff parking lot area. This new plan calls for the parking to be split or separated into two areas. There would be no changes to the access points along Dodd Road. The school also provided a new landscape plan with new landscaping to be provided along the north side for additional screening. The homeowner on the north side has a long driveway is almost up against the property line. All of the plantings would be inside the school property line. Of the three new additions – elevator, classroom, and gymnasium – only the gymnasium required a variance and was under consideration. This new gymnasium addition is 56 feet by 86 feet to be added to the existing school gymnasium/cafeteria space. The addition has a 30 -foot height on the front and north sides, and a 41-foot height in the back. The city only measures the height from the front building grade elevation. Mr. Benetti reviewed the criteria to be met when considering a Variance request and explained how this application met those criteria. Mr. Benetti shared the concerns raised by the neighbor to the north by pointing out where her house sits in relation to the gymnasium and her concerns about lights or windows on the backside of the building; however, the images of the new facility show no windows on that side. There is only one light planned over the rear door; upon talking to the architect it was discovered that the light would be LED with a downcast cut-off. There would be no type of unshielded light source in that area. There are no other lights planned for that side of the building because there is no need for it. A concern was also raised about students trespassing or crossing over their lot; so a question was asked of the architect if they would be able to provide a fence. That answer was deferred to the architect. Chair Magnuson, referencing the new parking lot, asked if it would be lit. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and explained that any new lights would be the downcast cut-off type. Ms. Jennifer Tuttle, LSC Architects explained that this project was very similar to the one reviewed by the Commission for Friendly Hills. The height variance request is due to the requirements for the functionality of the space. The building materials are compatible with the existing facilities; and the existing 50-foot buffer or tree line between the neighbor and the school should do quite a bit to buffer the view. As far as the parking separation – bus traffic from the parent traffic, it is a safety issue and is planned at each of the elementary schools throughout the district. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the landscape plan had been reviewed by the Master Gardeners who work with the public works department on satiation and layout. Ms. Tuttle was not aware of any review taking place. The landscape architect, Mr. Jay Pomeroy, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. replied that he had just met with a master gardener on Henry Sibley and generated this plan. The plans they have incorporated into the Somerset plan and plants that she recommended for page 90 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 11 other facilities in Mendota Heights. He would have no objections with meeting with the Master Gardeners again. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if they considered aligning the south curb cut with Emerson Avenue. Mr. Pomeroy replied that they met with city staff and, since MnDOT just improved Dodd Road, it was requested that they not touch that. Also, if they were to install that curb cut, it would shorten the drop off lane. Chair Magnuson noticed in the packet that the existing gymnasium is 27-feet in height and this is proposed to be 30-feet tall. She asked if there was a reason why it needed to be an additional three feet. Ms. Tuttle replied that the existing gymnasium is actually a gymnasium and cafeteria; on the interior it is a sloping roof and does not function like a gymnasium should. This is one of the reason why they need a new gymnasium. The 30-foot height is a standard height to get the clearance they need – minimum parapet. 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. Ms. Jean Haskell, 1311 Dodd Road, expressed her appreciation to Mr. Benetti for spending a lot of time with her to address her concerns. She noted that very little information was put out about this. She was assured that the light issue would be dealt with – the lights that are there now glare into her kitchen all night long. They occasionally have a problem with people thinking that their driveway is a shortcut to the school’s parking lot. Now with the retaining wall there they will not be able to do that. She would appreciate it when the school district puts out their maps that they would mark the private properties as ‘private property’. The current map makes it look like their property is part of the school district plan. If the school could do some screening or landscaping on that side they would appreciate it. They cannot put in anything on their side of the lot line because of the power lines. If they could do some shrubbery on their side it would help a lot. Ms. Tuttle returned and explained that Mr. Benetti had shared these comments with them and they had a chance to ensure, when looking at the landscaping plans, that there was a buffer created. They have increased the existing buffer to include the buffer between the driveway and the bus drop as well. In terms of fencing, a fence would really be of no benefit to the school district in that location. To do so would probably impact the amount of landscaping that would be able to be installed as a buffer. Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent ISD 197 said that they would be willing to work with the neighbors on the trespassing issue. page 91 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 11 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-25 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented. 2. The Applicant has proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to exceed the 25-ft. maximum height of structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it is recognized the new gymnasium height is less than what exists today with the bell tower on the original school house building. 3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants approval or granting of said variance. 4. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that this gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein, including any fences or electrical permits as necessary. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. page 92 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-72 Approving a Critical Area Permit for 1135 Orchard Place Planning Case No. 2019-26 Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Critical Area Permit to Matt Mosvick for a new single-family development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The property is located at 1135 Orchard Place. Background Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a Critical Area Permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. The Applicants are seeking permission to construct a new single-family dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards. On September 24, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record. A copy of the 09/24/2019 Planning Staff Report, along with the PC meeting minutes (excerpts) are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this critical area permit, 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 (7-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit with specific findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-72 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1135 ORCHARD PLACE. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 93 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-72 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1135 ORCHARD PLACE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-26) WHEREAS, Matt Mosvick (as “Applicant/Owner”) applied for a Critical Area Permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-26, and for the property located at 1135 Orchard Place (the “Subject Property”), which is legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District) requires a critical area permit for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new single-family residential dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Critical Area Permit for the subject property, with certain findings of fact to support such recommendation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit for 1135 Orchard Place as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-26 can be approved based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. B. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. page 94 C. The proposed single-family dwelling project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and is in keeping with the character of the area. D. The construction of this new single-family dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-26, dated and presented September 23, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that that the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1135 Orchard Place and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-26 is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 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 and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 95 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-02700-01-041 ADDRESS: 1135 ORCHARD PLACE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 LEGAL: 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. Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 96 Planning Staff Report DATE: September 24, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-26 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Matt Mosvick PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1135 Orchard Place ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION The Applicants is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single family dwelling, located at 1135 Orchard Place. Since the property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, Zoning Code Section 12-3-5 requires a critical area permit for all major development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approval. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this application. BACKGROUND The subject site is generally located in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle. page 97 This new lot was created under a lot split application approved by the City Council on June 4, 2019 (Res. No. 2019-42). Mr. Mosvick split his mother’s property next door at 1133 Orchard Place, and is now requesting this permit to build a new home for his own family on the newly created parcel. The plan calls for a new 4,650-sf. single family dwelling, with an attached three-car garage (see front elevation image – below). The survey site plan calls for the home to have a setback of 57.0 feet (measured from the newly desiccated 30-ft. ROW easement off Orchard Place). This increased setback is an average setback determined between his mother’s home to the east and the separate residence to the west. Side yard setbacks will be 16.5-ft. on each side, and a rear yard setback of approximately 48-ft. (from new deck edge). page 98 ANALYSIS According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is: …to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems… The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: Section 12-3-5. Site Plan Requirements: A: Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 12-3-8: Development Standards: A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on- site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. 2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body. The new home will be situated approx. 1,240 feet from the edge of the Mississippi River; and there are no bluffs or bluff lines identified on the subject property. The construction of this new residential dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during and after construction of the new home. For all intents and purposes, construction of this new dwelling should have little, if any effect upon the existing Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) • Acknowledged receipt of the application; no objections to this development request. page 99 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 1135 Orchard Place, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions; or 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 1135 Orchard Place, based on the findings of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the site plans for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for 1135 Orchard Place, which would allow the construction of a new single-family residential dwelling, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, and with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 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 and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. page 100 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for 1135 Orchard Place The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 3. The proposed single-family dwelling project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The construction of this new single-family dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. page 101 page 102 F.D.RADON -UPUP (17) EQ. R.& 10" TREADSW/ 1" NOSINGDRAWING TITLE:7−16−19LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:LDLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:© CO PYRIGHT 2019ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.ISSUE FOR BID ONLY7-16-19SHEET INDEX:CCOVERA1 FRONT & SIDE ELEVATIONA2 REAR & SIDE ELEVATIONA4 FOUNDATION & FIN. BSMT.A5 FIRST FLOOR PLANS1. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATINGOF R-20.2. ALL ATTIC SPACES ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM RATINGOF R-49.3. ALL FLOOR SPACES OVER UNCONDITIONED SPACE OR CANTILEVERED ARE TO BE INSULATED TO MIN. R30.1. ALL CEILINGS ARE TO HAVE 5/8" NON-SAG GYPSUM BOARD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. ALL WALLS ARE TO HAVE 12" GYPSUM BOARD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. GARAGE CEILING AND WALLS THAT ADJOIN HOUSE WALLS ARE TO BE 58" GYPSUM BOARD PER CODE.1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE DOUBLE PANE GLASS PANELS WITH LOW-E RATINGS.2. ANY WINDOW WITHIN 24" OF A DOOR SWING MUSTBE TEMPERED PER CODE.3. ANY WINDOW ABOVE A TUB/WET AREA MUST BETEMPERED PER CODE.4. ANY WINDOW WITHIN A STAIRWAY MUST BETEMPERED PER CODE.5. WINDOW GLAZING MUST BE AT LEAST 18" A.F.F. WHEN WINDOW IS ABOVE 6' FROM GRADE. IF WITHIN18", WINDOW MUST BE TEMPERED.6. ALL BEDROOMS TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE WINDOWTHAT HAS A CLEAR EGRESS OPENING OF 5.7 SQ. FT.WITH MIN. DIMENSIONS OF 24" IN HEIGHT AND 20"IN WIDTH, SILL HEIGHT NOT TO BE GREATER THAN 44"A.F.F.7. WINDOWS WITH SILLS WITHIN 3' OF THE FLOORTHEY SERVE AND ARE 72" ABOVE GRADE MUST EITHERHAVE A FALL PREVENTION OR OPENING LIMITERDEVICE PER CODE.1. ALL ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TOBE VERIFIED AND INSTALLED PER CODE BY APPROVEDTRADES AND INSTALLERS.2. HVAC CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LAYOUT FORDUCT-RUNS BEFORE INSTALLATION, IF MODIFICATIONIS REQUIRED, REPORT INFORMATION/CHANGES TOCONTRACTOR & LITTFIN DESIGN.1. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 16" O.C. WITH ADOUBLE TOP PLATE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2. WALL FRAMING SHALL BE S.P.F. STUD GRADE ORBETTER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE (U.N.O.)3. ALL HEADERS SHALL BE PER PLAN4. ALL EXTERIOR HEADERS SHALL HAVE (1)2X6 BEARING STUD & (1) 2X6 FULL HEIGHT KINGSTUD ON EACH SIDE U.N.O. (REVIEW PLANS)5. ALL INTERNAL HEADERS & BEAMS SHALL HAVE(1)2X6 OR (1)2X4 BEARING STUD ON EACH SIDE U.N.O.6. EXTERIOR SHEATHING SHALL BE 7/16" MATERIAL CONSISTING OF ORIENTED STRAND BOARD (OSB).-ALLFLOOR AND CEILING SYSTEMS TO BE CHECKED ANDDESIGNED BY THE DESIGNATED MANUFACTURER.FLOOR PLANS TO BE ON SITE.7. HEADER SIZES ARE TO BE USED PER PLAN AND DEVIATION FROM ANY SIZE MUST BEAPPROVED BY DESIGNERS.8. PRESSURE TREADED WOOD IS TO BE USED WHEREWOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND AT 2X6MUD SILL. TREATED MEMBERS TO BE S.Y.P.#2 ORBETTER.9. FOR OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS (OR WALLS W/LATERAL LOADING:a. 0'-0" - 4'-0" = 1 JACK STUDb. 4'-0" - 8'-0" = 2 JACK STUDSc. 8'-0" - 12'-0" = 3 JACK STUDSd. GREATER THAN 12' = CONSULT ENG.10. POSTS CALLED OUT ARE NUMBER OF KING STUDSREQUIRED PER SIDE OF OPENING.1. ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONSYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR A 2000 P.SF. SOIL.2. FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT ATUNBALANCED FILL GREATER THAN 3'4".3. 1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED 7" MINIMUM @ 6' O.C. MAX. 12" MIN, FROM EACH END. MINIMUM OF 2 BOLTS IN EACH SILL PLATE (REFER TO STRUCTURALPAGES).4. PAD FOOTING REINFORCEMENT IS TO BE LOCATED(3") FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING TYP. (WHENREQUIRED)5. REFER TO STRUCTURAL PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING RE-BAR/ETC.6. SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION TYPE IRC-1-2015 MINNESOTA STATE RESIDENTIAL CODE-2017 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE-2015 MINNESOTA STATE MECHANICAL&FUEL GASCODE-2015 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE-2015 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODEDESIGNED WITH 2000 PSF SOILS, ALL FOUNDATIONCONSTRUCTION MUST FACTOR IN THIS AT A MINIMUM.DESIGNED WITH "EXPOSURE B" CLASSIFICATIONS ANDWINDGUSTS OF 90 MPH PER 2015 MN RESIDENTIAL CODEREGULATIONS.-ALL FOUNDATION WALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATIONUSED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS TOBE ON SITE WHEN POURING OR BUILDING WALLS.-ALL STRUCTURAL BEAMS, POSTS & TALL WALLS ARETO BE BUILT PER I-LEVEL SPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSSES ARETO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONS.-ALL MANUFACTURED FLOOR & ROOF TRUSSSPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE ON SITE DURINGINSTALLATION.-SH3050 EQUALS SINGLE HUNG 3'0" BY 5'0"-FX2646 EQUALS FIXED 2'6" BY 4'6"CCOVERSHEETSCALED PRINT @ 24X36page 103 1'-8 1/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1'-8 1/4"9'-0"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1/4" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION16'-0"7'-8 1/4"9'-2 1/4"4'-3 5/8"2'-1 5/8"1'-6"1'-6"4'-0"1'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"8'-9 1/2"6'-8"1'-8 1/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1/4" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION24'-0"DRAWING TITLE:7−16−19LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:LDLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:© CO PYRIGHT 2019ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.ISSUE FOR BID ONLY7-16-19A1FRONT &LEFTELEVATIONSCALED PRINT @ 24X369. DOTTED AREA ON ROOF PLANINDICATES LOCATION OFICE/WATER BARRIER.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADEMINIMUM OF 3".11. REFER TO MANUF.SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARDMATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITEWOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THEEDGE OF STONE.14.ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCHROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPEDUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.1. ALL EXT. TRIM TO BE FLASHED PER CODE.2. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS.3. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEEN WOOD, COMPOSITEWOOD AND ANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.4. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOMS OFWINDOWS AND ROOFS.5. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARY ON SITE.6. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFIT VENTS PER IRC CODEREGULATIONS.7. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBING VENTS, FIREPLACEVENTS AND OTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGH ROOF ORWALLS TO EXTEND THROUGH REAR OF HOME WHENEVERPOSSIBLE.8. