Loading...
2021-06-01 Council agenda packetCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 1, 2021 – 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. Approve the May 18, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Approve the May 24, 2021 City Council Closed Session Minutes c. Acknowledge March 17, 2021 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge the April 27, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e. Approve the Renewal of the 2021-2022 Liquor Licenses f. Approve Resolution 2021-43 Authorizing the Disposal of Obsolete Computers, Cellular and Electronic Storage Devices and Accessories g. Approve Ordinance No. 567 Amend 2021 Fee Schedule - Add Par 3 Senior Golf Pass h. Approve Resolution 2021-49 Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County to Operate a Residential Organics Drop-off Site i. Approve Resolution 2021-45 Authorizing the Disposal of Obsolete Equipment j. Approve Temporary Authorization of the Police Department’s Sworn Staff to 21 and Hiring of 2 Police Officers k. Approve April 2021 Treasurer’s Report l. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearings a. Resolution 2021-40 Public Hearing on Right-of-Way Vacation for Mendota Heights Road - Continuation b. Ordinance No. 565 Amending Parts of Title 12-Zoning Regarding Accessory Structures [Planning Case No. 2021-06] 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2021-46 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for 806 Bachelor Avenue; Mike Cashill - Applicant/Owner [Planning Case No. 2021-02] b. Resolution 2021-47 Approving a Variance for 662 Ivy Falls Court; Joe Opack – Applicant/Owner [Planning Case No. 2021-05] c. Resolution 2021-48 Accept Bids And Award Contract for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements and Award a Professional Services Contract 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.” For viewing City Council meetings, tune in to Comcast Cable Channel 18 or view online at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming during the posted meeting times. Meetings can also be viewed on demand, after the original airing, at https://www.townsquare.tv/webstreaming . CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items e, i, j, and k. for a separate vote on those items. a. Approval of May 4, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the April 13, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Resolution 2021-41 Final Payment and Acceptance of the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising d. Approve Resolution 2021-42 Authorizing the Disposal of Obsolete Furnishings e. Approve Minnesota Historical Society Heritage Partnership Program Grant Agreement f. Approve Sewer Rate Study g. Approve Resolution 2021-38 Authorizing Participation in the All-Hazard Mitigation Planning Process with Dakota County h. Approve the Purchase and Implementation of NEOGOV Human Resources Software i. Approve Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program Agreement j. Approve Dakota County Aquatic Invasive Species Grant Program Agreement k. Annual Par 3 Senior Golf Pass l. Approve Acquisition Method for New Fire Truck m. Approve the 2021 Fire Synopsis n. Approve April 2021 Building Activity Report o. Approval of Claims List Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS E) APPROVE MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT Mayor Levine recognized the success the City has had in obtaining grant funds and asked staff for a brief summary. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City applied for multiple grants. He provided details on the Minnesota Historical Society grant and details on how the City would provide its match. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 I) APPROVE CONSERVATION PARTNERS LEGACY GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted the work completed on the City’s Natural Resources Management Plan, and stated that one of the tasks was to create a template that the City could use to submit grant applications. He provided details on the grant awarded, the work that would be done, and how the City would provide its local match. Councilor Miller moved to approve the CONSERVATION PARTNERS LEGACY GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 J) APPROVE DAKOTA COUNTY AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided details on how this grant would be used to treat curly leaf pond weed in Rogers Lake and reviewed how the City would provide its local match. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve DAKOTA COUNTY AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 K) ANNUAL PAR 3 SENIOR GOLF PASS Councilor Paper stated that he wanted to bring additional attention to this item as this has been discussed for the past several years and will now be available. He stated that an annual golf pass for seniors to play at the Par 3 would be proposed at the next meeting. He hopes to see it promoted as much as possible. Councilor Duggan moved to approve an ANNUAL PAR 3 SENIOR GOLF PASS to be available and to direct staff to add this to the fee schedule. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2021-40 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public hearing regarding the vacation of a right-of-way, which was commenced by petition. Councilor Paper asked if vacating this right-of-way would change the number of homes that could be constructed on the property. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that only one home could be constructed on the lot as it would be short of the required square footage for an additional home. Mayor Levine commented on correspondence received from a resident related to unresolved issues with the sewer line and its design. Mr. Ruzek replied that the property will be connecting to the sanitary sewer, however it will not be a gravity system and provided additional details. Councilor Miller moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 No one from the public wished to be heard regarding this item. Mayor Levine stated that a request was received from the applicant, who could not be present at this meeting, to continue this public hearing to the June 1st meeting to allow them to speak. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that the Council can leave the public hearing open and stated the date of continuation, which is June 1, 2021. Mayor Levine commented that the public hearing will remain open and continued at the June 1st City Council meeting. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) APPROVE RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR 569 MIRIAM STREET Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that Maggie and Eric Christopher are seeking a Right-of- Way License Agreement from the City to install and maintain trees and plantings within the abutting undeveloped Eugenia right-of-way. Councilor Duggan asked if there has been contact with the utility companies in relation to the proposal. Mr. Ruzek replied that there has not been communication with those companies. He provided details on the easement width and noted that there should be space for utility vehicles. Councilor Duggan suggested that the City send a letter to the utility companies advising them of this action, so they are aware. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that staff could send such a letter to the utility contacts. Councilor Paper asked for details on the 15 feet of easement that was vacated in 2009. Mr. Ruzek identified the 15 feet of easement that was vacated in 2009 through a request of the property at 574 Hiawatha to construct a detached garage. Councilor Paper asked why that would impact this request. Mr. Ruzek commented that the remaining 15 feet would also go to 574 Hiawatha instead of this property because of how the land is platted, therefore this license agreement would be the preferred action. Mayor Levine commented that a neighboring property owner has made the comment that utility vehicles would not have access if additional landscaping were done. Mr. Ruzek stated that email was received prior to the onsite meeting where it was decided that additional right-of-way would be provided. He noted that the onsite meeting resolved that concern. Councilor Miller moved to approve the RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MAGGIE AND ERIC CHRISTOPHER, 569 MIRIAM STREET. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) USE OF LIGHTS AT MARIE PARK FOR NIGHTTIME PICKLEBALL PLAY Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that the Council was being asked to consider a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the use of the existing rink lights at Marie Park for nighttime pickleball play. She stated that the Commission is recommending a pilot program be established for lighted usage during September and October of this year. Staff would mail notices to residents within 500 feet of Marie Park to solicit their feedback before the pilot program is approved. Councilor Mazzitello asked if Marie Park is the only hockey rink outfitted for pickleball. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that and noted that staff is soliciting quotes to outfit Friendly Hills hockey rink for pickleball courts as well. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he would agree with the staff recommendation to obtain input from neighboring residents before approving this use. Councilor Duggan asked if there have been any noise complaints from the neighboring homes resulting from pickleball play. Ms. Lawrence stated that she has not received any noise complaints. Councilor Duggan agreed that this approach would be the best in determining whether there would be concern from neighboring residents related to potential use of the lights. Councilor Miller commented that he liked the idea of exploring ideas for additional use of the parks. He noted that resident input will be critical to ensure this would be supported by the neighborhood. Councilor Paper commented that he understands that lights are used at the rinks in the winter but noted that in those months the windows are closed, and people are not out on their patios therefore that level of noise and light is not comparable. He stated that he is very open to receiving input from the neighborhood. Mayor Levine commented that she heard from a neighbor that she supports the use of the lights for pickleball. She commended the Parks-Rec Commission for bringing this request forward in this way. She asked when the additional courts are anticipated to be open for Marie Park and Friendly Hills. Ms. Lawrence stated that staff is soliciting quotes for the additional courts at Marie Park and hoped to also have quotes for Friendly Hills. These and that these may be on the next Council agenda for consideration. Councilor Paper asked on how large of an area the notifications would be sent out to for surveying the neighbors. Ms. Lawrence stated that she has not identified all of the homes within the 500 foot range to be notified as of yet, but noted that the distance suggested was the distance used to solicit input for Friendly Hills. She stated that staff could go out beyond 500 feet. Councilor Paper commented that he would want to ensure all the homes around the park are notified. Councilor Mazzitello suggested the notice be provided to homes within 500 feet of the park boundary. It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to mail out notices to residents within 500 feet of the Marie Park boundary to solicit feedback regarding the pilot program for evening light usage. C) RESOLUTION 2021-39 RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the Council is asked to approve Resolution 2021-39 recognizing National Public Works Week. He provided background information on the request. Councilor Mazzitello commented that the City has one of the best public works crews. He commented on the outstanding work the department handles in terms of infrastructure and maintenance that is often unrecognized. Councilor Duggan asked if the Council would recognize public works this week on the Fire Station sign. City Administrator Mark McNeill commented that he will verify the policy as the City is restricted on what is put on that sign but noted that another method could be found to recognize those employees. Councilor Miller echoed the comments of Councilor Mazzitello as to the excellent job that the public works staff does. Councilor Duggan recognized a resident comment received this week related to the quick response from the public works department to an issue the resident brought forward. Mayor Levine stated that in her experience public works employees are very friendly when encountered in the community. She expressed appreciation for the work that is done and the way the work is completed. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-39 “RECOGNIZING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AS THE WEEK OF MAY 16, 2021 THROUGH MAY 22, 2021”. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) SET CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING DATE City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that the City Council is asked to schedule a work session to discuss a variety of topics. He noted that a closed session of the Council is also needed to be scheduled. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch provided input as to whether the closed session could be held virtually. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a closed session meeting virtually on May 24th at 1:30 p.m. and a work session on June 9th at 1:30 p.m. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill announced that the Parks Celebration would be held August 13th-15th. He noted that detailed information would be posted on the City website. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Levine commented that the new guidance from the CDC requires that masks be worn unless a person is fully vaccinated which is why the Council is able to meet in person. Councilor Duggan provided details on reflective sashes that are being handed out by the Police Department to be used by the public when they are out walking in the evening to increase safety for pedestrians. He thanked staff and public works for the quick response they provide to residents. He stated that there are some questions related to the skate park and clarified that the skate park is not proposed to move at this time and will remain open. He congratulated the Mayor on her State of the City presentation that took place earlier that evening. He stated that Copperfield Pond is shallower and causes challenges throughout the summer involving odors. Councilor Paper commented on a youth baseball tournament recently hosted at a city park on Mother’s Day weekend and he complimented City staff for the work they did to prepare for the tournament. He stated that it was terrific to see so many people enjoying the park. He congratulated the Mayor on her first State of the City presentation. Councilor Miller stated that the Fire Department will take possession of a fire boat and will have training on May 24th at Rogers Lake between 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. He invited residents that may want to watch. Councilor Mazzitello thanked the Mayor for the State of the City presentation. Mayor Levine recognized the Public Works Department. She referenced the recent See a Truck Event, which was the first event of the season, and asked how many people were in attendance. Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence estimated between 500 and 600 people attended. Mayor Levine commented that the first event of the season was a great success. She thanked all members of the public who watch the Council meetings and engage in local government by informing themselves. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:02 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie Levine ATTEST: Mayor _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Closed Session Held Virtually on May 24, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held virtually. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm. Councilors Duggan, Mazzitello, Miller, and Paper, were also present. All attendees were present via WebEx. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE MATTERS A motion was made by Mayor Levine to adjourn to a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 13D.05, subdivision 3(b), to conduct a closed session pursuant to the attorney-client privilege to engage in confidential attorney-client communications and litigation strategy related to a potential litigation related to the potential appeal of a determination by the Public Employees Retirement Association. The motion was seconded by Paper. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye Mayor Levine adjourned to a closed session of the City Council at 1:31 pm. Those present in the closed session included Mayor Levine, Councilmembers Duggan, Mazzitello, Miller, and Paper. Also in attendance were City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, and Attorney Bob Alsop of Kennedy and Graven. A motion was made by Councilor Duggan and seconded by Councilor Mazzitello to adjourn the closed meeting and to return to the open meeting at 2:25 pm. A roll call vote was performed: Councilor Duggan aye Councilor Mazzitello aye Councilor Miller aye Councilor Paper aye Mayor Levine aye ADJOURN Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 2:25 pm. ___________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. Due to the on-going pandemic, the meeting was held virtually. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm. The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Gina Norling, William Dunn, Kevin Byrnes, Arvind Sharma, Jim Neuharth, and Jeff Hamiel Guests Attending: MAC District G Representative Richard Ginsberg, MAC Staff Dana Nelson and Brad Juffer. Staff present: Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, and City Administrator Mark McNeill. 2. Introduction of New Commissioner Jeff Hamiel was introduced as the newly appointed ARC Commissioner, replacing Sally Lorberbaum. Hamiel described his educational and work background. The other Commissioners welcomed him to membership on the ARC. 3. Election of Officers Jacobson asked for nominations for the position of Chair for the upcoming year. Byrnes nominated Gina Norling for the position of Chair. Sharma seconded. There were no other nominations. A roll call vote was taken: Sloan Aye Hamiel Aye Norling Aye Dunn Not Available* Byrnes Aye Neuharth Aye Sharma Aye *Was experiencing momentary connectivity problems, and so was unable to vote. Motion carried 6-0-1. Ms. Norling was elected as Chair of the ARC for 2021. Chair Norling asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair. Byrnes nominated Sharma, which was seconded by Sloan. There were no other nominations. A roll call vote was taken: Sloan Aye Hamiel Aye Norling Aye Dunn Not Available* Byrnes Aye Neuharth Aye Sharma Aye *Was experiencing momentary connectivity problems, and so was unable to vote. Motion carried 6-0-1. Sharma was declared to be Vice-Chair for 2021. 