Loading...
2020-11-04 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, November 4, 2020 6:00 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 October 20, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the September 22, 2020 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes c. Acknowledge the October 8, 2020 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes d. Approve the Appointment of Michael Winters as a Mendota Heights Firefighter e. Approve 2020-2021 Insurance Renewal and Election to Not Waive Statutory Limits f. Approve Resolution 2020-73 Accept Donation of Gifts g. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing a. Resolution 2020-72 Approving a Critical Area Permit for 744 Woodridge Drive (Planning Case No. 2020-22) 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2020-75 Approving CARES Funding and Reimbursement of COVID-19 Related Expenditures 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 20, 2020 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICER WAGMAN Police Chief Kelly McCarthy introduced Officer Wagman. Mayor Garlock conducted the swearing in of Police Officer Wagman. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy recognized Officer Albindia who has been recognized for the second time by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Mayor Garlock expressed the appreciation of the Council for Officer Albindia’s hard work. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Mayor Garlock stated that there is a request to add item 10c, regarding Planning Case #2020-15. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item g for separate discussion. a. Approval of October 7, 2020 City Council Minutes b. Approval of October 13, 2020 Council Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge September 8, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes d. Approve Temporary Increase in Employee Vacation Leave Carryover e. Approve Resolution 2020-71 Accepting Park Bench Donation at Victoria Highlands f. Approve Resolution 2020-68 Formally Accepting Donation g. Acknowledge August 2020 Par 3 Financial Report h. Approval of September 2020 Treasurer’s Report i. Approve Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G) ACKNOWLEDGE PAR 3 FINANCIAL REPORT Councilor Duggan acknowledged the great work that Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence and her staff have done to keep the golf course open and well maintain. Councilor Duggan moved to ACKNOWLEDGE PAR 3 FINANCIAL REPORT. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PRESENTATIONS A) RESOLUTION 2020-69 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL ON THE SALE OF $3,475,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020A Keith Dahl, representing Ehlers and Associates, provided background information and explained that the Council is being asked to approve the sale of $3,475,000 of General Obligation Improvement Bonds. page 4 Councilor Petschel thanked Mr. Dahl for sharing the positive comments related to the City’s budget and reserves. She commented that the premium is also good news for the City and its residents. She thanked Ehlers for their assistance and to the finance staff. Mayor Garlock also expressed thanks, noting that in his time on the Council each bond sold with Ehlers has been favorable for the City. Councilor Duggan moved adoption of RESOLUTION 2020-69 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL ON THE SALE OF THE $3,475,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2020A, PROVIDING FOR THEIR ISSUANCE AND PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF TAX ABATEMENTS, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) FRIENDLY HILLS PARK HOCKEY RINK – PICKLEBALL COURTS Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence explained that the Council was being asked to approve the Friendly Hills Hockey Rink as a designated site for pickleball and authorize staff to solicit quotes for the project. Councilor Paper asked why an extra court is also not being added at Marie Park as there are requests. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that could be added into the proposal. She believed that there would only be room for one additional court. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he would have to measure as to whether one or two courts could be added. Councilor Paper asked the type of resurfacing that would be done at Friendly Hills. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the asphalt is in good shape and provided additional details on the resurfacing that would be completed. Councilor Petschel referenced the minutes from the Park and Recreation Commission and commented that she was very pleased with their work and complimented the group for their work. She believed that this would be a great place for pickleball. Councilor Paper asked how long the courts are open. page 5 Recreation and Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that the courts will stay open as long as possible. She noted that she spoke with users earlier in the week that said they would play in the snow. Councilor Petschel asked if the smother surface would make better ice for the hockey rink as well. Recreation and Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence confirmed that they have had better success flooding the Marie Park rinks. Councilor DUGGAN moved to approve THE FRIENDLY HILLS PARK HOCKEY RINK FOR PICKLEBALL COURTS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SOLICIT QUOTES FOR THE PROJECT AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE OR TWO COURTS AT MARIE PARK. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE MARIE PARK PLAYGROUND REMODEL Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated the Council was being asked to authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals for a playground remodeling at Marie Park. Councilor Miller commented on the cost to remove a tree, noting that price seems high. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that is a reasonable cost for a tree of that size. Councilor Paper asked what equipment would be kept. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that the City is proposing to not keep any of the equipment. She stated that it has been determined that some of the items are not in compliance and they did not feel that any of the pieces could be retained. Councilor Paper asked if the sand diggers and spring riders are worn out. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that as they are bringing in contractors to complete the work, they believed it best to remove the items that are nearing the end of their usefulness. Councilor Paper asked why the container edging is not adjusted to bring the swings into conformance. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence replied that a new container edging was included in the packet and identifies a much larger footprint for the swings. She stated that the existing swings have a considerable amount of rust, which is a concern. page 6 Councilor Paper asked if the swings could be recoated. He stated that he would not want items to be removed simply for aesthetics when they could be repurposed if the cost is within reason. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that there was a discussion as part of the Wentworth remodeling project, which found that the actual cost of the swing set is comparable to a rehab of the swings. Councilor Paper stated that he would like to see a quote from someone other than the salesperson selling the playground equipment. Councilor Petschel stated that she would support looking into that as well. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that he could obtain a quote from another paint vendor who will be completing the same type of work on the street lights. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that staff completes monthly inspections of the playground equipment and there have been issues with the swings. She stated that the repairs were delayed because it was believed that they were going to be replaced but she could authorize the repairs. Mayor Garlock moved to AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE MARIE PARK PLAYGROUND REMODEL. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 C) PLANNING CASE #2020-15 City Administrator Mark McNeill provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to accept the extension of time for review for Valley View Oak 3rd Addition. Councilor Duggan read into the record an email which each member of the City Council had received from Julie Hunt regarding the requested extension of time. Mayor Garlock moved to ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE REVIEW TIME FOR PLANNING CASE #2020-15 BY 90 DAYS. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City has a legal obligation to hold a canvassing meeting following the General Election and suggested that be held on Thursday, November 12th. He noted that there is also a need for a Council Work Session to discuss recreation items and suggested that occur on that date as well. He confirmed the consensus of the Council to meet in a special session at 2:45 PM, with the work session meeting to follow. page 7 COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Garlock commented that the addition and remodeling of the Fire Hall is almost complete and noted that if it stays on course, the project could come in under budget. He thanked staff for their hard work on the project. Councilor Miller asked everyone to drive more slowly and cautiously. Councilor Paper welcomed Officer Wagman to the City and thanked Lori Smith and her staff for the work they have done with the election, noting that almost half of the registered voters have already voted early. He reminded everyone to get out and vote. Councilor Duggan thanked staff, noting that he has noticed people voting early every time he is at City Hall. He commented that it is helpful to clear snow from around the hydrants, for those that live near hydrants. He wished everyone success and safety with the upcoming Halloween holiday. ADJOURN Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of August 25, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2020 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-19 KELLY VEAZIE, 2142 FOX PLACE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Kelly Veazie is seeking a variance from the side-yard setback standards to install a new driveway/parking pad next to an existing attached two-car garage. The subject property is located at 2142 Fox Place. 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 applicant has provided a “Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from four of her neighbors not objecting to the variance request. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff reviewed the different options before the Commission which include recommending approval, denial or tabling the request which would require a 60-day extension of the review period. page 9 Commissioner Toth asked if the 10-foot variance would be to the property line, and staff confirmed that to be true. He noted that the City Code states that a camper could be parked on the backside of the garage and stated that the fence in the picture appears to restrict the ability to park a camper in that location as it is less than 10 feet. He asked the elevation between the two properties. He asked if asphalt in that location would impact the neighboring home under heavy rain. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that typically the reason for a setback is to require grassy areas between properties to help drainage. He confirmed that placing hard surface in that area could impact a neighboring property owner. He stated that the applicant could work with their contractor to ensure that there are not drainage problems for the neighbor. He noted that there would still be an additional 10 feet past the proposed hardcover before the rain would enter the neighboring property. Commissioner Toth asked what would happen if the neighboring homeowner submitted the same type of request. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the neighboring homeowner requested the same variance that could result in two pads next to each other. He noted that there are homes in the community that have driveways that abut each other. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there is a provision in the Code for parking a camper in the setback area with the body of the camper hanging over the property line. He noted that within the report, the dimensions of the body of the camper with the wheelbase could possibly cause the camper to hang over the property line. He noted that the two-foot reduction in the pavement could alleviate that problem. He referenced the issue of drainage and asked if there has been discussion of making this drive pad porous to allow drainage. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was offered as an alternative suggestion. He noted that could be suggested as a condition of approval if desired by the Commission. Commissioner Corbett asked what would be done to enforce driveways that did not receive variances. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this trailer was parked off to the side, and the applicant did indicate before the meeting that she called the City, and someone indicated that was an acceptable means of parking with bark mulch. He noted that is not an allowed form of parking and therefore if the variance is denied, the applicant would no longer be able to park the trailer in that location. Commissioner Corbett stated that there are existing driveways that encroach into the setback that were never permitted and asked what could be done to enforce that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that those would be considered preexisting. page 10 Commissioner Toth commented that the camper is sitting right on the property line, or within one foot. He noted that a letter was received from the adjacent neighbor that had no objection to this. He noted that if the neighbor sells their home, the next homebuyer may have a complaint. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the issue before the Commission is the properties as they stand today and not whom may own the home in the future. Chair Magnuson stated that she did not see anything about screening planned and asked if there have been conversations about that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that with a ten-foot pad there would be no room to screen. He noted that with the alternate plan it would allow for a screening measure. Chair Magnuson asked if the connector pad were removed would this just be considered driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it would still be considered a pad and most people would like the connection to prevent marks in the grass when driving the camper/trailer to the pad. Chair Magnuson asked if staff has discussed the alternate plan with the applicant. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he has not been able to discuss that with the applicant. He stated that the applicant did receive the report and can respond to it tonight. Kelly Veazie, applicant, stated that she called the City in 2018 when they purchased the camper and were told that woodchips would be fine for parking as that would be removable. She stated that she would be fine with the alternate plan as well. She stated that she was told by her contractor that cement on the other side of the garage would help to prevent further bowing of the wall of their garage. She confirmed that the contractor has stated that he will pitch the concrete pad to prevent drainage into the neighboring property. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the applicant is familiar with porous pavement. Ms. Veazie replied that she is not and would have to do some research on that. She stated that if woodchips were acceptable, they could go back to the woodchips as well. She stated that they were requesting the cement because of the overall project they are doing. Chair Magnuson stated that City Code requires hard surface parking. She noted that perhaps two strips could be hard surface with woodchips in the middle. Ms. Veazie stated that would leave them without the cement strip on the side of the garage, which is needed to support the garage wall. Commissioner Field asked if the applicant would be inclined towards the alternative or whether the Commission should only be looking at the request. page 11 Ms. Veazie stated that they would like to be able to park the camper on the side and therefore would support an alternative if necessary. Commissioner Toth asked where the applicant would park the camper if the variance is not allowed. Ms. Veazie stated that there is an offsite area in North Branch where the camper could be parked, but that would be inconvenient. She stated that they have also looked at the backyard and talked with the fence company to check the cost to extend the fence to ten feet. She stated that the cost to extend the fence would be about $2,500 and may interfere with bushes planted by the neighbor. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. No comments. 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 FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND CONDITIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE VARIANCE BE AN EIGHT FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN A TEN FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE. Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett asked for justification on condition two, as he does not see a need for this that is property specific. He believed that this is the wrong way to proceed. Commissioner Petschel stated that while he understands the desire to create regulations for nonconforming lots, he believed that the commission attempted to do that during the comprehensive plan process and it did not move forward. Commissioner Corbett stated that the commission attempted to create new confirming lot sizes but it was agreed that the better option would be to create new ordinances that would create different conditions for nonconforming lots. Commissioner Petschel commented that he does not believe that this applicant should be punished for lack of action from the commission/city. Commissioner Corbett agreed. page 12 Commissioner Toth stated that the applicant stated that there are other options for parking the camper offsite and stated that if these types of variances continue, it could create a situation where asphalt extends from property to property. He stated that homeowners should plan ahead when purchasing a home and additional property. Commissioner Corbett stated that the plight is brought on by the applicant and there are alternatives available. He stated that this property is very similar to the properties adjacent to it. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that if there were ordinances in place that governed nonconforming lots, a variance would possibly not be required. He noted that the uniqueness of the property is that it does not meet the 100 foot width and therefore has less land to work with than it should. Chair Magnuson stated that according to the law, unique means unique and therefore has difficulty in finding this unique or finding a practical difficulty. She stated that she would be intrigued by the compromise option but noted that is not the motion before the commission right now. Commissioner Toth stated that he would be afraid that the commission could see a number of variances moving forward and the commission may see the same situations which result in more boats and trailers parked in neighbors that could be an eyesore. He stated that if one variance of this type is approved, many more could follow. AYES: 2 (PETSCHEL AND MAZZITELLO) NAYS: 5 Further discussion: Commissioner Field stated that he felt additional work was needed between the Applicant and city staff in resolving some of the variance and site issues, and explore other alternatives. Commissioner Field stated the Commission was not prepared to address or resolve those issues at tonight’s meeting, and suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant and staff to work together and bring back alternatives for further consideration. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE OCTOBER MEETING IN ORDER TO ENABLE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVES. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (CORBETT) Chair Magnuson noted that this matter will be tabled to the October 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff will extend the 60-day review period in writing to allow that additional review and discussion time. page 13 B) PLANNING CASE 2020-14 CALVIN TRAN W/TEMPO HOMES & VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE – RECONSIDERATION OF CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City Administrator Mark McNeill provided background information on the request and the path that it has followed since the last review of the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran and Vinh Truong are requesting reconsideration of a previously considered Critical Area Permit (CAP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications on the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve. The CAP is needed for all major development activities in the critical area overlay district; and the CUP approves an oversized attached garage up to 1,480 sf in size. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; letters received prior to the meeting have been distributed to the Commission. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett stated that he is confused with the timeline and the postponed review by the Council. He stated that the Commission already reviewed and approved the previous plan. He stated that the applicant’s builder explained that drainage would be improved from the current conditions under the last application. He stated that he respects that no one wants to see a home in their backyard but there is nothing to substantiate that request from the neighbors. He stated that the report, paid for by the neighbors, was submitted the day before the Council review and contains vague language that states there is a potential for drainage problems. He was unsure why that was not talked about publicly at the last Council meeting. He stated that he is also curious as to whether the applicants really want this plan or feel like they can only move forward with this plan. He stated that in his opinion there was no reason to delay the review of the Council and there is no reason the Commission should be reviewing this again. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that after the July Planning Commission review, a number of neighbors approached and asked for Councilmembers to meet and/or discuss with them as well as submitted a number of emails and letters expressing their concerns. He stated that staff had approached the applicants to alert them that there are concerns being brought to the attention of the Council and asked if the applicant would be willing to delay the review. He stated that initially the applicant wanted to proceed to the Council meeting. He stated that the report then showed up to the City the day before the Council meeting and staff provided the report to the applicant and their consultant. He stated that staff and the applicant were not prepared to answer the concerns within the report prior to the Council meeting and the applicant agreed to postpone the review in order to have additional time to review the report. He stated that since that time staff met with the applicant and some of the neighbors. He noted that the report from staff now reflects page 14 the new plan, whereas the neighborhood report reflects the old plan. He noted that when staff coordinated a meeting between the applicant and neighbors, the applicant agreed to move the home to the south and staff has reviewed and approves of the new plan. Chair Magnuson stated that at the August meeting the Commission was given the choice whether it would like to review the plan again or whether it did not feel that necessary and the consensus of the Commission was to review the plan again. Commissioner Petschel asked if the CAP and CUP are only required because of the arbitrary lines of the Critical Area as drawn and if it was not within the Critical Area is would not be receiving the review. He asked for confirmation that this would not affect the bluff line. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that if this were not within the Critical Area Overlay it would only require a CUP for the size of the garage. He confirmed that there are no bluffs or water features in this area. Commissioner Corbett asked if it would be possible for the Commission or applicant to consider the original design, as that has already been approved. Commissioner Field stated that is not the issue in front of the Commission. Chair Magnuson stated that this plan was resubmitted by the applicant and that is before the Commission. Commissioner Corbett stated that his question is whether there was a genuine desire to resubmit a new plan. Calvin Tran, applicant, stated that they would like to move forward. Vinh Truong, applicant, stated that ideally his family would like to place the home in the back of the lot. He stated that after speaking at the last meeting and with the neighbors, they just want to move forward with building and therefore have submitted the redrafted plan. He stated that he is frustrated because he feels like some people are playing this out for him versus his desires as the property owner. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant felt pressured to put this plan together to get this to pass, as he did not see a reason to change the plan. He stated that the original plan looked good and addressed drainage. He noted that the third-party report came in and perhaps the applicant felt that he needed to placate those concerns or voting members. He stated that he does not want to slow down the process but does not want the applicant to feel that he must choose this second- choice home as he feels the applicant has the right to build where he would like. Mr. Truong stated that he does not want to ruffle feathers and wants to proceed with the build as efficiently as they can. He stated that they felt that they met the City’s requirements and there would not be a point to spend time and money to develop a new plan. He stated that this is his second choice, but he wants to move forward with the build. page 15 Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Kay Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, thanked the City and the applicant for the healthy discussions that have occurred to develop a compromise. She believed that everyone supports the proposed plan and noted that they are pleased to welcome the Truongs to the neighborhood as the lot has been overgrown for years. She stated that everything that she has seen presented in the new plan address the concerns related to drainage and the rate of discharge. She stated that a qualified engineer reviewed the engineering of the original plan and developed a new plan that presented a more acceptable rate of drainage and rate of discharge. Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, agreed that they are at a good place following the useful discussion with the applicant and his builder. He stated that the plan presented addresses all of the issues that have been brought forward and encouraged the Commission to approve the proposal. Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, stated that she would have preferred the first plan as this plan will more significantly impact her home. She stated that it appears the drainage that was going northeast will now go south and west, which is towards her lot noting that her lot is the lowest lot in the neighborhood. She noted that her driveway will now be 20 feet from the home. She stated that Mr. Truong purchased the lot and should be allowed to build the home he wants as he will be there longer than the existing neighbors in this area. She believed that Mr. Truong should be able to place the home where he wants. She noted that the lot has been vacant for years and someone finally purchased the lot. She stated that if the neighbors really wanted their privacy, they could have purchased the lot. She stated that the neighbors have spent their time and money fighting Mr. Truong’s dream and she is very bothered by that. She stated that she welcomes Mr. Truong to the neighborhood, and she will welcome him no matter the home placement. She stated that this is not fair to the property owner and she feels that Mr. Truong was bullied by the neighbors and perhaps members of the Council. She stated that Mr. Truong does not want to fight, and it makes her sad that this has occurred. Edie Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that they welcome Mr. Truong and expected a home to be there. She stated that they are not trying to bully anyone but always expected a home to be built in alignment with the other homes on the street. She stated that the report they submitted was not intended to get to everyone late and was completed as quickly as it could be. She stated that the neighbors did not feel that the City was hearing their concerns about the water issues and house placement and the report was the only way they felt they could be heard. She stated that they do not want to ruin Mr. Truong’s dream home, but they also want to protect their homes and have developed this as a compromise. Greg Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, echoed the comments of his wife. He stated that they were not aware of the request until they received the notice for the Planning Commission meeting and therefore hired an engineer to complete the report which they submitted to the City once completed. He thanked the builder and owner for the opportunity to meet on September 3rd and appreciate what they have done to take everyone’s concerns. He stated that the new home placement has assisted with drainage concerns, continuation or orderly development of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. page 16 Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that there is a higher level of care and concern within the Critical Area and how variances are approved as water issues are a big deal. She believes that the second plan has remedied the concerns. John Faraci with Lake and Land Surveying, stated that he completed the drainage calculations for the first plan. He stated that the grading plan was directing the drainage to the front of the house towards Victoria. He stated that the models they use are designed for 250 acres or more. He stated that the report submitted by the neighbors took a stab at the drainage but was not accurate as they did not have the house plans and were not aware it was a flat roof and therefore did not put all the facts together. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with the assessment of Mr. Faraci, noting that the report submitted by the engineer for the neighbors did not have all the facts and therefore had to make assumptions. Commissioner Katz stated that he has concerns with the drainage towards the home at 1219 Victoria Curve, as that garage currently collects water. He asked if the new plan would alleviate that issue or whether it would compound that issue. Mr. Faraci replied that all of the drainage would be less than the current rates. He stated that there would be an increase of stormwater because of the construction of a home and garage but that will be drained towards Victoria Curve. He stated that the rates towards 1219 would be equal to or less than the current volume of water that drains to the property and described the path drainage would take. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he was not at the July meeting but reviewed those materials. He stated that he reviewed the original drainage plan and the new grading plan and in every scenario that he can see, the worst drainage scenario for 1219 is the existing condition; either development proposal would reduce the rate towards 1219. Commissioner Toth asked if there was any thought given to the placement of the home on the original plan towards using drain tile around the home or within the property that would eliminate water from flowing to other properties and instead directing that to a pond or settlement area on the property. Mr. Faraci stated that could have been done by pipe, but he has elected to do that by gravity towards the road. Chair Magnuson stated that the notice to the public was of reconsideration of a new plan and therefore the Commission needs to take action on that. She stated that notice was not provided for review of a previous plan and therefore cannot review that option, noting that perhaps the Council could make that determination. Mr. Tran stated that his client would want to know if this goes forward, could there be two options to present the original and amended plans to the Council. He noted that the original plan received page 17 approval from the Commission and therefore if this is also approved, would the property owner have the option of presenting both options. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that technically there is a favorable recommendation on the first plan, which was never officially presented to the Council. He stated that the application was extended and therefore within the statutory review time which would allow a review of the Council. He stated that by making a recommendation on the second option, both options could be presented to the Council. He noted that he would review that with the City Attorney as it would be unusual to present two options to a Council and have the Council make the choice. He, however, believed that the Commission could make the choice to present both options. Chair Magnuson stated that it is her opinion that the Planning Commission can only take action on the matter before it tonight and therefore would be uncomfortable making a recommendation for the Council to review both options. She noted that the Council could notice both applications and make the choice itself. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the report indicates that this is a redo or reconsideration of another plan and that is why the notification was completed again. He believed that it would be a good idea to present one option to the Council and the Council can make the choice. He agreed that the recommendation tonight should only be on this plan presented tonight. Commissioner Field stated that the only thing to consider tonight would be the reconsideration, you cannot have two outstanding plans proposed for the same location. He noted that the Council can make the choice to review both options if it desires. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the case heard in July was 2020-14 and this is an amendment to that case. Chair Magnuson stated that the question can be deferred to the City Attorney and the Council can make the determination on what it would like to do. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW page 18 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED ATTACHED GARAGE UP TO 1,480 SF IN SIZE, 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. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE (MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FT FOR EVERGREENS) FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST. 5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. 6. 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 7, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • Special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 8th to review the Culligan request • Concern was raised over a shed constructed on Lilac Lane, but it meets the ordinance requirements. It was noted that staff will be presenting possible amendments to the ordinance in the near future. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:39 P.M. page 19 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 8, 2020 The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 8, 2020 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Commissioner Andrew Katz was absent. Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-15 MICHELLE CULLIGAN (ACTING ON BEHALF OF LARRY AND MARY CULLIGAN), GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf of her parents and property owners Larry and Mary Culligan, is seeking to subdivide an existing vacant parcel into nine new lots, to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”. The plat would create eight new single-family building lots and one existing lot for the Culligan home. This preliminary plat includes a request for a critical area permit (CAP) due to the location of this site in the Mississippi River Critical Area, a conditional use permit (CUP) to develop and disturb areas on slopes between 18 and 40 percent throughout the site, and variances to certain roadway standards, retaining wall standards, structure setbacks and other standards related to proposed construction activities. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; and noted that the concerns and responses were included as a part of the packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff reviewed the possible actions the Commission could take. Commissioner Corbett asked staff for additional details on the secondary DNR letter received related to this request. He stated that in his interpretation of the letter, it states that the City has antiquated ordinances for what defines a bluff; therefore, this plan is based on antiquated and poor definitions. He stated that the City should be using this guidance for its decision, as the City ordinances will need to be updated in the future to match these 2017 regulations of the DNR. page 21 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that although the DNR did update its rules, the City has an identified amount of time to update its ordinance and is currently operating under the existing ordinances. Commissioner Corbett commented that based on the new definitions, this whole area would be a bluff and undevelopable. Chair Magnuson stated that she shared those same concerns. She stated that there is a rule that requires cities to adopt ordinances that meet the new standards but until that is done, cities are required to review requests under their existing ordinances. She stated that notice has been provided to the City and the City has one year to update its ordinances. Commissioner Petschel asked if it is known when the subsequent Braun Intertec report would be available. He stated that it appears the report makes no statement about the stability of the land post-project. COMMISSIONER FIELD, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that they took the feedback, questions and concerns raised in July and made the changes to the plan as proposed tonight. He stated that the objective has been to approach this in an environmentally conscious method with a focus on preservation of wooded lands, stormwater management/drainage/grading, retaining walls, soils analysis and slope stability. She provided some pictures of the existing conditions on the site. Tom Goodrum, Loucks, stated that he was part of the DNR Task Force and Met Council related to the rules process and confirmed that cities are intended to follow their existing rules until their ordinances are updated. He stated that within the critical area, this property is identified as CASR (critical area separated from river) and noted that all of the adjacent properties are within the same CASR area and are developed. He stated that the DNR expects development within this area of the critical area, as long as it is sensitive and follows the appropriate regulations. He stated that this project is focuses on the goals of the CASR as it minimizes development impacts and focuses on erosion and stormwater control. He stated that the variances are requested in order to minimize development impacts on erosion and stormwater control. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Goodrum is a civil engineer. Mr. Goodrum replied that he is a City Planner. Commissioner Petschel asked if these statements should then be considered statement of fact. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he would ask that the geotechnical engineer to address that issue. page 22 Commissioner Petschel stated that he is attempting to consider the comments as statement of fact but wanted to ensure that he has the proper credentials. Mr. Goodrum provided details on the slope analysis. He stated that their proposed development is designed to focus on erosion and stormwater control issues. Michael St. Martin, Loucks, stated that he has been involved for the past eight months, along with Braun Intertec. He reviewed the project area summary identifying areas that would be placed in conservation easement through the HOA, areas that would be used for development of homes and infrastructure, and the area designated for the pond. He provided details on the stormwater management and drainage plan, including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and ongoing maintenance duties. He described the path that the drainage currently follows to Mendota and noted that the majority of that water post development would be captured through this system and its storm sewer. He reviewed the proposed rates of reduction for the property under the proposed conditions. He described details of the grading plan and retaining walls as related to the soils and slope analysis. Commissioner Petschel asked for input on the statement that the City’s retaining wall ordinance having no basis in engineering best practices. Mr. St. Martin replied stated described the challenge with a five-foot wall height and 20-foot terrace. He stated that with that design they would never catch grade and would have had to remove many more trees. Commissioner Petschel recognized that the ordinance is not as flexible and adds design challenges. He asked if the City is violating engineering best practices or whether there would be a reason someone would want 20-foot separation. Mr. St. Martin replied that it is very conservative and would consider that a landscaping wall to make up grade. Commissioner Toth confirmed that the road would be the first element and asked the number of yards of soil that will be removed in order to put in the base and where the soil would be stored. Mr. St. Martin explained that this would be almost an entirely imported project. He described the process they would follow and where they would stockpile soils. He reviewed the timeline of when the different site improvements would be completed. Commissioner Toth asked what would be put in place to prevent the soil from moving down the hill when constructing the retaining walls. Mr. St. Martin explained