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALLS ORROOFING MUST BE SEALED AND FLASHED PER MANUF.SPECIFICATIONS AND IRC CODE REGULATIONS.page 104 ©COPYRIGHT 2019MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844page 105 1'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"5'-9 1/2"3'-8"1'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"8'-9 1/2"6'-8"1/4" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION11'-6 3/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"5'-9 1/2"3'-8"1'-8 1/4"3'-4"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"6"17'-1 1/8"1/4" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION24'-0"DRAWING TITLE:7−16−19LOCATION:PAGEPAGE DESCRIPTION:LDLITTFINDESIGN.COMMLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320−224−7844WINSTED, MNCURRENTDATE:REVISION:REV. DATE:© CO PYRIGHT 2019ALL PLANS & DESIGNS SHOWNARE THE PROPERTY OF LITTFINDESIGN. USE OF THESE PLANSON ANY OTHER PROJECT/LOTOTHER THAN NOTED ON THISTITLEBLOCK WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF LITTFINDESIGN IS PROHIBITED.ISSUE FOR BID ONLY7-16-19A2REAR &RIGHT SIDESCALED PRINT @ 24X369. DOTTED AREA ON ROOF PLANINDICATES LOCATION OFICE/WATER BARRIER.10. HOLD STONE OFF GRADEMINIMUM OF 3".11. REFER TO MANUF.SPECIFICATIONS FOR STONE.12. GARAGE BUCK BOARDMATERIAL IS TO BE COMPOSITEWOOD AND SIZED TO COVER THEEDGE OF STONE.14.ALL BEAMS HOLDING UP PORCHROOFS ARE TO BE DROPPEDUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.1. ALL EXT. TRIM TO BE FLASHEDPER CODE.2. SUPPLY DRIPCAPS ON ALLWINDOWS AND DOORS.3. SUPPLY SEPARATION BETWEENWOOD, COMPOSITE WOOD ANDANY OTHER WOOD MATERIAL PERSPECIFICATIONS.4. SUPPLY AT LEAST 6" OF SPACEBETWEEN BOTTOMS OF WINDOWSAND ROOFS.5. GRADE CONDITIONS MAY VARYON SITE.6. PROVIDE ROOF AND SOFFITVENTS PER IRC CODEREGULATIONS.7. ALL FURNACE FLUES, PLUMBINGVENTS, FIREPLACE VENTS ANDOTHER PENETRATIONS THROUGHROOF OR WALLS TO EXTENDTHROUGH REAR OF HOMEWHENEVER POSSIBLE.8. ALL PENETRATIONS THROUGHEXTERIOR WALLS OR ROOFINGMUST BE SEALED AND FLASHEDPER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS ANDIRC CODE REGULATIONS.page 106 ©COPYRIGHT 2019MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844page 107 ©COPYRIGHT 2019MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844page 108 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 11 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-26 MATTHEW MOSVICK, 1135 ORCHARD PLACE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Matthew Mosvick was seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single family home at 1135 Orchard Place. The property is located in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, thus the requirement for a Critical Area Permit. This item was heard under a public hearing and notices were sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. There were no comments or objections received. The parcel is located mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle, just north of Ocean Heights. This lot was created in June 2019 under Resolution 2019-42, approval of a lot split, when Mr. Mosvick separated the lot from his mother’s lot next door. Mr. Mosvick plans to construct a 4,650 square foot dwelling with an attached three-car garage; there would a single access point onto Orchard Place. The dwelling would have a setback of 57 - feet, side yard setbacks will be 16.5-feet on each side, and a rear yard setback of approximately 48-feet from the deck edge. Mr. Benetti shared the provisions necessary for a Critical Area Permit and noted that the construction of the new building would have little, if any, affect upon the existing Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment. He also noted that this is one of the very few lots that has no bluff line; it is over 1,200 from the Mississippi River; and there are no adjacent water bodies. Commissioner Corbett noted that Condition #4 provides a work hours and asked if it was consistent with the Orchard Heights Development. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was the same. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Matt Mosvick had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s report. Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, stated that he may break protocol here a bit because he was unfamiliar with the critical area and how far it extends. He was under the impression that his home was not in the critical area; however, if Mr. Mosvick’s home is then his is probably as well. Chair Magnuson noted that he probably was and asked for confirmation from Mr. Benetti. Mr. Benetti replied that most of the properties along the north edge of Orchard are in the critical area but he was unsure how far towards Lexington Avenue it went. This is a line set by the Department of Natural Resources and the city has no control over it. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that public works has a map and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek was obtaining that. Upon review of the map, it was discovered that all of the properties on the north edge of Orchard – all of the way to Lexington Avenue – are in the Mississippi Critical Area. Mr. Phillips then listed new constructions in the identified critical area and asked, if they were required to, did they obtain Critical Area Permits. Mr. Benetti replied that the Hunter house was just reviewed a few months ago for a Critical Area Permit. The new house on the east side of the page 109 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 11 Hunter – the Weisbecker lot – is not in the critical area. The property on Lexington at the end of Marie Avenue – it is unknown at this time if they obtained a Critical Area Permit. Mr. Phillips mentioned other properties and asked why some work is under the critical area requirements and some are not. Chair Magnuson replied that all properties located in the critical area are required to obtain Critical Area Permits if there is construction on the properties. She believed there was an issue whether a boulder wall constitutes construction or not because it is not a structure – if under four feet tall. Residents who live in the Mississippi Area Corridor are advised to check and see if their actions require a permit. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-26, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 3. The proposed single-family dwelling project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The construction of this new single-family dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 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 and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. page 110 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: Oct 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Draft Ordinance No. 545 – Amending Title 12, Article G. I Industrial District, Chapter 1 General Provisions Regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards in the I-Industrial District (Planning Case No. 2019-27) Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a new ordinance amending the city’s current floor area ratio (FAR) standard for uses in the I-Industrial District. Background Per City Code Title 12-1G-7: Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, the floor area ratio (FAR) for buildings shall not exceed 0.5. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined or determined as: the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. At the August 27, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Metro Storage, LLC requested consideration of a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under Planning Application No. 2019-20, which would allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility. Metro Storage also requested a Variance to exceed the maximum FAR standard of 0.5 on their new development with a proposed 1.24 FAR. After considerable discussion by the commission with staff and the applicant, a motion was initially made to deny the variance alone, whereupon said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no-decision or recommendation. The Commission thereafter made a follow-up motion to table Planning Application No. 2019-20 until the next regular meeting; and directed city staff and/or Applicant to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zone code to amend or modify the floor area ratio standard. Any new amendment, if approved, would potentially annul or reduce the variance on the FAR standards for the new storage facility. At the follow-up September 24, 2019 meeting, city staff presented a Planning Report with background information, a detailed analysis, which included comparative information from other metro city ordinances on varying FAR standards and other related site/structure standards in similar industrial zoned districts; and a recommendation on the proposed amendment. page 111 The Planning Commission was asked to make a decision on one of two amendment proposals: i.) remove subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. under Sect. 12- 1G-7; or ii.) amend Subpart F. with a proposed new higher ratio standard (say 1.5 2.0, or a value determined by the Commission). Staff opined that removing the current FAR is appropriate and supported, and can be viewed as consistent with many other metro communities’ own ordinances. By keeping the 50% building coverage standard, along with added building and parking lot setbacks required under the I Zone regulations, most if not all existing and new uses in the Industrial Park should remain conforming and viable for future development. Staff also noted that should the Commission decide to strike or modify the 0.5 FAR standard under Section 12-1G-7, then the separate application for the new self-storage facility (under Planning Case No. 2019-20) can proceed with the CUP application alone and without the Variance to the 0.5 FAR standard. Staff recommended the commission consider an amendment that would essentially strike-out the current 0.5 FAR standard in its entirety. The 09/24/19 Planning Report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo report. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a zoning code amendment request and has broad discretion, provided said action is constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation Upon consideration of the planning staff report findings and presentation on this amendment item; and the opening/closing of the public hearing - with no comments or objections from the public, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7-0 vote) that Title 12, Article G. I Industrial District, Chapter 1 General Provisions Regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards in the I-Industrial District be amended by striking out the 0.5 FAR Standard in its entirety, and that City Council should adopt Ordinance No. 545 as presented herein. Action Required City Council is asked to affirm this recommendation from the Planning Commission, and make a motion to adopt the proposed Ordinance No. 545 as presented. This item requires a simple-majority vote of the council. page 112 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 545 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARDS IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1G-7: Site and Structure Requirements is amended as follows: F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 2nd day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk (Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 113 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: September 24, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-27 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standard in I-Industrial District APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights/Metro Storage LLC ACTION DEADLINE: N/A INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights, in conjunction with Metro Storage, LLC, is requesting consideration of amending the city’s current floor area ratio (FAR) standard for uses in the I-Industrial District. BACKGROUND At the previous August 27th Planning Commission meeting, Metro Storage, LLC submitted for consideration Planning Application Case No. 2019-20, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., interior only self-storage facility. Personal Self-Storage uses were recently added under a separate zoning ordinance amendment by Ordinance No. 538 (adopted 05/21/2019). As part of the CUP application, Metro Storage also requested a Variance to the required FAR standard for their new development, due to the new storage facility would exceed the maximum FAR of 0.5 up to 1.23. After some considerable discussion on the CUP and Variance requests, and upon closing the public hearing, a motion was made to deny the variance request, whereupon the motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in no decision or recommendation. The Commission thereafter made a follow-up motion to table Planning Application Case No. 2019-20 until the September 24, 2019 meeting, and directed city staff and/or Applicant to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zone code to alter the floor area ratio standard. The amendment, if approved, would in effect annul the variance on the FAR standard for the new storage facility. page 114 ANALYSIS Per City Code Title 12-1G-7: Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, the floor area ratio (FAR) for buildings shall not exceed 0.5. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined or determined as: the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. On sites where a new multi-story building is being proposed, this 0.5 FAR standard can impose some challenging restrictions on the planned or desired (overall) size of a proposed building space. Metro Storage is requesting a new building with an FAR of 1.23, due to the multiple stories (three) inside the new storage facility. Even though the new building is shown with a 39,270-sf. footprint and a 40.9% lot coverage calculation, the multiple stories added together pushes the proposed FAR well-over the 0.5 standard. As was noted in the August 27th planning report, new Ordinance No. 538 established certain development standards for personal self-storage uses, which included a much reduced parking space standard of 1 space per 6,000-sf. of storage area space. Since this storage use does not demand or require the parking that a typical office/manufacturing use needs, a larger building can potentially be built on an industrial (vacant) site such as the subject property, which is the case being made under Planning Application No. 2019-20. The 45-ft. building height standard also provides an opportunity for a development to incorporate multiple stores, with 12 to 15-ft. high ceilings on each floor. This self-storage use parking standard, along with the current 45-ft. building height standard, essentially created an opportunity for the Developer to significantly reduce the open hard surface (parking) areas needed on this site, thus allowing the developer to design or request a larger, multi- storied building tailored for this type of use on the vacant industrial site. An argument can be made that the 0.5 FAR standard limits the ability of any developer to maximize the available land space with a larger, multi-story building. With the new building coverage at 40.9%, the remaining 59.1% of lot area was allocated to the open parking and driveway areas, landscaped spaces, and large spaces for the on-site storm-water treatment systems, consisting of the proposed infiltration and retention ponds along the west and south sides of the building. When considering new amendment request such as this one, it is ideal to research and compare what other communities apply in their own ordinances and/or similar districts. Attached for the Planning Commission’s review, is a comparison table of other metro cities standards, including FAR, building lot coverage percentages, and building heights. A majority of these cities do not have or use an FAR in their Industrial districts. Bloomington, Minneapolis, and St. Paul allow for the most, with 2.0, 2.7 and up to 5.0 respectively. Other cities have amid-range or similar FAR standard from 0.5 to 1.5 (Minnetonka, St. Louis Park) - with Brooklyn Park allowing a 1.1 FAR with an allowance to exceed this 1.1 ratio (no limit) by means of a CUP application. Those cities without any FAR also have reasonable amount of maximum building coverage of 30- 50%, with the higher amount being equal to Mendota Heights. The maximum lot coverage page 115 (percentages) range from a low of 35% (Farmington) to 70-/75%, and all the way up to 90% in Vadnais Heights. Building heights for these other cities appear to be at or near (equal) or in some cases exceed our city’s own 45-ft. height limits. City staff also investigated and estimated the FAR’s (based on Dakota County Assessor records) on the properties throughout the city’s industrial park, which today is seen with a mix of typical industrial based businesses and office/warehouse type uses. Surprisingly, almost every one of the properties inside the Industrial Park area is under the 0.5 FAR standard set by the current Industrial District regulations. The only exception is the multi-story American Corp Center office development at 1285-1295 Northland Drive, with an estimated FAR of 0.92. (note: city staff did not find any record of a variance granted to this site or office development for this increased FAR level). The Fairfield Inn and Suites at 1330 Northland Drive came in just over with an estimated 0.51 FAR. Attached for the commission’s review is map with FAR tags on most of the Industrial Park properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City is asked to make a decision on one of two amendment proposals: i.) remove subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. under Sect. 12-1G-7; or ii.) amend Subpart F. with a proposed new higher ratio standard (say 1.5 or 2.0). In Staff’s opinion, removing the FAR is appropriate and supported, and can be viewed as consistent with many other metro communities’ own ordinances. By keeping the 50% building coverage standard, along with standard building and parking lot setbacks required under the I Zone regulations, the existing uses in the Industrial Park should remain conforming, and any future permitted industrial zoned uses (both new or expanded) should have enough space on most parcels for providing adequate building coverage/size, parking areas, open/landscaped areas, and on-site storm water systems. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendments as presented under the attached Draft Ordinance No. 544, with an option to choose to either strike out the current FAR standard in its entirety; or choose to keep the FAR provision in place, but with a new FAR standard of either 1.5, 2.0 or a value determined by the Commission. Please note that should the Commission decide to strike or modify the current 0.5 FAR standard under Section 12-1G-7, then the separate application concerning Planning Case No. 2019-20, the CUP to allow the personal self-storage facility in the I-Industrial District, may proceed without the variance. Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 544 2) Comparison Table of Metro Cities FAR / Lot/Bldg. Coverage 3) Map of City’s Industrial Park Properties w/ FAR Tags page 116 D R A F T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 544 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1G-7: Site and Structure Requirements is amended as follows: F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. OR F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5 1.5 or 2.0 (or value determined by Planning Commission) Section 2. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this ______ day of ______________, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk (Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 117 CITY FAR MAX. BLDG. COVER MAX. LOT COVER GREEN SPACE BUILDING HEIGHT MENDOTA HTS 0.5 50% 45’ Albertville N/A 85% 45’ Apple Valley N/A 30-40% 40’ Blaine N/A 50’ Bloomington 1.0 to 2.0 Brooklyn Park 1.1 (or CUP to exceed 1.1) 75% 20% N/A Burnsville N/A 50% N/A (45’+ by CUP) Cottage Grove N/A 35-50% 35’ - 60’ Eagan N/A 35% 25% 40’ Eden Prairie 0.3 (1 story) to 0.5 (multi-story) 40’ Farmington N/A 35% 45’ Inver Grove Hts. N/A 30 – 40% 60’ Lakeville N/A N/A 45’ or 4 stories Minneapolis 2.7 65’ or 4 stories Minnetonka 1.0 – 1.5 85 35’ Rosemount N/A 70 – 75% 75’ St. Louis Park 0.5 – 1.0 75-ft. or 6 stories St. Paul 2.0 – 5.0 50’-75’ South St. Paul 0.2 (minimum) 40% 15% 50’ Woodbury N/A 70% 50’ West St. Paul N/A 50% 45’ Vadnais Heights N/A 90% 45’ page 118 INDUSTRIAL PARK - FAR RESULTS Property Information August 29, 2019 0 1,200 2,400600 ft 0 380 760190 m 1:9,600 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. page 119 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 11 C) PLANNING CASE 2019-27 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS / METRO STORAGE, LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request was filed on behalf of Metro Storage, LLC with cooperation with the City of Mendota Heights looking at amendi ng the city’s current floor area ratio (FAR) standard for uses in the I-Industrial District. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing; not comments or objections were provided. On August 27 of this year, the Planning Commission heard a request from Metro Storage, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new three-story, 117,810 square foot interior only self- storage facility. Self-storage uses were recently added under Ordinance 538 approved in May 2019. Metro Storage, LLC also requested a Variance to the FAR standard, which is currently 0.5 and they wanted to go up to 1.23. The motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in no decision or recommendation. A follow-up motion was made to table the decision and staff was directed to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zoning code to alter the FAR standard. The FAR is a numerical value obtained by dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which the building is, or to be, located. The 0.5 FAR standard imposes challenging restrictions on the planned or desired overall size of a proposed building space, especially when referring to the construction of a multiple storied building. Staff provided a Comparison Table of Metro Cities FAR/Lot Coverage/Building Height Standards, showing that a majority of the cities in the area do not have an FAR in their industrial districts. However, Bloomington, Minneapolis, and St. Paul do have FARs. These range from 2.0 – 5.0, which is a lot more than Mendota Heights currently has. Others have ranges from 0.5 to 1.5. Mendota Heights is consistent with building coverage, lot cover, green space, and building height requirements. Upon reviewing the FAR of buildings currently in the city’s industrial district, all of the buildings meet or are below the 0.5 ratio; with the exception of one that is at a 0.92 ratio. There is one other that is at 0.51. Staff requested that the Commission either remove the current FAR or amend the ordinance with a new higher ratio standard of 1.5 or 2.0. Commissioner Petschel asked if there was a case that justifies the existence of the FAR that is not taken care of by the height; maybe something like 5-foot ceilings. Commissioner Noonan noted that he reviewed the discussion in the minutes of the last meeting and wondered at what point the FAR, in many suburban locations, was deemed somewhat antiquated. And was it antiquated because the FAR, in its current location, was there to control the massing. Whereas, combining the building coverage, the setbacks, the height limitations, the parking regulations, increases the limitations and therefore says a lot about eliminating the FAR all together. page 120 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 11 Chair Magnuson noted that any city, with the exception of South St. Paul, that had an FAR did not have a maximum building coverage. The cities that did not have FARs tended to have a maximum building coverage or maximum lot coverage. It seemed to her that the trend is to have one or the other, but not both. The only question she would have then would be was if there was any need or interest in addressing green space, in addition to maximum building coverage. Mr. Benetti replied that in the industrial district there is increased setbacks for the business and industrial districts for their parking. There are more than what is seen in a typical residential or business center. There are larger setbacks for parking and for buildings – the purpose of which is to allow or provide for the increased green space. Commissioner Corbett asked what the intent of a minimum FAR was – just to drive efficient use. Mr. Benetti replied that was probably the correct intent. It is to limit the scale of a development. 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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-27, ORDINANCE NO. 545, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G, I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS ” where the subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, under Sect. 12-1G-7 is removed AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. page 121 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 11 Staff Announcements / Updates Reminder: the October 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting will start at 8:00 P.M. due to Simchat Torah holiday Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: Planning Case 2019-23 Garland’s Inc. / JBT LLC, 2240 Enterprise Drive Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sale Lot Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Case 2019-17 Edward Sweeney, 777 Wentworth Avenue Preliminary Plat Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission The first permit for the Orchard Heights Development came in last week; the first of the potential 18 new houses. The vacant lot along Dodd, in The Village, were put out for RFP and a developer has been chosen – Grand Real Estate Advisors. They are doing some pre-testing or site soil testing. They are looking at doing a new 42-unit building for residents 55 years of age and over; with a 4,500 square foot restaurant and a 2,000 square foot ‘co-working’ space. Their applications will probably come to the city sometime in November or December 2019. They will be coming to the Commission for a PUD amendment because the original PUD called for a 19 townhomes or home offices. The work being done in the area currently is for a trail construction. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:04 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 122 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for New Personal Self-Storage Facility in the I-Industrial District – 1178 Northland Drive [Planning Case No. 2019-20] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new personal self-storage facility in the city’s I-Industrial District. The new facility is being proposed on the vacant parcel generally located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55, with new address of 1178 Northland Drive. Background On May 21, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 538, which removed “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from a list of prohibited uses in the I-Industrial District, and instead provided for said uses to be allowed by means of a CUP, with certain site/design standards in the Industrial District. On August 27, 2019, Metro Storage, LLC presented an application under Planning Application No. 2019- 20, requesting approval of a CUP and Variance, to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self- storage facility, along with a Variance to exceed the maximum FAR standard of 0.5 on their new development with a proposed 1.24 FAR. After considerable discussion by the commission with staff and the applicant, a motion was initially made to deny the variance alone, whereupon said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no-decision or recommendation. The Commission thereafter made a follow-up motion to table Planning Application No. 2019-20 until the next regular meeting; and directed city staff and/or Applicant to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zone code to alter the floor area ratio standard. Any new amendment, if approved, would potentially annul or reduce the variance on the higher FAR standard requested on this new storage facility. At the follow-up September 24, 2019 meeting, city staff presented a separate Planning Report regarding this FAR standard to the Planning Commission, which concluded with an acceptance and favorable recommendation by the commission to strike-out the FAR standard in the city’s I-Industrial District. page 123 After full consideration of this FAR Amendment item, the PC re-opened the discussion on Planning Case No. 2019-20, and after a brief update and presentation, accepted city staff’s recommendation that the new personal self-storage facility now meets all the standards required for such uses in the I-District, along with all other related site and structure standards noted within the I-District ordinance. Since the application for the Variance on the 0.5 FAR was still undetermined (due to subsequent City Council action on said item), the Planning Commission elected to table the variance item in this case, with the understanding that should the Council accept the new zoning ordinance amendment (remove the FAR standards completely), then the self-storage use can be approved with the CUP application alone. If the City Council adopts proposed Ordinance No. 545 (removal of the 0.5 FAR standard) and approves the CUP for the new storage facility, the Applicant will officially withdraw the variance application. Conversely, should the City Council choose to keep the current FAR standard (0.5) intact, or modify to a value that still necessitates a variance, then the Council should table the CUP application item; and direct staff to present the Variance application (or both application items) again to the Planning Commission at their next regular meeting, whereby they will need to make an official recommendation on any Variance, as needed. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a conditional use permit, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval (7-0) of the Conditional Use Permit for a new personal self-storage facility located at 1178 Northland Drive. with 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. 20196-73 APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE. This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 124 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-73 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW PERSONAL SELF- STORAGE FACILITY IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-20) WHEREAS, Metro Storage, LLC (as “Applicants”) applied for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility in the Industrial District, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, and for the property located at 1178 Northland Drive (the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and located in the I-Industrial District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, “Personal self-storage facility” is allowed by means of a conditional use permit (CUP), with specific site and structure design standards for said uses in the Industrial District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses, the city council may by resolution approve a conditional use for those uses, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is carried out; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CUP and Variance application items, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and whereupon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission made an initial motion to deny the Variance alone, whereupon said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no-decision or recommendation; and WHEREAS, on August 27, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission made a follow-up motion to table Planning Application No. 2019-20 until the next regular meeting; and directed city staff and/or Applicant to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zone code to alter the floor area ratio standard, which if approved, would potentially annul or reduce the variance for the higher FAR standard requested on this new storage facility; and page 125 WHEREAS, at the September 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, city staff presented a separate Planning Report regarding this FAR standard to the Planning Commission, which concluded with an acceptance and favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission to strike-out the FAR standard in the city’s I-Industrial District, thereby negating the need for the Variance in this case; and WHEREAS, at the same September 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the commission re-opened the discussion on Planning Case No. 2019-20, and after an update and presentation by staff and the Applicant, accepted city staff’s recommendation that the new personal self-storage facility now meets all the standards required for this specific conditional use in the I- District, along with all other related site and structure standards noted within the I-District ordinance, and gave unanimous approval (7-0) of the Conditional Use Permit for the new personal self-storage facility in the Industrial District, with findings of fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility in the Industrial District, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, and for the property located at 1178 Northland Drive, may be approved based on the following findings of facts and conditions: A. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, Metro Storage LLC is allowed to have a personal self-storage facility, provided that: i. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited; ii. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility; iii. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone; iv. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete; v. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility; vi. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal; and vii. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. B. The Applicant has demonstrated through their submitted site plan, that the proposed self-storage facility on the subject property either meets or exceeds all of these standards established under Title 12-1G-2 for said use, zone, and is supported by the following findings of facts: page 126 i. The proposed self-storage use 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. ii. The proposed self-storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the current City Code and Comprehensive Plan, including all applicable performance standards, except for the floor area ratio requirements, and which requires acceptance and approval of a related variance for such standard, noted herein. iii. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. C. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and amended on September 24, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-73 D. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Conditional Use Permit request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use. Conditions related to this application are as follows: 1. The new storage facility building shall be constructed in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and/or licensed engineer. 2. Trash enclosure must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building. 3. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 4. Final landscaped plan shall be approved by the city staff in cooperation with the city’s Master Gardeners. 5. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2 ) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be submitted at time of building permit approval. 6. The Developer shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which page 127 have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 7. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 8. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 9. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 10. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 11. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. 12. The conditional use permit for the personal self-storage facility is only for the Applicant - Metro Storage, LLC, its subsidiaries and assigns of the property and all future owners of the subject property, provided the site is used exclusively as a personal self-storage facility. Any other permitted use or use by conditional use permit shall be made complaint with all current I- Industrial District zoning and site development standards at that time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility in the Industrial District, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2019-20, and for the property located at 1178 Northland Drive, is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 128 EXHIBIT A PID No. 27-52250-01-040 ADDRESS: 1178 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 LEGAL: Lot 4, Block 1, NORTHLAND PLAZA, Dakota County, Minnesota Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 129 Planning Staff Report (Amended 09/24/2019) DATE: August 27, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-20 Conditional Use Permit & Variance for New Self-Storage Facility in the Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Metro Storage, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1178 Northland Drive ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I- Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2019 INTRODUCTION Metro Storage LLC is requesting a conditional use permit and variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage (interior only) facility in the city’s I-Industrial District. The storage facility site is being proposed for the vacant parcel generally located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55, which was recently assigned a new parcel address of 1178 Northland Drive. This planning request item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments (or objections) to this request have been received by the city. BACKGROUND As noted in the Applicant’s narrative, Metro Self Storage is a family owned and operated self-storage Company that opened its first mini storage in 1973; and the company has grown to include over 140 facilities in 16 states. Earlier this year, Metro Storage requested consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow self-storage facilities in the Industrial District. At that time, “personal self-storage facility” was listed as one of a few prohibited uses in the I-Zone. The zoning amendment was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 22nd, followed by final consideration at the February 22nd meeting, where a recommendation of denial to this ordinance amendment request was made by the commission. The amendment matter was then reviewed subsequently by the City Council on March 19th, April 23rd, May 7th, and finally May 21st, whereby the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 538, which removed “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from the prohibited list, and allows such uses by means of a conditional use permit in the Industrial District. The subject parcel is a 2.2 acre parcel, zoned and guided I-Industrial District. The property was previously owned and controlled by the neighboring business to the east, General Pump at 1174 Northland Drive. The General Pump facility was built in 1994, and this adjacent parcel was acquired by GP as a future site for business expansion space if needed. This site has remained vacant since 1994 (historic aerial mapping page 130 imagery actually indicates the site as vacant since the mid -1930’s); and was recently sold off by GP to the current owners MH Northland Drive Ventures, LLLP. Pursuant to amended Title 12-1G-1, Metro Storage is allowed to present this development plan for the new self-storage facility under the conditional use permit process. As part of this CUP application, the proposed development requires submittal of a detailed and complete site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The Applicant has also submitted a Variance to certain floor area ratio (FAR) requirements established in the Industrial District, which will be explained and analyzed later in this report. It should be noted that Metro Storage originally submitted their CUP and Variance applications on June 24, 2019; however, this original application was deemed incomplete, due primarily to the discovery by city staff of a potential wetland on the site. According to Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. A PEM1A wetland is classified and described as follows: USFWS/NWI Code Classification description Common Description PEM1A Palustrine emergent persistent wetland, temporarily flooded Fresh or interior marsh, persistent vegetation, topographically high The Applicant immediately hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform a wetland assessment on the subject site; and on August 7th, the city received a Site Assessment report from Kjolhaug that no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. An excerpt portion of this wetland report is appended. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Building Plan/Elevations Metro Storage plans to construct a new three-story, 117,810-sf. fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. Exterior of building includes architectural precast panels with multiple finishes to create a pleasing image and break-up the facade. The precast panels will have a 16-foot-high base of real brick inserts of two contrasting brick colors to create a strong visual base around the ground story. The building uses a large sized light-colored limestone style precast finish with grooved panel joints breaking up the precast into large block visual elements. The main entry at the northwest corner is highlighted with flat metal panels and extensive glass allowing views into the lobby and upper storage floors. The sides and back walls also include significant additional glass window panels allowing daylight into the building corridors. The included perspective rendering shows the interest the different materials and massing provides, creating a very nice-looking building. A decorative metal canopy is planned for the front entry and at each of the internal drive’s glass overhead door entrances. (SEE IMAGE BELOW) page 131 Site Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses, the [pertinent] standards are noted below, with responses (in italic print) following each: A. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. • The storage building will have a footprint of 39,270 square feet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by city code. B. Structure Height: No structure shall exceed forty-five feet (45') in height. Plans call for the building’s roof-line at 42’-6” and up to 44’-6” at the highest point of the (high) parapet. C. Setbacks: Side Yards Abutting a Street on a Corner Lot: Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forty feet (40') in width. • The proposed storage facility is setback at 40-ft. from HWY 55 right-of-way line and 40-ft. off Northland Drive ROW line. The “roadway” to the east of the subject site (between the property and General Pump) is not a true roadway, but more of a private driveway or access way. The 40-ft. setback is not needed along this east line. F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) is the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this case the FAR is calculated as follows: • TOTAL BLDG. AREA = 39,270-sf. x 3 = 117,810-sf. • LOT AREA = 2.2 acres or 95,920-sf. • FAR CALC: 117,810 / 95,920 = 1.24%, which is well above the 0.50 standard. The proposed storage facility requires approval of a variance to this standard. G. Minimum Lot Requirements: Lot Area: 1 acre / Lot Width: 100 feet Front Yard Setback: 40-ft. Side Yard Setback: 30-ft. or 40-ft. abutting street Rear Yard 50-ft. • The lot is 2.2 acres and exceeds the 1 acre minimum. • The front lot width dimension is 153-ft. wide along Northland Drive; and 255-ft. along the back MnDOT I-494 ROW. Both dimensions exceed the 100-ft. standard. • Front Yard setback (from Northland Dr.) is 40-ft. • Side Yard (westerly along Hwy 55) is 40-ft. and Easterly SY is 30-ft. • Rear Yard setback is 83’-4”. Parking/Access Plan The proposed storage facility plans call for the main access to be located near the north end of the facility, coming off the private driveway/access road only. This access will lead customers/visitors to the front main entryway and north access (secure overhead door entryway) into the facility. This area contains six (6) spaces. Farther down the easterly access road, five (5) additional spaces will be provided along the side of the facility. Customers who enter the storage facility will also have access to 11 interior spaces. The new City Code standard for self-storage facility requires one (1) space per 6,000-sf. of storage space. The plan calls for 85,065-sf. of net storage space: CALC: 85,065 / 6,000 = 14.18, or 15 stalls. page 132 Metro Storage proposes 11 exterior stalls and 11 interior stalls, or total of 22-stalls. The rear (south) end of the facility will have a one-way, exit only driveway leading out from the building, and back on to the adjacent private drive/access road. A trash enclosure area is also planned near this back entryway. The enclosure should match the exterior materials of the main building. Grading/Drainage/Utility Plan The subject site is relatively flat throughout, except for a small 4-5-ft. high earthen berm along the westerly edge (HWY 55 ROW line). The grading plan calls for minimal grading of the site to accommodate the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the proposed building at 894-ft. A small Infiltration Basin #1 is planned on the south side of the building, with drainage swales and inlets to take in storm water drainage from the private driveway to the east and other hard surfaced areas. The new basin will be tied in to an existing 15-inch storm pipe that leads out to a wetland feature in MnDOT ROW. This basin is also planned to have a rip-rapped emergency outflow (EOF) along the west edge of the basin/swale area in case of abnormal or excessive storm events. Infiltration Basin #2 is an elongated drainage area along the west side of the proposed building. This basin will take storm water drainage from the north parking lot area, and roof drains from the building. The storm water management report submitted by the Applicant’s consultants (Rehder & Associates) indicates the required volume control (based on 1.20 acres of proposed impervious surface area), that 4,792 cu. ft. of rate control is needed on this site. The report indicates that Basin #1 provides 2,907 cu. ft. of volume, while Basin #2 provides 4,259 cu. ft. of volume, or 7,166 cu. ft. of total volume provided. The building’s utilities will be tied into the existing (main) service lines underneath Northland Drive to the north. Water service will be provided to the building by a 1-inch copper service line for typical/potable water needs; and a 6-inch DIP (ductile iron pipe) for fire suppression or interior sprinkler systems. The building’s sanitary service will be provided by a new 6-inch PVC pipe, with a clean-out located at the angled junction of said line. The city’s Public Works Director has reviewed the plans and storm water report, and does not have any issues with this report (or findings) at this time; or placed any additional requirements or conditions related to this request. Landscape Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-6, any new development in the Industrial District shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plan. Plans call for the removal of a few trees scattered throughout the site. The original submitted landscape plan included a few deciduous trees such as honey locust, hackberry and river birch; with velvet pillar crab trees for ornamentals; Black Hills spruces for evergreen trees; and sumac, spirea, and dogwoods for low-growth shrubs. This original landscape plan was submitted to the city’s recognized master gardeners, who recommended a few changes to the plan: - substituting ironwood trees for the river birch; - replacing the velvet crabs with serviceberry species; - replace tor spirea bushes with Little Bluestem species; - replace sumacs with honeysuckle, serviceberry, chokeberry, or prairie drop seed grasses; - replace the proposed rock mulch beds with shredded wood mulch; and - substitute the MnDOT 25-121 seed mix with a preferred MnDOT or other native seed mix. page 133 The Landscape Plan was revised and resubmitted, with changes made to the ornamental crabs to serviceberry trees; rock beds are now shown with shredded wood mulch beds, and the seed mix has been revised to a Native Seed Mix #33-261. The Commission may wish to discuss with the Applicant if other substituting (in line with the Master Gardeners recommendations) are warranted, such as replacing the river birch with ironwood; spirea with bluestems; sumac with honeysuckle, serviceberry or chokeberry varieties. This same Code provision also states that “the owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition at all times.” The plans call for the all new planting areas and lawn areas to be irrigated, which should provide for the daily maintenance and care called for under this ordinance, along with the routine maintenance and care (mowing, weeding, fertilizing, etc.) of the ground by on-site management. City Code also requires a bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (11/2) times the cost of landscaping and screening shall be required to guarantee the placement and construction thereof as required in this chapter. Lighting Plan The lighting plan calls for approx. 21 new “trac wall mount” style lights, which appear to be a downcast/cut- off type light standard mounted along the outer walls of the building. The light plan does not include any new pole lights. Pursuant to Title 12-1I-15, Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. The photometric (light intensity) plan for the site indicates the new lighting meets these standards, and is approved. Aircraft Noise Attenuation Pursuant to Title 12-4-1, the City finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Review of the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s Noise Contour Map – 2016 indicates the subject site appears to be inside the established “60 DNL” noise contour line. The DNL is defined as: “The day-night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A-weighted sound level) from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.” Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such permit. Per 12-4-7 Noise Compatibility Table (refer to partial table – below), industrial uses located in the 60-70 Actual Noise Contour are noted as “CNST” or Consistent, which is defined as “Acceptable Land Uses” Land Use Type Actual Noise Contour Leq(81+) (76-80) (71-75) (60-70) Industrial, communication, utility 25 CNST CNST CNST page 134 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, any use allowed by a conditional use permit in a particular zoning district requires submittal of a complete development or site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The [city] 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 City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use will: a) not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) that the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. 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: The overall general use and purpose of the self-storage facility at this location does not appear to produce any activity, level of service, or production of materials that could be considered detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Staff is unaware of any negative impacts or impairments attributed to similar commercial storage uses found in other cities, nor discovered any evidence, information or testimony from other cities that these personal storage uses have caused any negative traffic congestion, hazardous situations or depreciated property values due the placement of such facilities next to other commercial or industrial uses. The new storage facility should be compatible with the adjacent commercial and industrial uses in the Industrial Park, including General Pump next door, and the smaller office uses along Northland Drive (south of Mendota Heights Road). The site is being accessed off two separate driveways from what is considered a private driveway/roadway installed by General Pump in 1994. No part of this site will have direct access on to Northland Drive or Highway 55. It is projected the number of trips to and from the self-storage site will be minimal, and will not result in any congestion problems getting in or out of this site or area. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan. Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Use states: “The development and execution of this chapter is based upon the division of the city into districts within which the regulations are specified. It is recognized, however, that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the council may by resolution approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is carried out.” page 135 As indicated previously, the subject site is located in the Industrial Zone. As part of a proposed Zoning Text Amendment application/request from the same Applicant, city Zoning Code now allows for personal self-storage uses as a conditional use, subject to the following standards: Personal self-storage facility, provided that: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. • The Applicant has provided a plan that shows no outdoor storage of vehicles will be allowed; all parking areas shall be for customers, visitors or employees at the site. • The facility is accessed only by means through a front door entryway, and through one main overhead roll-up door on the north end, which is opened by a security card or key-pad. Only paid customers or clients will have access to the interior of the facility. Once the door is opened, vehicle enters, the door closes immediately afterwards and the facility is secured again. • The facility is well over 2,000+ feet from Lemay Shores townhome development, and over 1,800+ feet from Hillside Gables (Dakota County workforce housing site off Lexington Avenue). • There are no fenced-in exterior areas planned for this site; all storage will be inside the building. Access to the interior areas of the storage facility will be reviewed and approved by the city’s Building Official and Fire Marshal as part of any new building permit review. • As noted previously, the required parking for the new building is based on the useable storage area of the facility, which in this case is 15-spaces. The Applicant intends to provide 11 exterior and 11 interior spaces for customers/clients. It is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use for the proposed personal self-storage facility at this location, and specifically to Metro Storage, LLC, conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including almost every site and performance standards under the I- Industrial District, except for the required floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, which will be detailed in the Variance analysis below. VARIANCE ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, not more than 50% of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings; and the floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined (or determined) as: the numerical value obtained through page 136 dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this particular case, the proposed three-story storage facility is 117,810 sq. ft. (39,270 sf. each floor). With a lot area of 2.2 acres, or 95,920-sf., the FAR is calculated as follows: FAR CALC: 117,810 / 95,920 = 1.23 The proposed FAR of 1.23 represents an approximate 250% increase over the 0.5 standard. The Applicant defends this higher FAR request based on the following statement (from their narrative): “While the proposed project meets all the city requirements listed above, we are requesting a variance related to the ordinance Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit which we believe is not consistent with this newly added Industrial zoning use. Since the building massing, height, and site coverage are within requirements, the only aspect of the building that drives this above the listed FAR is that the building has multiple floors within the building unlike other industrial uses. There is no impact of the added floors from the exterior and due to the very low intensity of this use, there will be less activity than for a single-story building of other approved Industrial uses. This variance is covered in more detail in the Variance Application form submitted.” 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 proposed project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements. However, the floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 1.24. 12-1G-7F of the City Ordinance provides that the FAR shall not exceed 0.5. Thus the FAR for the page 137 Project exceeds City Ordinance requirements. This is a difficulty and is a result of the Project’s comprehensive design that enhances “drive by” aesthetics, customer/occupant safety, property security and the efficient three story horizontal utilization of floor space. The design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55. Since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. 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 variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: The proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. Outside surface parking usage for the Project will be less intense than parking usage at the properties to the north and northeast. The surrounding land uses to the west and south are Highway 55 and Interstate 494. Staff Response: The floor area ratio (FAR) standard is an effective way to calculate the bulk - or mass of building volume on a development site, and is often used in conjunction with other development standards such as building heights, lot coverage and lot area. FAR can sometime assist in a community’s desire to limit over- intensification or over-development of a site. FAR can be used to either limit the intensity of land use to lessen the environmental impacts of development or to control the mass and scale of development. In some cases, calculating a site’s FAR with these other standards, it helps lessen impacts to the site, such as a need for more parking, increased hard surfaces, and additional on-site storm water management systems. From reviewing a number of adjacent city ordinances and their industrial zoning district standards, some have maximum building coverage percentages ranging from a low of 30%-35% (Inver Grove Hts. & Eagan) and up to 50% in West St. Paul. Maximum lot coverage (total impervious surface cover) range from 70- 75% up to 90-95% in some cities. Cities of Bloomington and St. Paul allow for uses in certain commercial/business/industrial districts with an FAR from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of our suburban neighboring cities do not use or apply the FAR standard to industrial uses (business/commercial) in their respective zoning districts. Most of these cities appear to only limit building size (footprint), height and impervious surface percentages. Most of these cities’ height standards seem to range in or around 30-45 feet in height, which could accommodate 3 to 4 story buildings. The Applicant’s plan demonstrates that all other Industrial Zone development and site standards will be met under this plan, including lot size (dimensions), setbacks, height, and building coverage. Because the city allows for buildings in the Industrial district to be up to 45-feet in height, this provides ample opportunity for the Applicant/Developer to provide additional stories and space for this very specific use on this vacant industrial parcel; and which use they pursued to allow such use in this district, and granted approval earlier this year. Staff would suggest the city give serious consideration to allowing this proposed self-storage use at this location, even with the added FAR, due in part to the fact the proposed use meets many of the other Industrial District standards, and the use will be limited to only this site. page 138 Since this proposed use is very new to the community, and a very specific use in this Industrial district, city staff is offering to make a condition that this variance (and related CUP) is only for this personal self- storage use; and shall apply specifically to this site only. Should Metro Storage open and operate the business for a few years, and decide to close down the storage facility and sell-off the property, any future owner(s) or operators of this site would be limited to a self-storage uses only. Any other permitted industrial user that took over the site, would need to comply with current I-Industrial District standards, such as parking and FAR and all others listed under the district’s regulations. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Should the Commission elect to strike-out or modify the current 0.5 FAR standard to allow the new personal self-storage facility, it must decide on one (or possibly two) of the following “Alternatives for Action”. 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for Planning Case No. 2019-20, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of said CUP, noted as follows: A. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, Metro Storage LLC is allowed to have a personal self-storage facility, provided that: i. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited; ii. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility; iii. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone; iv. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete; v. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility; vi. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal; and vii. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. B. The Applicant has demonstrated through their submitted site plan, that the proposed self-storage facility on the subject property either meets or exceeds all of these standards established under Title 12-1G-2 for said use, zone, and is supported by the following findings of facts: i. The proposed self-storage use 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. ii. The proposed self-storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the current City Code and Comprehensive Plan, including all applicable performance standards, except for the floor area ratio requirements, and which requires acceptance and approval of a related variance for such standard, noted herein. page 139 iii. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. C. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. D. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Conditional Use Permit request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use. Conditions related to this application are as follows: 1. The new storage facility building shall be constructed in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and/or licensed engineer. 2. Trash enclosure must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building. 3. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 4. Final landscaped plan shall be approved by the city staff in cooperation with the city’s Master Gardeners. 5. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be submitted at time of building permit approval. 6. The Developer shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 7. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 8. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 9. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 10. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 11. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. 12. The conditional use permit for the personal self-storage facility and the related variance allowing the new building to exceed the required floor area ratio standard of 0.5 to 1.24, is only for the Applicant - Metro Storage, LLC, its subsidiaries and assigns of the property and page 140 all future owners of the subject property, provided the site is used exclusively as a personal self-storage facility. Any other permitted use or use by conditional use permit shall be made complaint with all current I-Industrial District zoning and site development standards at that time. • Note: should the Commission choose to recommend denial of this CUP, they must determine and offer reasonable findings of facts to support such action.) If the FAR remains in effect (left intact), then the Commission must choose one of the two following recommendations on the Variance, which would accompany the CUP recommendation: 2. Recommend approval of the Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-20, 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.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed personal self-storage facility to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) the proposed structure and project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and yet the design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55, since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, due in part to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use; iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. 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 Variances 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 141 D. Approval of this Variance is only for Metro Storage, LLC, the Applicant as noted herein, and their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve 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- 20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and later appended and presented on September 24, 2019, and is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. 3. 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 fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; 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). 4. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Conditional Use Permit and Variances to be considered for this new self-storage facility; and if the Commission wishes to approve the CUP as presented herein, or add/modify the conditions as noted herein, you may choose Alternative No. 1 as noted above. If the Commission wishes to either approve or deny the Variance related to the excess FAR standard, it may choose either Alternative No. 2 or 3 respectively, with findings of facts that give support to either action. page 142 I-494I-35EHWY 5 5 494 RAMPI - 3 5E RAMPI-94 RAMPMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD NORTHLAND DR TRAPP RD 494 LOOPI-35E LOOPLEXINGTON AVELEMAY LAKE RD S E R V I C E R D W EAGANDALE BLVD 494 RAMPI-494 I -35E RAMPI-35E RAMPI-35EHWY 5 5 I-94 RAMP 494 LOOP 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE Metro Storage Site City of Mendota Heights0390 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/7/2019 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 143 7300 WEST 147TH STREETSUITE 504APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580(952) 431-4433 June 23, 2019 Project Narrative: Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights . The Metro Self Storage project is a new 3-story climate-controlled facility proposed for Northland Plaza in Mendota Heights. Metro Self Storage is a family owned and operated self-storage company that opened its first mini storage in 1973. The company has grown to include over 140 facilities in 16 states and prides itself in providing the best storage experience in the industry. The project site is accessed off Northland Drive on its north property line and abuts Highway 55 on the west and Interstate 494 on the south. The property is a 2.2 acre remaining site within this otherwise developed area. The property is zoned I - Industrial as are the properties surrounding the site except for a strip of B3 – General Business properties to the north. The storage building will have a footprint of 39,270 square feet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by ordinance. There is 45,014 square feet of green space providing 46.9% landscaped area proposed for this site. The landscape plan indicates a variety of overstory trees, ornamental trees and shrubs to provide interest and emphasize elements of the building design. Exterior of building includes architectural precast panels with multiple finishes to create a pleasing image and break-up the facade. The precast panels will have a 16 foot high base of real brick inserts of two contrasting brick colors to create a strong visual base around the ground story Above this base the building uses a large sized light-colored limestone style precast finish with grooved panel joints breaking up the precast into large block visual elements. The light-colored panels are also broken up with a rhythm of slightly higher full brick panels many of which include additional glass windows creating aesthetic interest along each façade. The main entry at the northwest corner is highlighted with flat metal panels and extensive glass allowing views into the lobby and upper storage floors. The sides and back walls also include significant additional glass window panels allowing daylight into the building corridors. The included perspective rendering shows the interest the different materials and massing provides, creating a very nice-looking building. Along with this we have provided a decorative metal canopy at the front entry and at each of the internal drive’s glass overhead door entrances. The civil engineering drawings indicate the grading, paving and drainage approach for the project. The stormwater design collects rainwater from the roof and pavement into below grade stormwater piping. This stormwater will be piped to the west stormwater infiltration pond which along with the other stormwater pond on the site are designed to infiltrate all new impervious surface areas. Consequently, no additional stormwater will leave this site above the minor previously approved flow from the adjacent property. Pavement and curb design are also included in these drawings along with utility connections. page 144 The site access is off Northland Drive just east of Highway 55 entering on the existing shared private drive serving the property to the east. The first entry of this private drive leads to a parking lot at the front of the building near the office entry and the entrance to an internal one-way drive- through access down the middle of the storage building. This internal drive allows clients to enter and park in the climate-controlled area while they load or unload items from their storage unit. Self-storage is a very low traffic producer compared to any other commercial business that would otherwise be considered on this Industrial zoned site. Consequently, there is a very small demand for parking stalls, typically with only a few clients visiting the facility at any given time. There is room inside the building for 11 parallel parking stalls. Added to this are 10 exterior stalls on the north and east sides of the building resulting in a total of 21 stalls. This is 6 stalls more than the ordinance minimum 15 stall requirement. The leasing office for the facility will be in the northwest corner of the building with parking immediately adjacent for customers to access the office. First time customers would park at the office and lease a unit. On subsequent visits customers would pull into the building through the north entry overhead door leading to the interior drive-through lane, access their storage unit, and then exit at the south side. The facility will be staffed by a Property Manager (PM) everyday with weekday hours being 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and shorter on the weekend. Other employees will be a Storage Consultant (SC) and a Maintenance Technician (MT). Each customer will have a proprietary PIN number to access the facility. Facility access hours are from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. The building will be automatically locked down at that point and no further access can be achieved. The access system keeps daily records of all entries. The facility will also be monitored by 16 security cameras that are accessed by the PM in the office as well as being able to be viewed from a web-based platform by management. Cameras will cover virtually all public areas of the building. The site lighting will include all new highly efficient LED light fixtures with moderate lighting levels appropriate for this use. All light fixtures are building mounted, fully shielded, dark sky compliant and provide strong cut-off at the lot edges. While the proposed project meets all the city requirements listed above, we are requesting a variance related to the ordinance Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit which we believe is not consistent with this newly added Industrial zoning use. Since the building massing, height, and site coverage are within requirements, the only aspect of the building that drives this above the listed FAR is that the building has multiple floors within the building unlike other industrial uses. There is no impact of the added floors from the exterior and due to the very low intensity of this use, there will be less activity than for a single-story building of other approved Industrial uses. This variance is covered in more detail in the Variance Application form submitted. In conclusion, the proposed new Metro Self Storage facility provides for an attractive building and landscaped site to meet the storage needs of Mendota Heights residents. With the very low traffic generation and activity associated with this proposed use, this climate-controlled self-storage page 145 facility will fit well into this commercial neighborhood. On behalf of Metro Self Storage, we are pleased to have this opportunity to bring this new business to Mendota Heights. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. page 146 Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION – CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case #:_____________________ Applicant:____________________ Address:_____________________ The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. Completed Application Form(s). Letter of Intent. Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the 2019-20 Metro Storage LLC page 147 Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of 3 variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. __________________________________________________________________ Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). YES NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: page 148 Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 3 2.Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? YES NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: 3.If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? YES NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. page 149 Comm. No.: Date: Metro Self Storage -Perspective View 19051 06/24/19 page 150 S id e y a rd to a S tre e t4 0 ' - 0 "33' - 0"Fr ont yar d40' - 0"10' - 0"Pa r k i n g Se t b a c kBu il d i n g Se t b a c k B u ild in g S e tb a c kParking Set backPr oper t y Li ne80' - 0"75' - 0"70' - 0"55' - 0" 2 5 ' - 0 "1 1 0 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 0 "Gross Area (footprint) = 39,270 s.f. x 3 = 117,810 s.f. R e te n tio n P o n d Proposed 3 Story BuildingDr i ve t hr u5 5 ' - 0 "2 5 ' - 0 "3 0 ' - 0 "HC 6 3 L O A D IN G H i g h w a y 5 5N o r t h l a n d D r i v e I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4 11 Pr o p e rt y L i n e I nf i l t r at i on PondTrash73' - 0"287' - 0"33' - 4" 4 0 ' - 0 "1 6 2 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 0 "Rear y ar d50' - 0" Existing Building Monument sign E x it -O n e W a y20' - 0" 2 2 0 ' - 0 "Site Statistics: Site Area 95,920 SF 2.2 Acres Setback Statistics: Building Setback -Front Yard to Street 40 Feet Building Setback -Side Yard to Street 40 Feet Building Setback -Side Yard 30 Feet Building Setback -Rear Yard 50 Feet Parking Setbacks 10/20 Feet Building Area Statistics: Proposed Building Area 39,270 SF Proposed Building Area Coverage 40.9 % Maximum Building Area Coverage Allowed 50.0 % Lot Coverage Statistics: Total Site Impervious Area (Parking & Walks)11,640 SF Total Proposed Building Area 39,270 SF Total Proposed Landscape Coverage 45,010 SF Total Proposed Landscape Coverage %46.9 % Parking Statistics: Parking Required (Personal Self-Storage)15 stalls 85,065 SF Net Storage Area / 6,000 SF per stall Parking Provided Exterior 11 stalls Interior (parallel along internal one-way aisle 11 stalls Total Stalls Provided 22 stalls FAR -by Ordinance 0.5 FAR -Proposed 1.24 Pr oper t y Li neProposed 3 Story Building H i g h w a y 5 5N o r t h l a n d I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4Pr o p e rt y L i n e Existing Building Existing Building Existing Building D r i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt8/9/2019 1:58:43 PMCITY SUBMITTAL -Rev 1 CS01Preliminary Site PlanMetro Self Storage1178 Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1" = 30'-0"CS01 2 Schematic Overall Site Plan 1 08/08/19 Revised Submittals 1" = 80'-0"CS01 1 Area Plan w Neighboring Buildings 1 1 1 1 1 page 151 Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Lighted box sign, maximum 100 s.f. Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Aluminum and glass sectional door LED wall pack light, full cut-off Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick,medium Aluminum storefront windowPrecast wall panel, smooth finish LED wall pack light, full cut-off Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Aluminum storefront window Flush metal panels Aluminum storefront window Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel, smooth finish Rooftop unit, screened Lighted box sign, maximum 100 s.f. LED wall pack light, full cut-off Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Rooftop unit, screened Flush metal panels Aluminum storefront window system Aluminum and glass sectional door LED wall pack light, full cut-off Exterior Material -Area Percentages (%) Precast -Smooth Finish 46 % Thin Brick -Dark Color Thin Brick -Medium Color Metal & Glass 25 % 17 % 12 % 100 % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:17:58 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS02Exterior ElevationsMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 1 South Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 4 East Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 3 West Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 2 North Elevation page 152 CS021 CS02 2 CS02 4 CS02 3 80' - 0"5' - 0"70' - 0"5' - 0"120' - 0"15' - 0"5' - 0"35' - 0"25' - 0"30' - 0"25' - 0"Drive aisle Office/ Reception Parking ( 11 stalls ) Trash 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:16:59 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS03Schematic Floor PlanMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1/16" = 1'-0"CS03 1 First Floor Plan page 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:32:23 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS04LightingMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/21/19 12" = 1'-0"CS04 3 Light Contour Map 1" = 1'-0"CS04 1 Lighting Wall Pack 1" = 1'-0"CS04 2 Lighting Recessed page 154 page 155 page 156 26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798 Memorandum Date: August 7, 2019 To: Krista Spreiter, City of Mendota Heights Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) CC: Quinn Hutson, Applicant Ben Ford, Rehder & Associates From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company (KES) Re: Site Assessment for Wetlands – 1178 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN The 1178 Northland Drive site was examined on July 26, 2019 for the presence and extent of wetland. The site was located in Section 34, Township 28N, Range 23W, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. The 2.2-acre site was located immediately northeast of the intersection of Highway 55 and Interstate 494, and just south of Northland Drive (Figure 1) and corresponded to Dakota County PID 275225001040 and the address of 1178 Northland Drive. The site was a vacant parcel (Figure 2) with a few irrigation faucets observed in the central portion. The site was primarily a meadow with Siberian elm trees scattered throughout and sumac along the west and south perimeters. Meadow species