4. Approval of Agenda There were no additions or corrections to the agenda. 5. Approval of Minutes Consideration was made of the Minutes of the January 20, 2021 meeting. Corrections were later offered by Neuharth, who experienced audio technical difficulties during the meeting. Those requested related to correcting the spelling of his name, and the omission of his name from attendance at the January 20th meeting. Motion by Sloan, second by Norling to approve. A roll call vote was taken: Sloan Aye Hamiel Abstain Norling Aye Dunn Not Available* Byrnes Aye Neuharth Aye Sharma Abstain *Was experiencing momentary connectivity problems, and so was unable to vote. Motion carried 4-0-3 6. Public Comments There were no members of the public who wished to comment. 7. Unfinished and New Business a. Guest Speaker—MAC District G Commissioner Richard Ginsburg Representative Ginsburg also introduced Dana Nelson and Brad Juffer of MAC staff. Ginsburg said that District G of the MAC represents the Cities of Mendota Heights, Mendota, Lilydale, Sunfish Lake, West St. Paul, and portion of the City of St. Paul. He described the history of the MAC, showed the current board makeup, and discussed the Mission and Vision of the MAC. He said that the MAC operates much like a city, and has 650 employees. He described COVID’s impacts since March, 2020 on the operations of the airport. Brad Juffer, Manager of Community Relations, made a presentation about airport use, both post pre-COVID and since. He said that both the number of flights and emplaned passengers had dropped dramatically, but noted that the numbers are starting to rebound. Dana Nelson, Director of Stakeholder and Community Engagement, also presented. She spoke of supporting NOC and noise mitigation efforts, and efforts to engage more youth, exposing them to the types of careers which are available at the airport. She reported that noise contours had made a big reduction in the past year as a result of fewer flights overall, and in night time operations especially. Nelson talked about the Airport’s efforts in the area of sustainability, in areas such as water use reduction and waste diversion. She also spoke of goals for increasing the number of airport employees who use something other than private vehicles to commute to work. The MAC speakers took questions from the ARC members. In response to a query from Sharma as to when it was expected that airport use levels would return to pre-COVID levels, Ginsburg said that a full recovery was not expected until 2024. There were no other questions. Chair Norling thanks the MAC participants, who left the meeting at that time. b. Follow-up on Runway 12L Discussion Jacobson had included the presentation slides from the ARC’s January meeting in the packet for this meeting. There were no questions raised. c. City Council Priorities Overview Jacobson described what actions the City Council had taken in February regarding goals and objectives for the City over the ensuing two years. Norling asked about the future use of the Bourne property. She asked that the ARC be allowed to provide input about airport noise and the impact on that property before any final decision is made. d. May 2021 Meeting Format Jacobson said that based on current guidelines, the meeting could either be virtual, or be conducted person to person in the City Council Chambers. The consensus of those present preferred face to face meetings, but agreed that it could change should conditions warrant. 8. Acknowledge Receipt of Reports and Correspondence a. 2020 Complaint Data Analysis Jacobson reported that the charts are from MAC, and are provided for information only. b. MAC Monthly Reports—January and February Jacobson reported that the charts are from MAC, and were being provided for information only. c. Operational Charts i. Complaint Information—Jacobson said that former commissioner Lorberbaum had been responsible for doing these charts, and asked if anyone wanted to comment on the January and February charts. Sharma said that it was a surprise to see fewer complaints from Bloomington than from Mendota Heights, but noted that it was an impact of Runway 17 not being used. ii. Runway Use Information--Neuharth was unable to report due to technical difficulties at the meeting. (He later submitted these comments): A. 12L Total Operations & 12L Night Operations within Control (Under The Upper Control). B. Since 12L Total Operations were out of control during the months of: 5//2020-9/2020 & 12/2020 causes for the out of control condition will be added to the Control Chart. C. 12R Night Time Operations are operating in control while 12R total operations have been operating out of control since 3/2020. The causes for the out of control condition will be added to the Control Chart. D. Commercial Departures north of the corridor are operating within control. E. Turbo Prop Departures north of the corridor are operating within control. F. Turbo Prop Departures on Runway 12L have decreased while the departures on 12R have increased. iii. Turboprop Charts—These were not available at the meeting. iv. Noise Monitor Information--Norling said that noise levels from all of the Mendota Heights monitoring stations were way down. Norling said that Sensor 15 shows data which fluctuates, but overall, it is still well below historical averages. Dunn said that the reports indicate different types of planes, which fewer large passenger planes, and more C-130’s. Sharma remarked that a benefit of COVID is that it is allowing airline companies to speed up the retirement of noisier planes. 9. Commissioner Comments Sharma asked that the May agenda include a discussion of what information is being tracked, and said that the ARC should take a fresh look at what should be monitored. Hamiel said that he is happy to help in any way that he can—he indicated that he could seek out desired information, but doesn’t want to be “the MAC guy”. He said that the MAC must be encouraged to pursue solutions to problems. 