how the retaining wall construction process would occur. He stated that he is confident that during a rain event, the soils would be held in place and described the materials that could be used to reinforce the soils. He provided details on possible landscaping species. page 23 Commissioner Toth stated that over a period of time the tree root will grow down and could find the weakest point of the retaining wall, which could cause it to collapse. Mr. St. Martin stated that the root mass itself helps to stabilize the wall. Commissioner Toth asked when excavation would begin if this project is approved. Mr. St. Martin replied that would occur in the spring. Commissioner Toth commented that this parcel will be open and the soil will absorb next year’s moisture but asked if after a point of time, because of the freeze/thaw cycle, the layers of rock could expand and cause a failure in the wall system. Mr. St. Martin replied that the key component is to control the water and provided details on the freed raining rock system that would be tied into the geosystem. Commissioner Toth asked the maintenance that would be completed on the walls and who would be responsible. Mr. St. Martin provided details on the maintenance and noted that would be the responsibility of the HOA. He provided details on the drainage system that would be installed as a part of the road construction. He explained that they are intercepting the drainage at multiple locations. He compared the existing condition to the proposed conditions. Commissioner Toth commented that the drain tile would only be efficient when it is not frozen conditions. He noted that under spring melt conditions that water would flow down to the wall. Mr. St. Martin stated that the drain tile under the street would not be frozen and would still intercept that water and direct that to the pond and downstream storm sewer. Commissioner Petschel asked why a barrier is not shown in one location and asked for details related to liability. Mr. St. Martin commented that fences could be installed atop the walls and at the ends of the walls which would prevent people from accessing that area without climbing a fence. He stated that it would be a question related to foot traffic and noted that they would review those details further. He provided photographic examples of different retaining walls and fencing. Commissioner Corbett asked if this project could be completed without variances. Mr. St. Martin commented that they would never catch grade without the retaining wall variance. He noted that without the three-tier system they would be using the house as the first tier. Commissioner Corbett stated that there are so many variances requested and that one could wonder if this is the right fit if it cannot meet the requirements of so many ordinances. He asked for input on the DNR letter. page 24 Mr. St. Martin replied that he has built projects on very challenging sites with bluffs and noted that the key is controlling the water. He described the measures that are put in place to ensure it is done right. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant has any thoughts as to why the DNR recommendation changed to lead in that way. He commented that the City has experienced many failures along the bluff line in the past five years. Mr. St. Martin replied that the DNR is charged to protect natural resources and therefore will take a conservative approach. He stated that they would like to build a development in the proper manner to ensure that there are not problems down the road, and they believe that can be done. Commissioner Corbett asked who would be responsible for the holding pond and ensuring that is working. Mr. St. Martin commented that the front entry landscaping and pond would be a part of the HOA owned land. He stated that the walls would technically be owned by the homeowner whose property it would lie on, but the HOA would maintain the walls. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that in a typical development, the roadway, utilities, and stormwater ponds do become an asset of the City. He stated that he requested that the pond be in an accessible location and that is why this location was chosen. Commissioner Corbett noted that his question was in attempt to determine whom would be responsible in terms of liability if things were to fail. He asked if there has been any work with the citizens of Mendota to benchmark the existing conditions and ensure that this development does not exacerbate those conditions. Mr. St. Marin noted that they heard the comments from the residents in Mendota and provided examples of how some of that water will be intercepted through the project. Commissioner Corbett asked what would happen if a pylon for a retaining wall tapped into an underground spring and exacerbated the current flow. He believed that a plan should be in place for the what ifs. Mr. St. Martin explained the process that would occur to build the wall and noted that everything would be visible throughout the process. Commissioner Toth referenced the base of the wall and asked the depth at which that would be buried. Mr. St. Martin replied that it would be two to three courses below grade. He provided details on the type of block that is being considered, noting that it would most likely be eight inches high and 16 inches in length. page 25 Commissioner Mazzitello asked where the bedrock is on the diagram. Mr. St. Martin replied that they did not hit bedrock and their deepest coring was 63 feet. Chair Magnuson commented that having the material prepared earlier rather than receiving it tonight would have been helpful to allow additional review and research. She stated that she appreciates the comments, but it would have been helpful to have the information earlier. Mr. Goodrum acknowledged that this request includes a number of variances and provided further detail on why each variance is required. Bob Brewstal, Mendota resident, stated that retaining walls are not containing walls. He stated that the surface water will filter into the rock and down below. He asked the definition of critical area. Chair Magnuson commented that there is a Federal law which gives states and local governments the ability to regulate the delineated Mississippi Critical Area. She stated that the critical area has specific requirements that must be adhered to in addition to the other zoning regulations. Mr. Brewstal stated that the engineer referenced retaining walls, rather than containing walls, which means that the water will come downhill one way or the other. He stated that he is very concerned with the water that will drain down to Mendota. He commented that another local native American group will be providing a letter to Mendota Heights the following day in objection to the project. Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that they moved to Mendota Heights five years ago and find the location near the river ideal. She commented that they have been enthusiastically welcomed to the neighborhood. She recognized the amount of work that the Planning Commission does in its review of applications and thanked the Commission for their service. She stated that the 49-page proposal introduced by Loucks in July was technical, as were they answers they provided tonight related to why the Commission should approve the variances. She commented that this is within the critical area and expressed concern at the number of variances that would be required in order to support this project. She stated that the initial July proposal was missing key components related to the City’s critical area plan. She stated that the neighbors also expressed concern. She thanked the applicant for addressing some of the concerns that arose and additional details that were requested earlier. She stated that she is concerned with what could occur from extensive digging in this area and the impact that could occur to neighboring properties. She displayed a map stated that this area considered for the project is considered a bowl, which is a sensitive area. She commented that her home is on the top of the bowl, at the rim, and stated that the development is proposed to be constructed within the bowl. She explained that she has been told that when you disturb the land within the bowl it can impact the stability of the properties along the rim. She stated that has not yet been mentioned in the proposal and that is why the neighboring property owners came together to have their own report completed. She asked that if the Planning Commission recommend approval, it include a warranty from the developer that this development would not impact the neighboring properties in Mendota Heights and Mendota. She stated that earth movement is not covered by property insurance and therefore any catastrophic page 26 event would have a large impact. She stated that the report seemed to mention that the DNR is approving this but found it odd that the DNR is funding and supporting documents that shove that this area should not be developed. She stated that she finds the new DNR report concerning and asked why the City is not in compliance with the new rules. She disagrees with the Loucks answer and believes that the consultant should have an ethical requirement to share that knowledge of the DNR regulations. Kelton Barr, Hydrogeologist, stated that he was retained by several neighbors to review the hydrogeology and context of this project. He stated that the report he sent was preliminary as it was based on public information as he did not yet have the shallow Braun boring details. He provided details on the materials that makeup this area, the different layers, and underground springs. He believed deeper borings should be completed to determine where permeable layers occur. He commented that there will be flat surfaces constructed to construct the homes and therefore the area will become trellised and backfilled with sandy material which could result in more infiltration that existing conditions. He commented that drain tile requires maintenance or it will become ineffective. He stated that this particular bowl has a lot of the markings of areas that have experienced failures in the past and wanted to make sure the City is aware of that. Commissioner Field asked if the biggest impediment to rendering an opinion would be the lack of deeper borings. Mr. Barr confirmed that to be true. He stated that he would like to see borings that reach bedrock to see the lower portion of the drift. Mendota Mayor Brian Meilke thanked everyone for the careful consideration they have put into the project. He provided a photograph of winter conditions of the bluff area for the adjacent residents in Mendota, explaining that it is very steep. He stated that water