observed included Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, bird’s-foot trefoil, Canada goldenrod, giant goldenrod, knapweed, Canada thistle, bittersweet nightshade, curly dock, common burdock, crown vetch, and common milkweed. Scattered clumps of reed canary grass were also present but were not associated with depressions. Topography on the site was level/flat, except for two slightly higher areas along the south boundary. Along the west site boundary, topography sloped downhill to the west. Review of NWI, Soils, DNR, and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed a PEM1A wetland in the west portion of the site (Figure 3). page 157 The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) did not show any mapped hydric soil types within or near site boundaries. Soil types mapped on and near the property are listed in Table 1 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. Table 1. Soil types mapped on the 1178 Northland Drive site. Symbol Soil Name Approx. Acres AOI Approx. % of AOI % Hydric Hydric Category 39B2 Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 1.4 40.90% 0 Not Hydric 39C2 Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately eroded 2.1 59.10% 0 Not Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) did not show any DNR Public Waters, Wetlands, or Watercourses within or near site boundaries (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) did not show any surface water features within or near site boundaries (Figure 6). No Wetland Determination The site was examined on July 26, 2019 for the presence and extent of wetlands. The NWI map showed a PEM1A wetland in the west portion of the site (Area A – Figure 2). At the time of the July 26 site visit, Area A was flat (not depressional) and was dominated by meadow species as described previously. A sample point (SPA – Attachment A) taken within a portion of Area A caontaining a dominant amount of reed canary grass showed a soil profile that had been stripped of the A horizon and that lacked moisture or free water to a depth of 24 inches. Based on the lack of hydric soil and the lack of primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators, Area A was determined to be non-wetland. No other areas were shown as wetland on the NWI-map, and no other areas were shown as hydric on the soil survey. No depressions were observed on the site. Summary No wetlands were delineated on the 1178 Northland Drive site in Mendota Heights. Attachment B of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) concurrence with the no wetland determination from the City of Mendota Heights under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that the site lacks waters of the U.S. for Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Thank you. page 158 1178 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, MN Site Assessment for Wetlands FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas page 159 © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location 1178 Northland Drive (KES 2019-103)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Site Boundary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap page 160 8 9 0 8 8 8 8 9 2 894 886896 884882898 880900 878876874872902 870868866864904 862896888882 896 896894 886896888894 8 8 4 884Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 MnGEO) 1178 Northland Drive (KES 2019-103)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 150 Feet Legend Site Boundary Sample Point Dakota County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A SPA page 161 PUBG PFO1A PEM1A PEM1A Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory 1178 Northland Drive (KES 2019-103)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USFWS page 162 39B2 39C2 1816 611F 1816 889D 857B 250 415C Figure 4 - Soil Survey 1178 Northland Drive (KES 2019-103)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 250 Feet Legend Site Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Non-Hydric Prdominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS page 163 Rogers (19-80 P) Lemay (19-82 W) Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory 1178 Northland Drive (KES 2019-103)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Legend Site Boundary Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Watercourse Public Waters Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR page 164 Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset 1178 Northland Drive (KES 2019-103)Mendota Heights, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 2,000 Feet Legend Site Boundary Hydro Junction Artificial Path Canal/Ditch Connector Pipeline Stream/River Underground Conduit Gate Nonearthen Shore Wall Lock Chamber Stream/River Lake/Pond Reservoir Swamp/Marsh Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USGS page 165 Rehder & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 • Eagan, Minnesota 55122 • 651-452-5051 • Fax: 651-452-9797 • Email: info@rehder.com STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR METRO STORAGE – MENDOTA HEIGHTS 6-24-19 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Report Prepared By: Nicholas P. Adam, P.E. Registration Number: 43856 Report Reviewed By: Benton G. Ford, P.E. Registration Number: 24392 page 166 By: NPA Date: 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 · Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Checked by: BGF Date: 651-452-5051 · Fax: 651-452-9797 · Email: info@rehder.com Project No: 508.154 Sheet of Subject: REQUIRED VOLUME: 1.20 Acres = 1.10 X 1.20 ac = ac-ft 12in./ft =cu.ft. VOLUME PROVIDED: Rehder & Associates, Inc.WORKSHEET (SEE ATTACHED HYDROCAD WORKSHEET) 4792 VOLUME CONTROL SIZING CALCULATIONS Civil Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors Metro Storage - MH 0.110 Proposed Impervious Area = page 167 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.41"0508154_Metro Storage - MH Printed 6/23/2019Prepared by Rehder & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02629 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 7P: INFILT. BASIN 1 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 881.40 1,075 0 881.50 1,171 112 881.60 1,270 234 881.70 1,374 366 881.80 1,482 509 881.90 1,594 663 882.00 1,710 828 882.10 1,805 1,004 882.20 1,903 1,189 882.30 2,003 1,385 882.40 2,106 1,590 882.50 2,211 1,806 882.60 2,319 2,032 882.70 2,429 2,270 882.80 2,543 2,518 882.90 2,658 2,778 883.00 2,776 3,050 883.10 2,897 3,334 883.20 3,021 3,629 883.30 3,146 3,938 883.40 3,275 4,259 883.50 3,406 4,593 883.60 3,540 4,940 883.70 3,676 5,301 883.80 3,815 5,675 883.90 3,956 6,064 884.00 4,100 6,467 884.10 4,259 6,885 884.20 4,421 7,319 884.30 4,586 7,769 884.40 4,754 8,236 884.50 4,925 8,720 884.60 5,099 9,221 884.70 5,277 9,740 884.80 5,457 10,277 884.90 5,640 10,831 885.00 5,826 11,405 885.10 6,016 11,997 885.20 6,208 12,608 885.30 6,403 13,238 885.40 6,601 13,889 885.50 6,803 14,559 885.60 7,007 15,249 885.70 7,215 15,960 885.80 7,425 16,692 885.90 7,639 17,445 886.00 7,855 18,220 886.10 8,036 19,015 886.20 8,219 19,827 886.30 8,404 20,658 886.40 8,591 21,508 886.50 8,780 22,377 886.60 8,971 23,264 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 886.70 9,165 24,171 886.80 9,360 25,097 886.90 9,558 26,043 887.00 9,757 27,009 887.10 9,959 27,995 887.20 10,162 29,001 887.30 10,368 30,027 887.40 10,575 31,074 887.50 10,785 32,142 887.60 10,997 33,231 887.70 11,211 34,342 887.80 11,427 35,474 887.90 11,645 36,627 888.00 11,865 37,803 page 168 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.41"0508154_Metro Storage - MH Printed 6/23/2019Prepared by Rehder & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.00-24 s/n 02629 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 8P: INFILT. BASIN 2 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 888.50 525 0 888.55 568 27 888.60 612 57 888.65 657 89 888.70 705 123 888.75 754 159 888.80 805 198 888.85 857 240 888.90 911 284 888.95 967 331 889.00 1,025 380 889.05 1,084 433 889.10 1,144 489 889.15 1,207 548 889.20 1,271 610 889.25 1,336 675 889.30 1,404 743 889.35 1,473 815 889.40 1,543 891 889.45 1,616 969 889.50 1,690 1,052 889.55 1,765 1,138 889.60 1,842 1,229 889.65 1,921 1,323 889.70 2,002 1,421 889.75 2,084 1,523 889.80 2,168 1,629 889.85 2,253 1,740 889.90 2,341 1,855 889.95 2,430 1,974 890.00 2,520 2,098 890.05 2,579 2,225 890.10 2,638 2,355 890.15 2,698 2,489 890.20 2,759 2,625 890.25 2,821 2,765 890.30 2,883 2,907 890.35 2,946 3,053 890.40 3,009 3,202 890.45 3,073 3,354 890.50 3,138 3,509 890.55 3,204 3,668 890.60 3,270 3,830 890.65 3,337 3,995 890.70 3,405 4,163 890.75 3,473 4,335 890.80 3,542 4,511 890.85 3,612 4,690 890.90 3,682 4,872 890.95 3,753 5,058 891.00 3,824 5,247 891.05 3,897 5,440 891.10 3,970 5,637 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 891.15 4,044 5,837 891.20 4,118 6,041 891.25 4,193 6,249 891.30 4,269 6,461 891.35 4,345 6,676 891.40 4,422 6,895 891.45 4,500 7,118 891.50 4,578 7,345 891.55 4,657 7,576 891.60 4,737 7,811 891.65 4,818 8,050 891.70 4,899 8,293 891.75 4,981 8,540 891.80 5,063 8,791 891.85 5,146 9,046 891.90 5,230 9,305 891.95 5,315 9,569 892.00 5,400 9,837 page 169 Request for City Council Action DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Ordinance 544 Amendment to Massage Licensing Regulations COMMENT: Introduction The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 544, amending the current regulations for massage establishments and massage therapist licenses in the City. Background The City’s current regulations for Therapeutic Massage Enterprises were adopted in 2010 and are out of date and not clear. In April of 2018, the City adopted an interim ordinance (more commonly known as a moratorium) that allowed the city to study this issue. The major revisions being proposed to the current ordinance regulating massage licensing include the following: - Deletes the current section in its entirety and replaces with new language - Requires all applicants for a massage therapist license to have a minimum of 500 hours of training/course work (Currently all of the licensed massage therapists meet this minimum) - Clarifies that a health or medical facility operated by a licensed medical professional does not need a massage establishment license; massage therapists working under the direction of a licensed medical professional do not need to have a massage therapist license - Clarifies that students who are enrolled in an approved school, and supervised by an instructor, do not need to be licensed - Requires massage establishments, and therapists who are contractors, to provide proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage (minimum $300,000 combined single limit per occurrence) - Allows a licensed therapist to provide massage therapy services to a client at the client’s residence or place of care if in a medical facility - Allows a licensed therapist to provide massage in connection with a special event in the city - Adds a penalty section if a violation occurs, misdemeanor, fine of $1,000 page 170 All of the licensed Massage establishments and therapists have been notified of these proposed changes. Staff has not received any comments or questions regarding the proposed changes. The City Council discussed this ordinance at the work session meeting held on September 24, 2019. The Council discussed if a licensed massage therapist could practice from their residence. It was noted that if this issue comes up in the future, then the Council could take a closer look at possibly allowing this. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance 544 AMENDING AND RESTATING CITY CODE SECTION 3-6 REGULATING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISES Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 544 AMENDING AND RESTATING CITY CODE SECTION 3-6 REGULATING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISES page 171 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota Ordinance No. 544 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING CITY CODE SECTION 3-6 REGULATING THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ENTERPRISES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows: SECTION 1 Title 3-6 of the Mendota Heights City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: PURPOSE: The city recognizes therapeutic massage, as distinguished from other forms of massage, as a scientific health care and/or maintenance technique or procedure for the human muscles, tendons, tissues, and the like. The city also recognizes the potential for illicit massage operations or establishments in the wake of legitimate, professional therapeutic massage establishments. Accordingly, in order to prevent illicit massage operations and protect against the existence of illicit massage establishments or operations in the city and to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, including the protection of the city's legitimate massage therapists' profession and reputation, the city deems it necessary to regulate therapeutic massage establishments and massage therapists through the licensing process. Sec. 1. Definitions. DEFINITIONS: As used in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings stated: Approved institution. An educational institution holding approved status with the United States Department of Education, Minnesota Office of Higher Education, or by any state licensing board. Approved program. A professional massage program or educational institution approved by the Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMTA) or the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences (NACCAS). Continuing Education Class. A post graduate continuing education class, provided it is an approved class with the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or another nationally recognized certification licensing organization. page 172 Massage therapy or therapeutic massage. The rubbing, tapping, pounding or kneading of a person's skin, muscles, and tissues or the stretching of body limbs (e.g. Thai massage) for the purpose of easing mental and physical tension, the breaking up of fatty tissues, relaxing muscles, or alleviating muscle spasms, and the improvement of circulation through the body. Massage therapy business. Any enterprise, establishment, or operation, whether under control of an individual or legal entity, providing or offering to provide massage therapy services within the city for a fee or other consideration paid either directly or indirectly, that: (1) Has one or more massage therapists, employed or contracted to provide massage therapy services for the massage therapy business; or (2) Is located in a fixed location in a nonresidential district within the city wherein massage therapy services are provided. Any health or medical facility, office, or clinic operated by state licensed medical professional(s) or any health or medical-related business operated by state licensed medical professional(s) which provides therapeutic massage to its patients shall not be deemed as a massage therapy business. Massage therapist. A person who practices or provides therapeutic massage to another for a fee or other consideration paid either directly or indirectly. A person licensed as a medical doctor, chiropractor, osteopath, licensed nurse, physical therapist, or athletic director or trainer shall not be deemed as a massage therapist. Likewise, a podiatrist, beautician (cosmetologist) or barber who confines his/her treatment to the scalp, face, and neck or the lower leg and feet in the case of a pedicure shall not be deemed as a massage therapist. Student of massage therapy. A person who is enrolled in and attends an approved institution or approved program as defined herein, or is attending a continuing education class. Sec. 2. License required. (a) Massage therapist license required. Except as provided for by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.709, as amended, it is unlawful for any person to practice therapeutic massage therapy or provide or offer to provide therapeutic massage therapy within the city without a license therefore issued by the city. page 173 (b) Massage therapy business license required. It is unlawful for any person or entity to operate a massage therapy business within the city without a license therefore issued by the city. (c) Exceptions. (1) This section shall not apply to, and no massage therapy business license shall be required for a student of massage therapy, completing course work at an approved institution or an approved program of study, provided: a. The massage therapy is provided during and as part of a course or clinical component of the approved institution’s or program’s course work, or during a continuing education class; and b. The student of massage therapy is supervised by an instructor, certified by the approved institution, program, or sponsor of the continuing education class, while the student is providing or performing massage therapy. A notice, which advises the public that the person who may provide massage therapy services is a student of massage therapy and is not licensed by the city, shall be posted in a conspicuous location in the room in which the massage therapy is provided. (d) License period and renewal. A license issued under this chapter shall be an annual license, expiring on June 30 of each year. Any massage therapy business and/or therapist doing business within the city as of the effective date of this chapter, shall file all required license applications hereunder, along with the license and investigation fees, no later than May 1 of each year. A license may be annually renewed, provided the licensee complies with the renewal application process as follows: (1) The licensee shall complete the renewal application materials provided by the city; page 174 (2) The completed renewal application materials, along with the license fee, shall be filed with city clerk no later than May 1 of the renewal year; and (3) The massage therapy business license renewal application shall provide all information regarding ownership interests in the business. (e) License and investigation fees. The license and investigation fees shall be determined by the city council as set forth in the fee schedule. (1) All licenses shall expire on the last day of June in each year. Each license shall be issued for a period of one year, except that if a portion of the license year has elapsed when a new application is made, a license may be issued for the remainder of the year for a pro rata fee. In computing such fee, any unexpired fraction of a month shall be counted as one month. (2) In the case of a massage therapy business that is wholly owned and operated by a massage therapist licensed under this chapter and does not have any employee(s) or contracted person(s) other than the massage therapist licensed owner providing massage therapy services for or through the massage therapy business, only the massage therapist license fees shall be required. (3) If it is found at any time during the term of the license period that the massage therapy business is not wholly owned and operated by the massage therapist licensed under this chapter or it has an employee(s) or contracted person(s) other than the massage therapist licensed owner providing massage therapy services for or through the massage therapy business, then the massage therapy business license fees shall be required to be paid on a prorated basis for the remaining term of the massage therapy business license, in addition to any licensing fees required for the employee(s) or contracted person(s). page 175 Sec. 3. License application. (a) Massage therapy business license application. An original application for a license to operate a massage therapy business shall be filed, along with all required fees, with the city clerk. The investigation fee is applied to the city's costs of the background investigation of the massage therapy business and all persons or entities that individually have at least a five percent financial interest in the massage therapy business. The property containing the massage therapy business must be in compliance with all federal, state and local applicable laws and ordinances. The police department shall conduct the background investigation before consideration of the license by the city council. The