10. Adjourn There being no further business, Chair Norling asked for a motion to adjourn. Motion by Dunn, second by Sharma. A roll call vote was taken: Sloan Aye Hamiel Aye Norling Aye Dunn Aye Sharma Aye Byrnes Aye Neuharth Aye Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM. Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill, City Administrator CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 27, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 23, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she had a few readability type changes: page 4, third paragraph, that phrasing should be changed to state, “two years ago”; page 8, 2nd paragraph, should be changed to, “if there is any appetite for”; page 8, staff announcements, should state “the City completed”; page 8, 2nd to the last paragraph, should say, “Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the ordinance amendment would apply based on a building size or any specific type of commercial/industrial development”. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021, SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AS REVIEWED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of March 23, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2021. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-01 DALE KRYSTOSEK, 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Dale Krystosek, owner of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, was requesting a variance from the required side-yard and rear-yard setback standards in order to replace an existing legal nonconforming garage with a new garage structure. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; a Neighbors Consent (petition) was submitted. Neighbors on both sides of the property as well as behind Mr. Krystosek have also provided support for this request. No other comments or objections have been received. 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 the variance request based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett noted that Community Development Director Tim Benetti referenced findings-of-fact on page 5 and he did not see that in his packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the approvals are listed on pages 5, 6, and 7. Commissioner Corbett thanked Community Development Director Tim Benetti for clarifying this now and noted that he was used to seeing it broken out in a different format so missed it when he was looking through the information. Commissioner Katz stated that he does not want to get into too much information regarding alleys, but confirmed that this is kind of a unique situation with having one that is in an unimproved type of situation. He asked what would happen if the Commission were to walk forward with this and this eventually is not an alley anymore. He asked if that meant this would eventually become some of his property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this would be correct and explained that usually, when the City vacates an alley, that was probably never improved, such as this one, and was platted as part of the original Cherokee Heights Addition, if a petition is submitted to the City, typically half is vacated to every property on either side, which means they would gain 10 feet of extra property. Commissioner Katz noted that this would further reduce the impact of the garage, but understands that would be at some point in the future and not being considered right now. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that it would in the future and noted that if the Planning Commission approves the 3-foot variance on the back side, with the extra 10 feet, they would clearly make the 10-foot setback off the alley. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Dale Krystosek, 573 Hiawatha Avenue, stated that he would like to add a few things to Community Development Director Tim Benetti’s presentation. He stated that to meet the setback guidelines, it would create difficulty getting in and out of his driveway which is about 130-140 feet long. He explained that the current situation is that there is just enough room to do a 3-point or 4-point turn to get his vehicles out of the garage as opposed to backing out all the way to Hiawatha Avenue. He explained that he has six neighbors who readily signed the consent. He stated that he has spent a lifetime working in conservation and really likes the big trees in his backyard and would prefer not to have to damage their roots. His request is a net reduction in project area and would appreciate it if the Commission would grant the variance. Commissioner Johnson stated that item #4 on the sixth page of the packet refers to grading and construction activity and asked about grading in the side yard that butts up to 583 Hiawatha Avenue. She stated that she would also like to know if the eaves will overhang onto the property since it is so close to the property line and if there were plans for gutters for the new structure. Mr. Krystosek replied that they plan on no disturbance to the neighbor to the south. He stated that there is a privacy fence along the property line and his contractor has assured him that there will be no damage to the fence and noted that he believes the contractor included gutters as part of their project plans. Commissioner Johnson noted that she did not see information relating to gutters in the packet. Mr. Krystosek stated that he believes there are plans for gutters and even though there are no run- off issues in the area, but will make sure that they are added to the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that if gutters are added, she wondered where they would discharge because the new structure will have a larger roofline even though the total project area will be less because of the covered walkway. She noted that this means that there will be more watershed and explained that she had done the calculations for it and found it will add quite a bit more gallons of water towards that neighboring property than the current garage. She explained that she had asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek to take a look at the elevations of the property to