can come from a hose into the bluff to water lawns. He stated that in July he requested a copy of the DNR report and did not receive it. He commented that he followed up in July and August without response from staff. He stated that on September 30th he received the “DNR approval” which is a one sentence statement that says the DNR reviewed the plans and appears to be consistent with the City’s current ordinance. He noted that there is no specification on any potential impacts or concerns. He stated that he spoke to a member of the DNR on September 30th and explained the City of Mendota’s concern and the potential impact to neighboring property owners. He stated that the DNR stated that when they received the application, they were short staffed and is why the one sentence reply was given. He noted that he was told a more in-depth review would occur. He reviewed the most recent correspondence from the DNR and their position on the original comments of the DNR, which was not meant to act as a statement of support. He read the language related regulations from the DNR which would prevent this development plan. He stated that under the new rules this proposed development would look much different. He stated that the City is now aware that this is an unbuildable site and is still considering the request. He stated that the two cities have experiences with bluff failure within the critical area. He stated that it is prudent and essential to public safety that the City consider the new standards rather than its outdated standards. Commissioner Petschel asked if CR 13 has been shut down at all in the past ten years because of landslides. page 27 Mayor Melke replied that the road has not been shut down for that purpose within the past ten years. He stated that the springs in the winter conditions cause very slippery ice patches. Commissioner Petschel referenced that the fatal landslide incident occurred in Lilydale. Chair Magnuson reviewed Minnesota State Rule related to changing of DNR regulations and that cities must continue to follow its ordinances as in place until the update occurs. Mayor Melke stated that the Commission now has the knowledge that this area is considered unbuildable and should use that knowledge in making its decision. Commissioner Field asked if the Mendota ordinances have been updated. Mayor Melke was unsure. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he was on the Mendota Heights staff for eight years and is very familiar with the critical area regulations and explained that the DNR has review authority and it is up to the cities as to whether to approve critical area permits. Steve Golias, Mendota resident and Deputy Mayor, stated that at the last meeting he was told that the pond would be City owned but at this meeting there appears to be ambiguity. He stated that he would want clarification on the ownership and maintenance. He also expressed concern that the water would connect to the MnDOT system across Victoria Curve. He stated that MnDOT has done nothing with that holding pond since about 1993. He stated that they are relying on a system which utilizes another entity’s system that is not maintained. He stated that every single one of the property owners adjacent to this project are on well water. He stated that those residents are concerned with what could happen to the hydrology of the area as disturbances are made to the slopes. He stated that he completed more research on Dodd Road and provided a brief summary. Dave Olson, Culligan Lane resident, commented that when a home was constructed uphill of him and there was a large rain event, they ended up with a gulley. He stated that there was a landslide on CR 13 that closed the roadway for a period of time due to tree removal. He stated that this is a steep and critical area and asked the City to use caution. Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, spoke against the proposal and requested variances. He referenced the instability of the area and noted the risk that the taxpayers and City would be assuming in allowing the project to go forward. He urged the Commission to deny the variances. Kay Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, stated that tonight they listened to opinions from dueling experts along with input from residents related to existing problems and changing regulations. She stated that when there is this level of disagreement on the topic it makes it clear that there are big issues that have to be considered. She stated that it is known that there are problems with water in Mendota and known landslides, therefore she would feel that this project would have significant risk and did not want to see the taxpayers of Mendota Heights supporting this request. She stated that the Culligans are wonderful neighbors and have developed areas in a responsible way. She page 28 asked if there would be a solution that would allow the Culligans to sell the property and allow the area to remain undisturbed. Ms. Culligan stated that they heard the concerns from Mendota at the last meeting and again tonight, noting that they do not take this lightly and have brought in experts that can recommend a method to develop this in a responsible manner. She stated that this would reduce the water flow. She commented that they cannot anticipate changing regulations and have worked within the City ordinance. She stated that they have tried to address concerns and provide a significant amount of information. She stated that her family has lived on the property for over 100 years, in this bowl, and provided information from other developments that have been built on the bluff and/or within the critical area. She stated that she is speaking of her specific property and not bluff areas in general. She stated that the conservation easement would be preserved to protect the slope. She stated that they appreciated the input of Mr. Barr, but Braun has assumed there was underlying water the whole time as they want to be on the conservative side to ensure that their development would hold up. She stated that they have attempted to address the previous comments and build them into their design. Seeing no one further 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 CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD ADDITION, ALONG WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT INCLUDING IN THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF OR STANDARDS REQUIRED IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES AND OTHER APPLICATIONS REQUESTED HEREIN. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL REFERENCED THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND NOTED THAT OTHER PLACES CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENT AND THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. HE NOTED THAT THE STREET VARIANCE IS THE SAME AND DOES NOT MEET PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. HE STATED THAT IF A PROVISION FOR REVIEW BY CITY PERSONNEL IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED FOR CONDITIONAL USE, THAT SHOULD BE DONE. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 29 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 20, 2020 meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:16 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 30 DATE: November 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Firefighter Rehire—Michael Winters INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the rehire of Michael Winters as a Mendota Heights Firefighter. BACKGROUND The City Council accepted the resignation of Mendota Heights Firefighter Michael (Mike) Winters at its January 7, 2020 meeting. Mike has since notified Fire Chief Dreelan that he is interested in returning to the Department. Mike originally joined the Department in November, 2015. Mike has achieved Firefighter II classification and if approved, would return at that pay class, which for 2020 is $15.70 per hour when responding to fire calls and training. Upon meeting the conditions of return which includes the completion of a physical, driving record check and City Council approval, Mike’s anticipated return date is November 9, 2020. BUDGET IMPACT Firefighter pay for fire calls and training is included in the budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the re-hire and appointment of Mike Winters to the Mendota Heights Fire Department at the Firefighter II pay class. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the re-hire and appointment of Mike Winters to the Mendota Heights Fire Department at the Firefighter II pay class. page 31 DATE: November 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Insurance Renewal INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to take action relating to liability insurance coverage, and its statutory tort limits. BACKGROUND Each year LMCIT requires the city to decide if we wish to purchase additional liability coverage and a waiver of monetary limits on the claims. The base coverage is $1,500,000 which is the basic statutory limit. In the past, we have not purchased additional coverage and have elected not to waive the statutory tort limits (meaning how much the City would have to pay in th event that it lost a liability lawsuit). The City’s insurance coverage period runs November 1, 2020 to November 1, 2021. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council pass a motion to not purchase additional liability coverage and elect not to waive the statutory tort limits. page 32 Request for City Council Action DATE: November 4, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution to Accept Donations INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to formally accept donations which were received from the MOMS Club of Mendota Heights, MN and in memory of Greg Nelson BACKGROUND By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. The MOMS Club of Mendota Heights, MN has donated tulips that were planted in Wentworth Park. Members of the MOMS Club. City staff planted the tulips on October 20. The tulips were valued at $75.00. A GoFundMe account was started by Dog Park users to raise money in memory of Greg Nelson, who had been an active user of the Dog Park community prior to his death earlier this year. In his memory, $1,905 was received from a total of 22 individuals, with the net proceeds of $1,854 being used to purchase a park bench, and plant four trees in the park. The City is grateful for these donations. BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve a resolution which formally accepts these donations. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt Resolution 2020-73 FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS TO THE CITY. By state law, 2/3 of the Council must vote to approve the resolution. page 33 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-73 RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS TO THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights accepts a donation from the following individuals and organizations: Mendota Heights MOMS Club $75 (Tulips for Wentworth Park) And to the following individuals for donations made to purchase a bench and four trees in memory of Greg Nelson: Bob Iurato $100 Anonymous $50 Kim Scanlan $25 Jane Maher $45 Paul Nelson $900 Chuck Hodgson $30 R M Vai $100 Bill Brezny and Mary Ann Fletcher Brezny $100 Steve Goldade $25 Carmel Hiner $70 Tavia Turner $20 Emmett and Louie Scanlan $25 Debra Robinson $50 Kohlman Klinge $25 Anonymous $25 Curtis Johnson $25 Katelyn Rousse $50 Elizabeth Petschel $50 Teresa Doran $40 Taffy Karel $25 page 34 Anonymous $25 Mark McNeill $100 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4tht day of November, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 page 45 page 46 page 47 Request for City Council Action DATE: November 4, 2020 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2020-72 - Critical Area Permit for 744 Woodridge Drive PUBLIC HEARING [Planning Case No. 2020-22] INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a critical area permit (CAP) to construct a new addition to an existing single family dwelling. The property is situated in the Critical Area Overlay District, and is located at 744 Woodridge Drive. BACKGROUND Aaron and Sarah Macke seek approval to build a new second-story addition to their single-family dwelling. The plan calls for a new 470-sf. living space addition located above the current sport court area, which sits adjacent to the attached garage structure. The addition will provide for two new bedrooms and a bathroom. No new foundation is needed; and no outward expansion of the existing home will take place. At the October 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented, with survey, site plan and elevation plan. A public hearing was conducted, and comments noted for the record. A copy of the 10/27/2020 Planning Staff Report and all related attachments, along with excerpt minutes from said meeting 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 (6-0) to approve a Critical Area Permit application for 744 Woodridge Drive, based on the findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation with conditions. ACTION REQUESTED Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-17.C, the City Council is required to hold a separate public hearing on critical area permit requests. The Council should open the public hearing; take public comments, close the hearing, and give final consideration on this matter. If the City Council wishes to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission, and there are no other issues related to this application, it should make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-72 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE. page 48 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-72 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2020-22] WHEREAS, Aaron and Sarah Macke (the “Applicant”) requests approval of a critical area permit (CAP) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-22, for the property located at 744 Woodridge Drive, and legally described in 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, pursuant to Title 12-3-1 of the City Code (Critical Area Overlay District), a critical area permit is required for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new second-story addition to the existing single-family residential dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed CAP application, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (6-0 vote) to approve the critical area permit, which would allow the Applicant to construct a new second story addition to the single-family dwelling in the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions and specific findings of fact to support said approval; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020, the Mendota Heights City Council conducted a separate public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing that hearing, declared that the Critical Area Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-22 may be approved, based on the following findings of fact: A. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, with little to no impacts to the river corridor, bluff area, adjacent waterway or surrounding properties. page 49 B. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new second-story living space addition are all minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. C. The proposed addition is in keeping with the existing development and character of the area. D. The expansion and construction of this new addition is allowed under city zoning ordinance, and will comply with all standards and regulations of the State Building Code and other applicable ordinances. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical area permit as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-22, for the property located at 744 Woodridge Drive is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any demolition or 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 4th day of November, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 50 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 744 Woodridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property ID No.: 27-37780-01-020 Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, IVY RIDGE ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota [Torrens Property] Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 page 51 Planning Staff Report DATE:October 27, 2020 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case 2020-22 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT:Aaron and Sarah Macke PROPERTY ADDRESS:744 Woodridge Drive ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:November 27, 2020 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants areseekinga Critical Area Permit to construct a new addition above anattached garage/sport court area to an existing single family dwelling. The subject property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, also known as the Critical Area Overlay District. 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 in this overlay district. 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 neighboring property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. The city received no objections or adverse comments from the neighbors. BACKGROUND The City approved the “Ivy Ridge Addition” plat in 2008; and the applicants received a critical area permit (CAP) in 2010 to construct the existing single-family dwelling on the 1.75-acre parcel. In 2014, the applicants received approval of a separate CAP to construct a new swimming pool, retaining wall, patio, porch addition and fence (Planning Case No. 2014-28). The plans under this new CAP call for a new 470-sf. second story addition above the current sport court area,which sits adjacent to theattached garage structure(see images –next page). The addition will provide for two new bedrooms and relocation of an existing bathroom in thisadded living space. No new foundation is needed; and no outward expansion of the existing home will take place. page 52 Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 2 The gabled roof above the existing screened-in porch below will be converted to a flat-roofed design in order to accommodate the new windows to the west. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicants’ request to construct the proposed improvements are consistent with the continued use as a single-family residential dwelling. Critical Area Overlay Zoning District 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…” [Title 12-3-2] The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: 12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses: D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels developed and built upon prior to June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance, and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the exception of the slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or detached structures, provided that: 1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the existing structure. page 53 Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 3 2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance standards and regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance. 3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site plan review as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter. The proposed 2nd story addition meets these objectives, since there will be no encroachment towards the river than what exists with the principal structure; and all setbacks and height standards will be met under this new addition. Title 12-3-8 contains development standards in the Critical Area District in order to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment. The standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, prevent erosion of bluffs, minimize flood damage, andprevent pollution of surface and ground water. The following applicable standards apply to the proposed project: x Setback From Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. According to the Site/Elevation Plans, the proposed improvements will take place directly above the existing (and attached) sport court feature to the existing dwelling. The current home sits approximately 70-ft. from the bluff edge, located along the southerly and westerly edges of the property and illustrated on the Dakota Co. GIS Map/Bluff Map (image below). No new or expanded foundation is needed, therefore no outward expansion or encroachment of the structure will take place, either towards the river or bluff areas. The proposed improvement will be compliant with the bluff setback standards. x 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 existing structure and proposed improvements are over 290-ft. feet from Ivy Falls Creek, which is located southwesterly of the subject property. There should be no impacts to this waterway or the natural woodland features adjacent to this creek and valley way. x Height Of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning district regulations or thirty five feet (35'). The R-1 District structure height requirement is the lesser of 2 stories or 25 feet, which supersedes the 35-foot height requirement in the Critical Area District. The proposed addition appears to be less in height than the existingdwelling roofline; hence noincrease to the height of the already-approved home structure. x Protection Of Natural Features: The governing body may require the preservation of natural features such as large trees, watercourses, scenic points, historical sites and similar community assets and may page 54 Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 4 decline approval of a subdivision or other development if provision is not made for preservation of these assets. The proposed project will not involve any grading, or removal of any trees or vegetation. There will be no negative impacts to any significant natural features. 