application shall provide: (1) All applicants (business or individual): a. Whether the applicant/owner is an individual, corporation, partnership, or other form of organization; b. Full name, address, date and place of birth, and telephone number of the applicant, all owners and operators, including the designated on-site manager or agent of the applicant; c. The address of the premises where the massage therapy business is to be located if proposed to have a fixed location in which the services are provided and if the applicant does not own the premises, a copy of the lease agreement to occupy the premises; d. Statement of whether all taxes and special assessments due and owing on the premises on which the applicant proposes to operate the massage therapy business are current, and if taxes are delinquent, the years for which the taxes on the premises are delinquent (this information is required by the applicant only if the applicant or other entity in which the applicant has an interest has the legal duty to pay said property taxes or assessments due and owing, through an ownership interest or lease provision); page 176 e. The name of the business if the business is to be operated under a name or designation other than the name of the applicant. This designation shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the certificate required by Minn. Stats. §§ 333.01 and 333.02; f. Proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter; g. The applicant shall produce at the time of filing an application the applicant's proof of identification, which may be established only by one of the following: 1. A valid driver's license or identification card issued by Minnesota, another state, or a province of Canada, and including the photograph and date of birth of the applicant; 2. A valid military identification card issued by the United States Department of Defense; 3. A valid passport issued by the United States; or 4. In the case of a foreign national, by a valid passport. For purposes of proof of identification, the "applicant" shall mean the on-site manager or agent for a massage therapy business filing application and the natural person signing the application for a massage therapy business license; h. The application shall identify the full name, address, date and place of birth, and telephone number of the natural person, designated by the applicant as the massage therapy business’s on-site manager or agent, along with the notarized written consent of such a person to: (1) take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises operation; and (2) serve as agent for service of notices and other processes relating to the licenses; page 177 i. With respect to the owner, operator, or any person who has a five percent financial interest in the proposed licensed massage therapy business and the appointed on- site manager or agent of the applicant, information as to any and all criminal convictions of any state, county, or local law or regulation; j. Proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota law; and (2) Individuals: a. The full name, address, date and place of birth, and telephone number of the applicant; b. Whether the applicant and on-site manager or agent have ever used or have been known by a name other than his or her name on the application, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and places were used; c. Whether the applicant is a United States citizen or is legally permitted to be in the United States and providing proof thereof; d. The street addresses and cities at which the applicant and on-site manager or agent have lived during the preceding ten years; e. Names, addresses, and dates of the applicant's and on-site manager's or agent's employers for the preceding ten years; f. Whether the applicant and on-site manager or agent have ever been engaged in the operation and/or provision of massage services. If so, they shall furnish information as to the name, place, and length of time of the involvement in such an establishment; and (3) Partnerships: page 178 a. The full name(s), address(es), date(s) and place(s) of birth, financial interests of all general partners and all of the information concerning each general partner that is required of individual applicants in provision (2) of this section; b. The full names(s), address(es), date(s) and place(s) of birth, and telephone number(s) of the manager partner(s) and the interests of each managing partner in the massage therapy business; c. A copy of the partnership agreement shall be submitted with the application. The license shall be issued in the name of the partnership; and (4) Corporations and other organizations: a. The name of the corporation or business firm, and if incorporated, the state of incorporation; b. A copy of the certificate of incorporation shall be attached to the application. If the applicant is a foreign corporation, a certificate of authority as required by Minn. Stat. § 303.06, shall be attached; c. The name of the manager(s), proprietor(s) or other agent(s) in charge of the business and all of the information concerning each manager, proprietor, or agent that is required of applicants in provision (2) of this section; d. A list of all persons who own or have a five percent or more interest in the corporation or organization or who are officers of said corporation or organization, together with their addresses and all the information regarding such persons as is required in paragraph (2) of this section. (b) Massage therapist license application. An original application for a massage therapist license shall be filed, along with all required fees, with page 179 the city clerk. The police department shall conduct a background investigation before consideration by the city council. The application for a license under this subsection shall be made on a form supplied by the city clerk and shall request the following information: (1) The applicant's full name, address, date and place of birth, telephone number, weight, height, eye color; (2) The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant's current employer, if applicable; (3) The applicant's employers for the previous ten years, including each employer's name and address and dates of employment; (4) The applicant's addresses for the previous ten years; (5) Whether the applicant is a United States citizen or is legally permitted to be in the United States and providing proof thereof; (6) Whether the applicant has ever used or has been known by a name other than his or her name, and if so, the name or names used and information concerning dates and the county and state where used; (7) Proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter (proof of insurance coverage may not be available to the applicant at time of application, but proof of insurance coverage shall be submitted to the city clerk before a license is issued). The requirement to provide general liability insurance coverage shall not apply to a massage therapist who is an employee of a massage therapy business and covered by the massage therapy business general liability insurance policy; (8) The applicant shall produce at the time of filing an application the applicant's proof of identification, which may be established only by one of the following: page 180 a. A valid driver's license or identification card issued by Minnesota, another state, or a province of Canada, and including the photograph and date of birth of the applicant; b. A valid military identification card issued by the United States Department of Defense; c. A valid passport issued by the United States; or d. In the case of a foreign national, by a valid passport. (9) Information as to any and all criminal conviction(s) of any state, county, or local law or regulation; (10) One of the following: a. Proof of successful completion of a minimum of 500 hours of therapeutic massage training/course work that includes subjects of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, ethics, massage theory and research, and massage practice from an approved institution or program; or b. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a comprehensive massage therapy program consisting of the course work stated above in subclause a. issued to the applicant from an approved institution or an approved program; or c. Proof of passing the National Certification Exam offered by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or proof of passing the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) Massage and Bodywork Licensing Examination (MBLEx). Sec. 4. License eligibility (a) A massage therapy business shall not be issued a massage therapy business license or any license previously issued may be revoked upon the following grounds: page 181 (1) The proposed fixed location or premises in which the massage therapy business proposes to provide massage therapy services is not located in a permitted zoning district for therapeutic massage services and has not received required permits under the City Code; (2) The owner, operator, or any person who has at least a five percent financial interest in the proposed licensed massage therapy business or the appointed on-site manager or agent of the applicant has a conviction for, or was charged with, but convicted of a lesser charge of a crime, or is under a stay of adjudication from, a charge involving a violation of any massage therapy-related regulation in any other jurisdiction, any prostitution-related offense, criminal sexual conduct, indecent exposure, surreptitious intrusion, disorderly house as defined by Minnesota Statutes, theft, felony drug offense, any crime of violence as defined by Minnesota Statutes, or any other similar crime or offense within five years of the date of application; (3) The owner, operator, or any person who has at least a five percent financial interest in the proposed licensed massage therapy business had a massage therapist- or massage therapy business-related license in another jurisdiction that was suspended or revoked within ten years preceding the date of application. (4) The application failed to identify the full name, address, and date and place of birth of the natural person designated by the applicant as the massage therapy business's on-site manager or agent, along with the notarized written consent of such a person to: (1) take full responsibility for the conduct of the licensed premises and operation; and (2) serve as agent for service of notices and other process relating to the license; (5) The on-site manager or agent designated by the applicant is not a United States citizen or is not legally permitted to be in the United States; (6) The applicant provided false, misleading or misrepresented information in the application; page 182 (7) The massage therapy business is proposed to be operated on premises on which property taxes, assessments, or other financial claims by the state, county or city are due, delinquent, and unpaid (but not including delinquent taxes, assessments or other financial claims that are being appealed through the customary means by the applicant), provided the applicant or other entity in which the applicant has an interest has the legal duty to pay said taxes, assessments, or claims due and owing; (8) The applicant, if not covered by a massage therapy business insurance policy, does not have general or professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter; (9) The applicant has been denied a license under this chapter within the preceding 12 months; or (10) The applicant has employed or allowed massage therapists not licensed by the city to provide massage therapy at the business site licensed within the past 12 months. (b) A massage therapist shall not be issued a massage therapist license or any license previously issued may be revoked upon the following grounds: (1) The applicant has a conviction for or was charged with, but convicted of a lesser charge or is under a stay of adjudication relating to, a crime involving a violation of any massage therapy- related regulation in any other jurisdiction, any prostitution- related offense, criminal sexual conduct, indecent exposure, surreptitious intrusion, disorderly house as defined by Minnesota Statutes, theft, felony drug offense, any crime of violence as defined by Minnesota Statutes, or any other similar crime or offense within five years of the date of application; (2) The applicant had a massage therapist-or massage therapy business-related license in another jurisdiction that was suspended or revoked within ten years preceding the date of application; page 183 (3) The applicant is not 18 years of age or older; (4) The applicant is not a United States citizen and is not legally permitted to be in the United States; (5) The applicant has not earned or did not provide: a. Proof of successful completion of a minimum of 500 hours of therapeutic massage training/course work that includes the subjects of anatomy, physiology, hygiene, ethics, massage theory and research, and massage practice from an approved institution or approved program; or b. Proof of a diploma or certificate of graduation in a comprehensive massage therapy program consisting of the course work stated above in subclause a. issued to the applicant from an approved institution or an approved program for massage therapy; or c. Proof of passing the National Certification Exam offered by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork or proof of passing the Federation of State Massage Therapy Boards (FSMTB) Massage and Bodywork Licensing Examination (MBLEx); (7) The applicant provided false, misleading or misrepresented information on the application; (8) The applicant does not have general and professional liability insurance coverage in effect as required in this chapter for applicants not covered by a massage therapy business insurance policy; or (9) The applicant has been denied a license under this chapter within the preceding 12 months. Sec. 5. Restrictions and regulations (a) Massage therapy business licenses granted for massage therapy services or operation at a fixed location or premises does not permit the page 184 business to provide massage therapy services at any location other than the premises identified on the license, except a licensed massage therapist employed or contracted by the massage therapy business licensee may provide massage therapy services: (1) to a client at the client's residence or place of care if in a long- or short-term care facility, such as a hospital, nursing home, or convalescence facility; or (2) in connection with a special event or function whereby the massage therapist provides massage therapy services to attendees of the event or function. (b) The act of any employee of a message therapy business licensee is deemed to be the act of the licensee. The licensee shall be responsible for all acts and conduct attributable to and in connection with massage therapy services provided by employees of the licensee or occurring on the premises of the massage therapy business. (c) The person who is receiving a massage shall at all times have his/her anus, intergluteal cleft (buttocks crease), and genitals covered with clothing or properly draped with non-transparent material. The person who is receiving massage therapy of the breast or buttocks (gluteal) shall have the breast or buttock (gluteal muscle) that is not then immediately receiving massage therapy properly covered and draped with non-transparent material. (d) The licensee and all employees of the licensee shall at all times be fully clothed and shall not expose his/her breast, buttocks, anus, or genitals. (e) At no time shall the massage therapist touch or offer to touch or massage the penis, scrotum, mons veneris, vulva, or vaginal area of any customer or person inquiring of or receiving massage therapy services. (f) No beer, liquor, narcotic drug, or controlled substances, as such terms are defined by state statutes or the City Code, shall be used or ingested or be present during any massage therapy session. (g) No doors or massage rooms, when occupied by one or more persons, shall be locked. All locks, if any, shall be keyed only from the exterior of the massage rooms. page 185 (h) Only massage therapists who are licensed by the city shall practice or provide therapeutic massage services for licensed massage therapy businesses or within the licensed massage therapy business premises as identified in its license. (i) The licensee shall comply with any and all provisions of this chapter, all provisions of the City Code, and any state law or regulation. (j) The licensee shall not provide any massage therapy services and the identified premises for a licensed massage therapy business shall not be open between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of any day. (k) The licensed premises under a licensed massage therapy business, if any, shall, during all operating hours, be open to inspection by any public health, building, zoning, code or police officer to determine whether this chapter and all other laws are being observed. All persons, as a condition to being issued such license, consent to such inspection by such officers. It is unlawful for any licensee or agent or employee of a licensee to hinder or prevent a city inspecting officer from making such inspection. The licensed premises must carry adequate property liability insurance coverage. (l) If a licensed massage therapy business's on-site manager or agent ceases to be located at the licensed premises or ceases to act in such capacity for the licensee without appointment of a successor, the license issued pursuant to such appointment shall be subject to revocation or suspension. (m) No license issued under this chapter may be transferred or assigned. Massage therapy business licenses shall terminate upon any change in officers or ownership interests of the licensee, unless the change is approved by the city council, in which case the license shall only continue in force until the end of the regular license term. (n) The licensee shall have in effect during the license period general liability and professional liability insurance providing minimum coverage of $300,000.00 combined single limit per occurrence. The requirement for general and professional liability insurance coverage shall not apply to a licensed massage therapist who is an employee of and covered under a massage therapy business general and professional liability insurance page 186 policy provided proof of such coverage is provided to the city. The licensee shall provide to the city a certificate of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage as required herein. (o) The licensee shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances of health and sanitation. (p) Violation of any law or regulation relating to the license issued under this chapter, or any building, safety or health regulation, shall subject the license to revocation or suspension. (q) As of the effective date of this ordinance, all massage therapists currently operating in the city under a valid license do not need to meet the 500-hour licensing requirement, but must comply with all other provisions of this chapter. Sec. 6. Display of License The license of the massage therapy business and of every massage therapist employed thereby, shall be displayed in an open and conspicuous place on the premises and shown to law enforcement officers upon request. Sec. 7. Prohibited business or operations No massage therapy business shall be used or operated as or in conjunction with an adult use business as defined in this Code. Sec. 8. Appeal (a) Notice Of Action: If the city council denies the issuance of a license, or suspends or revokes a license, the administrator or designee shall send to the applicant, or licensee, by certified mail, return receipt requested, written notice of the action. The written notice shall also provide notice of the applicant or licensee’s right to an appeal of the denial, suspension or revocation to a third-party hearing officer. The written notice of appeal must be filed with the city within 10 days of receipt of the notice of action. (b) Hearing: The hearing officer shall hold a hearing to consider the appeal within 14 days after the appeal request is received. The hearing officer shall make written findings of fact and a disposition on the matter. Hearings on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee or page 187 applicant shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence on its behalf. (c) Suspension: The City Administrator or a designee may immediately suspend a license issued under this chapter for up to 20 days upon the occurrence of any unlawful acts as identified in this chapter. Any adverse license action resulting from a suspension shall be processed, and is subject to appeal, as provided in this section. Sec. 9. Penalty Violation of a provision of this chapter is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, a person may be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or such other amount set by law, or imprisonment for a term not to exceed ninety (90) days, or such other term set by law, or both. Each act of violation and each day on which a violation occurs or continues is a separate violation. Sec. 10. Severability In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any part of this chapter to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this chapter not specifically included within the judgment. SECTION 2 This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 2nd day of October, 2019. MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _______________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 188 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 544 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3-6 RELATING TO THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, MN ordains: The City of Mendota Heights Code of Ordinances, Title 3, Chapter 6, Relating to Therapeutic Massage is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with updated language regulating therapeutic massage establishments and massage therapists. The major revisions to the current regulations include the following: -Requires applicants for massage therapists to have a minimum of 500 hours of training -Requires massage establishments and therapists who are contractors to provide proof of general and professional liability insurance coverage -All licenses would now be approved by the City Council The ordinance will take effect after its approval and publication. The complete text of this ordinance may be obtained at the city hall or from the City’s website at www.mendota-heights.com. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS /s/ Neil Garlock, Mayor Attest: /s/ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 189 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2019-74 Order Feasibility Report for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve resolution 2019-74 ordering a feasibility report for Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND The Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements have been identified in the 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). These streets currently have failing bituminous surfaces and are in need of repair. DISCUSSION The Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvement project proposes to rehabilitate Brompton Place, Downing Street, London Road, Sutcliff Circle, Winston Circle, and Winston Court. A replacement of the watermain may be required due to this being an older cast iron pipe with a high break frequency. Treatment methods and improvements will be further identified in the feasibility process. BUDGET IMPACT The CIP identifies construction costs of $710,000 for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvement Project. The costs will be refined during the feasibility process. The project is proposed to be funded by special assessments, municipal bonds, and utility funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 190 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-74 A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Streets (Brompton Place, Downing Street, London Road, Sutcliff Circle, Winston Circle, and Winston Court) in Mendota Heights including the construction of reclaimed aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, watermain replacement, storm sewer repair, ADA improvements and appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City’s 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the proposed improvements be referred to the Public Works Director for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective and feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other improvements, and the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of October, 2019. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 191 BUTLER AVE WINSTON CT MIRIAM S T SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYVIEW LNSPRIN G S TLONDON RDESTHER LNKIRCHN E R A V E SIMARD STD O W N I N G S T DIEGO LNJOHN ST JUNCTION LN VALLEY LN CHIPPEWA AVE B ROM P TO N P L SUTCLIFF CIR HIAWATHA AVEWINSTON CIRIvy Falls EastNeighborhood Improvement Date: 9/26/2019 City of Mendota Heights0310 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. page 192 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Award Wentworth Park Playground Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to award a contract to Flagship Recreation for improvements to the Wentworth Park Playground. BACKGROUND The Parks & Recreation Commission established a playground subcommittee that met with vendors and developed a recommendation for playground improvements at Wentworth and Hagstrom King Parks. The city is a recipient of a DNR outdoor recreation grant which will be used to improve the Wentworth Park including the playground, warming house/class room, parking lot and trails. DISCUSSION The proposed equipment at Wentworth Park will have natural elements which will fit well with the park setting. The base of the new playground will be made from Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) which will be aesthetically pleasing and is also functional as a climbing surface. Other additions include a companion swing, see saw, Tospy Turney Spinner, fire pole, chinning bar and other elements. In addition, the existing 2-5 age equipment will remain in place. Council should reconfirm if the tree toppers on the equipment should remain or be removed. Flagship Recreation would begin installation around October 21st. BUDGET IMPACT The City Council authorized a budget amount of $140,000 for the improvements to the Wentworth Park Playground. The current estimate for this work is $153,375.04. The labor costs increased from the original estimate due to prevailing wages requirement on the State DNR grant. Savings of $4,467.23 could be realized if the city choose to waive the Payment and Performance bonding. Removing the tree toppers from the design would reduce the cost by $4,484. The city is proposing to use the Special Park Fund for this project. RECOMMENDATION The Parks & Recreation Commission recommends that the Council approve the Wentworth Park Playground Improvements contract to Flagship Recreation. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Commission, the Council should pass a motion awarding a playground improvement contract to Flagship Recreation for the Wentworth Park Playground Improvements. This action requires a simple majority vote. Date Expires Quote: Contact: Phone: Email: Ship To: Please Make PO's & Contracts Out To: Wentworth Park 739 Wentworth Ave Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Bill To: Please Remit Payment To: QTY ITEM #UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE 1 $102,016.00 1 10.00%($10,201.60) $2,772.43 Subtotal $94,586.83 Freight $600.00 Sales Tax Tax Exempt Cert Total $95,186.83 Page 1 of 2 Quotes from Flagship Recreatoin, Inc. are subject to current Flagship Recreation, Inc. policies as well as Terms & Conditions, Inclusions & Exclusions outlined below unless noted otherwise on this quote. Changes are subject to price adjustment. Sales tax, if applicable, will be applied unless a tax-exempt certificate is provided at the time of order entry. Customer deposits, if required, must be received before orders will be entered & installation scheduled. Purchases in excess of $1,000.00 must be supported by a formal Purchase Order made out to Landscape Structures, Inc. Minnesota State Contract #119795 *Terms: Net 30 days; 1.5% finance charge on balances over 30 days Bonding = 3% of $92,414.40 Description Wentworth Park Playground - DNR Grant Discount Landscape Structures 601 7th St. S Delano, MN 55328 City of Mendota Heights Landscape Structures 1101 Victoria Curve 601 7th St. S Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Delano, MN 55328 We are pleased to submit this proposal to supply the following products/services: 10/1/2019 10/15/2019 City of Mendota Heights Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director (641) 225-1152 ryanr@mendota-heights.com TTerms & Conditions - Bonding of Any Type Please note, quotes including installation are based on site access and site conditions that have been conveyed to Landscape Structures by the owner/owner's representative and based on ideal conditions required to complete the project as quoted. Accepted By (Print) Email: Purchase Amount: Page 2 of 2 Signature:ryanr@mendota-heights.com Title:Phone: Date: $95,186.83 - Permits of Any Kind Unless addressed prior to the installation quote being issued or specifically documented herein, any issues encountered that impede the progress or completion of the project as quoted will result in additional charges. Acceptance of Quotation: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Directo PO#: - Offsite Removal of Spoils From Footing Holes or Other Excavation. Can be stockpiled for owner removal or left in play space - Disposal of Packing Material. Can be Stockpiled for Owner Removal or Deposited in Owners Onsite Dumpster - Removal of Existing Play Equipment, Border or Safety Surfacing Material - Site Work of Any Kind. Exclusions include, site grading (owner to provide max slope of 1%), site restoration, drainage, etc. - Border for Play Space - Accepting & Unloading of Order Prior to Installation - Storage or Security of Equipment - Private Utility Locates (irrigation, low voltage, lighting, etc.) - Additional Labor Due to Site Access. Require 8' Wide Clearance from Staging Area to Play Space. - Additional Labor and/or Related Costs Due to Subsurface Conditions (Rock, Hardpan, Heavy Clay, Ground Water, etc.) - Additional Labor and/or Related Costs Due to Working in Unstable Soils (Sand, Pea Rock, Mud, Poor Site Drainage, etc.) - Standard Wage Rates EExclusions (Unless Specifically Quoted): - Placing, Digging or Surface Mounting Equipment (as specificed) - Concrete for Play Equipment Footings - Standard Insurance Offer (Detail Provided Upon Request) - Standard Warranty Offer (Detail Provided Upon Request) - Public Utility Locates - Unpacking of Play Equipment - Assembly of Play Equipment Upon inspection, it is the Buyer's responsibility to notify Flagship Recreation if merchandise does not meet requirements of the order. PProject Scope (This Section For Quotes Including Installation) IInclusions: - One Mobilization unless a different amount is first agreed to via Change Order. Changes are subject to price adjustment. PPricing: Pricing is F.O.B factory. Current year pricing is honored on contracts completed prior to December 3, 2019. Contracts completed after this date are subject to price change. RResponsibility: Landscape Structures shall be repsonsible for any loss or damage to merchandise until delivered to Buyer at F.O.B destination point. Buyer is responsible for loss or damage thereafter. IInspection: Merchandise shall be subject to Buyer's inspection within a reasonable time after the arrival at the ultimate destination. CContract: Seller's Copy of signed quote represents the contract between Seller and Buyer. This form supercedes all previous communications and negotiations and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. Any changes to this contract are not binding unless jointly agreed in writing via Change Order. QQuantity: The quantity of merchandise and/or material to be delivered and/or installed shall not vary from the amount specified Date Expires Quote: Contact: Phone: Email: Ship To: Please Make PO's & Contracts Out To: Wentworth Park 739 Wentworth Ave Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Bill To: Please Remit Payment To: QTY ITEM #UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE 1 $22,646.22 1 $500.00 1 $505.00 1 $15,833.24 69 $4,718.33 6,130 $2,321.55 247 $9,969.07 $1,694.80 Subtotal $58,188.21 Freight $0.00 Sales Tax Tax Exempt Cert Total $58,188.21 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 St. Paul, MN 55101 We are pleased to submit this proposal to supply the following products/services: 10/1/2019 10/15/2019 City of Mendota Heights Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director (641) 225-1152 ryanr@mendota-heights.com Description Flagship Recreation 275 E. 4th St., Suite 810 St. Paul, MN 55101 City of Mendota Heights Flagship Recreation 1101 Victoria Curve 275 E. 4th St., Suite 810 Engineered Wood Fiber (CY) - IPEMA Certified Playground Surfacing Dumpster - 30 Yard Installation by Landacape Structures Certified Installers Mobilization Site Work - Excavation, Demo, Disposal & Site Grading Geo Textile Fabric (Sq. Ft.) Drainage Aggreate (Pea Rock or Class V) & Installatoin (Tons) Removal & disposal of exisiting 5-12 equipment. 2-5 playground stays **This proposal assumes that the existing curb remains *DNR Grant requires all labor billed at prevailing wage tax-exempt certificate is provided at the time of order entry. Customer deposits, if required, must be received before orders will be entered & installation scheduled. Purchases in excess of $1,000.00 must be supported by a formal Purchase Order made out to Flagship Recreation, Inc. Minnesota State Contract #119795 *Terms: Net 30 days; 1.5% finance charge on balances over 30 days Page 1 of 2 Bonding = 3% of $56,493.41 Quotes from Flagship Recreatoin, Inc. are subject to current Flagship Recreation, Inc. policies as well as Terms & Conditions, Inclusions & Exclusions outlined below unless noted otherwise on this quote. Changes are subject to price adjustment. Sales tax, if applicable, will be applied unless a TTerms & Conditions - Bonding of Any Type Please note, quotes including installation are based on site access and site conditions that have been conveyed to Flagship Recreation by the owner/owner's representative and based on ideal conditions required to complete the project as quoted. Accepted By (Print) Email: Purchase Amount: completed after this date are subject to price change. RResponsibility: Flagshi Recreation shall be repsonsible for any loss or damage to merchandise until delivered to Buyer at F.O.B destination point. Buyer is responsible for loss or damage thereafter. IInspection: Merchandise shall be subject to Buyer's inspection within a reasonable time after the arrival at the ultimate destination. Upon inspection, it is the Buyer's responsibility to notify Flagship Recreation if merchandise does not meet requirements of the order. CContract: Seller's Copy of signed quote represents the contract between Seller and Buyer. This form supercedes all previous communications and negotiations and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. Any changes to this contract are not binding unless jointly agreed in writing via Change Order. QQuantity: The quantity of merchandise and/or material to be delivered and/or installed shall not vary from the amount specified unless a different amount is first agreed to via Change Order. Changes are subject to price adjustment. PPricing: Pricing is F.O.B factory. Current year pricing is honored on contracts completed prior to December 3, 2019. Contracts - Unpacking of Play Equipment - Assembly of Play Equipment - Placing, Digging or Surface Mounting Equipment (as specificed) - Concrete for Play Equipment Footings PProject Scope (This Section For Quotes Including Installation) IInclusions: - One Mobilization - Public Utility Locates EExclusions (Unless Specifically Quoted): - Accepting & Unloading of Order Prior to Installation - Storage or Security of Equipment - Standard Insurance Offer (Detail Provided Upon Request) - Standard Warranty Offer (Detail Provided Upon Request) - Standard Wage Rates - Removal of Existing Play Equipment, Border or Safety Surfacing Material - Site Work of Any Kind. Exclusions include, site grading (owner to provide max slope of 1%), site restoration, drainage, etc. - Border for Play Space - Permits of Any Kind Unless addressed prior to the installation quote being issued or specifically documented herein, any issues encountered that impede - Private Utility Locates (irrigation, low voltage, lighting, etc.) - Additional Labor Due to Site Access. Require 8' Wide Clearance from Staging Area to Play Space. - Additional Labor and/or Related Costs Due to Subsurface Conditions (Rock, Hardpan, Heavy Clay, Ground Water, etc.) - Additional Labor and/or Related Costs Due to Working in Unstable Soils (Sand, Pea Rock, Mud, Poor Site Drainage, etc.) - Offsite Removal of Spoils From Footing Holes or Other Excavation. Can be stockpiled for owner removal or left in play space - Disposal of Packing Material. Can be Stockpiled for Owner Removal or Deposited in Owners Onsite Dumpster Title:Phone: Date: $58,188.21 Page 2 of 2 the progress or completion of the project as quoted will result in additional charges. Acceptance of Quotation: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Directo PO#: Signature:ryanr@mendota-heights.com February 26, 2019 Wentworth Park Mendota Heights, MN 2019 State Contract List Price QTY NO DESCRIPTION PRICE EXT PRICE 1 114665A Arch Bridge (42") 2,126$ 2,126.00$ 1 120873B 84"Disc Challenge w/Handhold Panels 16"Deck Diff Attached To 24"Dk DB 2,747$ 2,747.00$ 1 111812A Headform Set -$ -$ 1 169318B Wood Plank Wiggle Ladder 40"Deck w/Recycled Wood-Grain Handholds DB 1,333$ 1,333.00$ 1 207581A The Ascent Rock 5,595$ 5,595.00$ 1 207582A The Bend Rock 7,343$ 7,343.00$ 1 152907C Deck Link w/Barriers Steel end panels 3 Steps 2,449$ 2,449.00$ 3 111228A Square Tenderdeck 939$ 2,817.00$ 1 121949A Tri-Deck Kick Plate 8"Rise 152$ 152.00$ 2 122197A 90* Triangular Tenderdeck 793$ 1,586.00$ 1 152911B Curved Transfer Module Right 40"Dk DB 2,530$ 2,530.00$ 1 193168B Netplex 7-Post w/3-Roofs Steel Posts and DB Only 10,110$ 10,110.00$ 1 224086A Disc Net Climber w/Double Swoosh Slide for 7-Post Mainstructure 23,634$ 23,634.00$ 1 111357A Chinning Bar Alum DB 490$ 490.00$ 1 120872A Swing Out 1,227$ 1,227.00$ 1 123824A Triple Ring Fling 2,449$ 2,449.00$ 1 193170A LolliLadder w/2 E-Pods 2,313$ 2,313.00$ 1 111403O 150"Steel Post For Roof DB 359$ 359.00$ 3 111403K 182"Steel Post For Roof DB 384$ 1,152.00$ 2 111404O 132"Steel Post DB 278$ 556.00$ 3 111404M 148"Steel Post DB 323$ 969.00$ 3 111404E 116"Alum Post DB 283$ 849.00$ 1 111404D 124"Alum Post DB 323$ 323.00$ 3 111404C 132"Alum Post DB 338$ 1,014.00$ 3 111404A 148"Alum Post DB 359$ 1,077.00$ 4 178470A Pine Tree Accent Topper 1,121$ 4,484.00$ 1 169317B Firepole w/Recycled Wood-Grain Handholds 72"Dk DB 1,379$ 1,379.00$ 1 222708A WhooshWinder Slide 72"Dk DB 4,641$ 4,641.00$ Cost of PlayStructure Items 85,704.00$ INDEPENDENT: 1 123831A SuperScoop DB Only 970$ 970.00$ 1 123832B SuperScoop Wheelchair Acc DB 889$ 889.00$ 1 148637A Seesaw 4-Seats DB 3,151$ 3,151.00$ 1 164075B Double Bobble Rider DB 1,894$ 1,894.00$ 1 205800A TopsyTurny Spinner 42"Bury DB Only 4,535$ 4,535.00$ 1 182503C Welcome Sign (LSI Provided) Ages 5-12 years Direct Bury -$ -$ 2 174018A Belt Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height 116$ 232.00$ 1 176038G Full Bucket Seat ProGuard Chains for Toddler Swing 293$ 293.00$ 1 177337A Toddler Swing Add-On Beam 460$ 460.00$ 1 177345A Single Post Swing Frame 52" Bury Additional Bay 8' Beam Height Only 919$ 919.00$ 1 237296A Friendship Swing w/Single Post Frame 52" Bury ProGuard Chains 2,969$ 2,969.00$ Cost of Independent Items 16,312.00$ Cost of Equipment 102,016.00$ Total 102,016.00$ Please sign below if you approve of the colors represented in the photo above. EQUI PMENT COLOR SI GN OFF Wentworth Park INSERT PHOTO HERE Customer Signature:______________________________________ Date: _____________ Color Palette See Next Page for Details