see which way they drained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he spoke with Commissioner Johnson earlier because she had questioned the drainage pattern on the property. He noted that it looks like the area on the south side drains back to the alley and then to some other property. He noted that their analysis did not get into volume of water. Mr. Krystosek noted that the current carport does have a roof that sheds water so he believes Community Development Director Tim Benetti was correct when he stated that the total roof and structure area will be smaller. He explained that he is managing his land so it absorbs water and noted that he had planted about 150 trees on the borders for a hedge and tries to maintain the water on the site. He stated that he knows that there is eventually some drainage off the property that goes to the Mississippi River, but believes most of it will be absorbed on his property. He shared his willingness to put in a rain garden as a way to address this potential issue. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-01, THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS-OF-FACT ON PAGES 5, TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE TO DALE KRYSTOSEK OF 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN ON PAGES 6 AND 7. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INCLUDE IN THE CONDITIONS THAT GUTTERS BE ADDED TO THE GARAGE AND ASKED IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED HE DID NOT THINK THAT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS SITUATION HAS ALREADY BEEN WELL DISCUSSED. HE NOTED THAT HE APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A LARGER ROOF BUT DOES NOT THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE CONCERN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY OR THAT THIS CONDITION NEEDS TO PUT ON THE APPLICANT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 4, 2021 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2021-02 MICHAEL CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Michael Cashill, 806 Bachelor Avenue, was requesting a conditional use permit for an over-sized detached garage, with multiple variances to the following detached accessory structure standards: (a) allow garage to exceed the maximum area of 1,800-sq. ft. up to 2,400-sq. ft.; and (b) allow garage to exceed the maximum height of 15-ft. up to 17.5-ft. / 24-ft. in overall height. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; there were two letters of support/no objection from the neighbors. He noted that he had neglected to get these letters out to the Commissioners participating virtually and offered to read them into the record, if necessary. He noted that the City had also received one call from a neighbor. No additional comments or objections to this request were received. 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 is deferring the final recommendation on this case to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Corbett asked if this is an all or nothing type of approval or denial. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that he had consulted with the city attorney earlier today and that same question came up during the discussion. In the city attorney’s opinion, and as indicated in the report, typically when applications are run together, they should either rise together or fall together. However, in this case, if the Commission felt that Mr. Cashill did not meet the granting or awarding of a variance in this case, the Commission could still ask Mr. Cashill to reduce it and make the CUP work for him at the 1,800 square foot threshold or 1,500 square feet where he would not even need a variance or a CUP, provided he can still meet all the other standards. He stated that if Mr. Cashill would like this to be altogether as one application, the Commission can do that and approve or deny together, but they could be separated out if they chose. Commissioner Katz asked about the proximity of the proposal to the golf course. He stated that he understands that the neighbors do not feel that they will be impacted and are supportive of this request, but has concerns about when people are on the golf course, especially at that particularly hole and whether they will suddenly feel as though they are seeing an encroaching structure that is only 20 feet away from the property line. He noted that he had not gotten the opportunity to get over and see how dense those woods are or get a sense of the elevation differences in the area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in his opinion, after visiting the site, the location that Mr. Cashill is proposing to place the garage is in a lower part on the east side of the property, which is a good thing because it will help minimize the site impacts from the golf course. He stated that in walking over on the golf course side and looking over, the golf course has a higher elevation at that point on the western edge of the golf course, so people will basically be looking over the structure. He reviewed photographs of the proposed areas and the tree cover in the area. Commissioner Katz asked if Community Development Director Tim Benetti felt that trees along the along the back side would be helpful in order to cover the roof line. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated if the Commission feels that is warranted, they could ask for additional buffers or screening as part of the CUP approval. Commissioner Katz asked if they should be considering asking for a berm in this location. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that a berm can get a bit tricky because it has the potential to mess up natural grading that may already exist. He stated that, in his opinion, trees are a better option. Commissioner Katz stated that perhaps Mr. Cashill could work with the City experts in terms of landscaping on what might be the best types of trees to put in place. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he assumed that Mr. Cashill would be more than happy to do that. Commissioner Petschel asked if he was reading the application correctly that the structure will be 24 feet at the peak and 17.5 feet mid-point. He asked if the City specifies a maximum or just an average. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he has been holding accessory sheds or garages to 15 feet at their high point because they have had a number of sheds and garages that look higher than they should. He stated that as a Zoning Administrator, most of the sheds or garages that have been approved are usually under 15 feet from peak down. According to code, the City measures building height for a typical gabled type roof such as this, at mid-point which is why he provided the Commission with both the 17.5 feet at mid-point and 24-ft. at highest point. He stated that if he gets the mid-point measurement to 15 feet, the argument could be made that it met the building height requirement, however, when you look at the upper point, that did cause him a bit of concern because he thinks that is a bit more than what an accessory structure should be. Commissioner Johnson asked what species of trees will be removed for the building as well as the driveway to the garage. She stated that she looked at the site and noted that the hole for the golf course has no trees in that location. Community Development Director Tim Benetti admitted that he was not a tree expert, but believes Mr. Cashill may be able to answer more specific questions regarding trees. He stated that during his site inspection he did not think they looked like significant trees that were doing very well in that area. He stated that he does not believe any of the newer trees will be removed, but will defer the question to Mr. Cashill. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the Zoning Ordinance says that the garage cannot exceed 15 feet and does not say mid-point, average, or anything similar. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this is correct, but noted that under the definition section, building height is defined on a gable type roof structure and the mid-point is how structure height is measured. He stated that this is the reason that if you take the mid-point measure on an accessory structure, it could be higher than 15 feet, but noted that he has typically asked people to hold it down to 15 feet total from the tip. Mike Cashill, 806 Bachelor Avenue, explained that he lives on an 8-acre parcel of land and is requesting a variance to build a 60 x 40 storage shed. He stated that his property is unique in that it is one of the larger private parcels in the community and it takes a substantial amount of equipment to properly care for it. Therefore, it is necessary to build a storage garage of this size to store and maintain the equipment necessary to care for and maintain this parcel. He listed off some of the equipment such as snow blowers, and noted that he has three of them. He explained that he has four boys and puts an ice rink in his side yard every year. He stated that he has a long driveway and uses a John Deer tractor to clear that with a 4-foot blower attachment. A carry-all, similar to the golf course, to help with landscaping projects or tree removal or clean-up, as well as back pack blowers, fertilizer spreaders, lawnmowers, wood chippers, trimmers, trailers, and equipment for caring for apple trees. He stated that he likes to have a clean yard and likes to take care of the equipment, does not like to store anything outside, but also wants to be respectful of those in the neighborhood to keep his yard clean and free of clutter and debris. The structure is designed to match his existing home with a similar roof, stucco/stone exterior and explained that the height of the garage is designed to match the steepness of the garage. He stated that his proposed location is in a valley and noted that it is about the lowest on the entire property and the top of the roof will be lower than the foundation of his house. He stated that he feels his variance request is reasonable because the structure and size is necessary to store all the equipment that is necessary to properly maintain 8 acres. He stated that he has 4 drivers in his home, which means 4 cars, so 2 of the vehicles sit outside because all of the equipment is in the garage. He explained that his property backs up to a valley and the Mendota Heights Par 3 golf course so he has very few neighbors. The proposed structure will not be able to be viewed by the neighbors and will not affect the health, safety and welfare of the community, nor will it pose any risk to the public safety or effect the value of properties in the surrounding area. He stated that one of the Commissioners had asked about tree removal and noted that there are no trees from his existing driveway up to the front of this shed, so the only trees he is planning to remove are in the immediate footing area of the structure. He stated that he loves beautiful trees and plans to place this so any really nice tree will not be affected. He stated that there are a number of boxelders and scrub trees that have grown in this area because it has not been maintained other than with buckthorn removal. He stated that he plans on planting a number of white pines around the perimeter of the structure and areas where they can get the proper sunlight to survive and noted that his goal will be to have it screened as much as possible and reiterated that it is in a naturally low spot on the property and feels it will be screened with the current environment and location. Commissioner Petschel stated that he loves the way it looks especially since it is derived from the other building, but asked if it would be possible to reduce the pitch of the roof to 4 over 12 for the entire length of the roof. Mr. Cashill stated that he is certainly possible, but given the look of the structure, he was hoping that it would look similar and match the structure of his house as opposed to looking like a structure that was there before his home was built. Commissioner Johnson stated that Mr. Cashill mentioned that he wanted to preserve and protect some trees and asked what measures he would be taking during the construction process to ensure that they are being protected. Mr. Cashill stated that he will oversee that with his contractor. He stated that there are 4 beautiful white pines that are 5 to 8 feet to the southeast of the structure that he wants to make sure the structure is placed in a manner that does not