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: x Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) City received no comments or suggested recommendations on the requested CAP application. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 744 Woodridge Drive, which would allow the construction of a new 2nd-story addition to the existing residential dwelling, based on the findings- of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with certain criteria, policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions; or 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 744 Woodridge Drive, based on findings-of-fact that the proposed project does not meet certain criteria, 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 to revise or refine the project plans, provide additional information later, and extend this land use application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since there is very little, if any impact to the Mississippi River corridor area, the bluff area, the creek area and surrounding properties, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1 noted above, which would approve the requested Critical Area Permit for 744 Woodridge Drive, along with the following added conditions: 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any demolition or 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 55 Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, with little to no impacts to the river corridor, bluff area, adjacent waterway or surrounding properties. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new second-story living space addition are all minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 3. The proposed addition is in keeping with the existing development and character of the area. 4. The expansion and construction of this new addition is allowed under city zoning ordinance, and will comply with all standards and regulations of the State Building Code and other applicable ordinances. page 56 page 57 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666"" !* ""* " "* * * *!*! ""³ " "" " " " " ³" !³! * * " " *** " ³ "³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ³ * " " ³ ³ ³ ³ " ³66666 666666666666666666 6 6!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 774 754 734 714 711 727 731 703 709 716 711 782 714 706 701 1199 1157 1133 1149 788 694 1220 704 12321223 741 1198 739 689 1200 691 120066.4'23 3' 22 1 ' 2 1 3 '266.8'183' 254. 6 '251.3' 1 6 9 '1 5 0 ' 1 4 1 ' 1 3 6 ' 95' 191.8' 119' 86' 111 '275'173.8'234.6'102'71' 69 '60'97.4'248.9'56'109.5' 42' 28' 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE LOCATION MAP City of Mendota Heights0190 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or 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. 10/6/2020 page 58 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE - BLUFF MAP Land Use/Land Development Property Information Elevation October 20, 2020 0 110 22055 ft 0306015m 1:1,200 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. 70-ft. +/- page 59 page 60 page 61 page 62 page 63 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 27, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 27, 2020 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 22, 2020 Minutes Commissioner Field noted on the bottom of page six, it should state, “…believed that additional work would need to be done to allow additional discussion and it should occur between the applicant and staff. Commissioner Corbett commented on the top of page seven, he is listed as voting nay, but should be listed as abstain. On the bottom of page eight, it should state, “Commissioner Toth Field…” COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 AS AMENDED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Approval of October 8, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2020 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-22 AARON AND SARAH MACKE, 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE – CRITICAL AREA PERMIT page 64 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new addition above an attached garage/sport court area to an existing single-family dwelling. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the second story proposed addition is compliant with the building code, specifically the height restriction. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that this would not exceed the roof line of the existing structure and would be compliant. Sarah Macke, applicant, was present to address any questions. 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 CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2ND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA, POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEMOLITION OR 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. page 65 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7 A.M. AND 8 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9 A.M. TO 5 P.M. ON 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: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 4, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates A) UPDATE ON PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS Chair Magnuson noted that included in the packet was an update on recent cases considered by the Planning Commission. She reviewed the update noting that on Planning Case No. 2020-19, the applicant withdrew the application, and no further action is needed. On Planning Case No. 2020- 15, the review period has been extended by the application to January 25, 2021 and another public hearing could occur at the November or December meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:13 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 page 66 Request for City Council Action DATE: November 4, 2020 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: CARES Funding INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to adopt a motion which approves CARES Act funding, and the reimbursement of COVID-19 related expenditures. BACKGROUND In July, the City received $858,276 federal assistance under the CARES Act for COVID-19 related expenditures. The United States Treasury Department has developed guidelines on the use of these funds and the eligible expenses that can be reimbursed. The allocation provides for expense reimbursement, it does not provide for revenue replacement. The CARES Act funding can be used to cover costs that meet three requirements. Those requirements are expenditures that: • Are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19; • Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020; and • Were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020 through November 15, 2020. There are six main categories that the city has accumulated expenses related to COVID-19: • Teleworking Capabilities • Medical Expenses • Personal Protective Equipment • Public Health Expenses • Economic Support • Payroll Expenses The city has spent the following amounts for COVID-19 related expenses through Sept 30, 2020: • Teleworking $ 2,965.00 • Medical Expenses $ 2,926.38 page 67 • PPE $ 6,924.28 • Public Health $18,508.90 • Other $ 2,735.50 These expenses include the front desk enclosure at City Hall, HVAC air quality enhancements, door access controls, signage, laptops for teleworking, oxygen supplies, masks, sanitizing products, etc. There are projects that are in progress and have not yet been reported as they are not yet complete and have not been invoiced. These include additional laptops for teleworking, police department technology upgrades and UV sterilization cabinet. The City also entered into an agreement with Dakota County to provide grants to small businesses in Mendota Heights that meet certain requirements. We have committed 10% of our CARES funding to this program. It is in the final stages of implementation. Payroll expenses for public safety employees are eligible for reimbursement. It has been determined by the Department of the Treasury that all public safety wages incurred during this period are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to COVID-19. Those employees in other departments that are having their time diverted to a substantially different use are able to seek reimbursements of their wages from CARES funds. The city has also provided paid sick leave to employees to enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions. After all the other expenses that have been identified as COVID-19 related have been reimbursed, the City will then submit for reimbursement for the wages of public safety officers and other departments as needed. BUDGET IMPACT Funds received from the CARES Act will be used to reimburse the city for COVID related expenditures. In addition, the city will use funds to provide grants to small businesses in Mendota Heights. RECOMMENDATION If Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-75 APPROVING CARES FUNDING AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COVID-19 RELATED EXPENDITURES. page 68 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-75 RESOLUTION APPROVING CARES FUNDING AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COVID-19 RELATED EXPENDITURES WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has received an allocation of $858,276 from the CARES Act; and WHEREAS, the City is able to reimburse itself for COVID-19 eligible expenditures based upon guidelines provided by the United States Treasury Department, under section 601 (a) of the Social Security Act; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights approves the reimbursement of eligible expenses in the following categories; • Teleworking Capabilities • Medical Expenses • Personal Protective Equipment • Public Heath Expenses • Economic Support • Payroll Expenses BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mendota Heights City Council will hereby reimburse all direct costs related to the COVID-19 public health emergency. After all direct costs have been reimbursed, the City will use the CARES funds to reimburse public safety and other payroll expenses. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of November, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 69