affect those trees. Commissioner Johnson asked about equipment when they are building the structure. Mr. Cashill explained that in front of the garage is a sledding hill and noted that he has a 12-foot enclosed trailer that he uses to move the equipment that will sit out there. Commissioner Johnson explained that she was referring to the construction equipment when they are building the structure and if he has plans to keep a certain distance from the canopy of the trees or whether there would be enough room to do that. She stated that in order to preserve and protect trees, many people do not understand that the weight of the equipment on the root systems even when you are not near the tree, is what can cause problems. Mr. Cashill stated that the entire area to the west and to the south of the garage is flat and wide open, so that is where any equipment will be and it will not be necessary to be outside of about 5 feet of the foundation of the structure. He stated that there will not be a lot of commotion around the sides and back of the building during the construction process. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any plans to replace trees for the 15-18 that will be removed. Mr. Cashill stated that he plans to plant a number of trees around the perimeter of the structure. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if there was an existing detached structure on Mr. Cashill’s property. Mr. Cashill answered that there was not a detached structure on his property. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it seems to her that the variance request for roof height is an aesthetic convenience and noted that she would be more in favor if the roof height was lowered. Mr. Cashill agreed that the reason for the building design was purely due to the aesthetics of matching his existing home. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she loves his roof, but thinks that the two buildings are far enough away that if the detached structure was just slightly lower it would not look odd. She stated that she would be more in favor of granting the variance if he came back with a lower height. She stated that staff had reported that Mr. Cashill could get two detached structures without a variance and asked if it would make sense to put an accessory structure near the ice rink as a second building. Mr. Cashill stated that the ice rink is on the west side of the home in a completely different location and noted that the ice rink area is the only flat area on his property for baseball, football, soccer, and hockey. He stated that he is not interested in building another structure and noted that he didn’t understand what was shared earlier in the meeting by Community Development Director Tim Benetti. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that right now this is a detached accessory garage, and applicants with larger lots get a secondary or second detached garage as part of an approval if they choose. He stated that when it comes to other accessory structures such as utility sheds, bigger lots are also entitled to have additional secondary structures if they chose. He stated that is not the case with this particular application. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for Mr. Cashill’s thoughts about housing some of the equipment for the ice rink near the ice rink. Mr. Cashill stated that he does not think there was a real good location for a structure in that area because the area is very steep and it would be difficult to access it off of the driveway. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if she heard Mr. Cashill say that this was being built on the lowest part of his property. Mr. Cashill stated that he is not sure that it is actually his lowest point because the ravine plays out to the valley, but it is the lower portion of his property. Commissioner Lorberbaum read aloud a portion of the ordinance that talked about the floor of the garage being at least 1.5 feet above the street grade unless a deviation is granted by the Public Works Director. She asked Community Development Director Tim Benetti if this was in a lower area and if that detail should be added to the findings. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it could be, but isn’t sure if that requirement would be for detached or an attached garage. He asked for a minute to look up that information. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that the portion of the ordinance she was referring to was 12.1D.3C.1. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that based on the size of this lot and the location, he thinks that it would be challenging to relate the street elevation to the elevation along this property. He stated that much of what Commissioner Lorberbaum was referring to was for a typical subdivision. He stated that he would like to review the grading plan and noted that the one included in the packet was very small and difficult to read. He stated that when the applicant submits for a building permit for this structure, he would do a grading review and make sure that the grading will not negatively affect this area. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that would be perfect and makes this not an obstacle that cannot be overcome and is just something to be aware of. Commissioner Corbett stated that the applicant had stated that 2 of his cars are currently displaced because of the equipment which makes him think that Mr. Cashill needs about 300 square feet of space for his equipment. He asked if Mr. Cashill was planning to buy another 2,100 square feet worth of equipment or if there was other equipment that is not currently in the garage that will be filling this space. Mr. Cashill stated that his trailer sits outside and he shuttles equipment to other locations that are off property. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Richard Wicka, 1650 Wachtler Avenue, stated that he has had a chance to review the planning report and noted that he is the closest house to the proposed building. He stated that during the winter months, as they look out through the woods, they can see the roofline of the Cashill’s house and it is just a beautiful vertical roof. Given the fact that the structure is being placed down low and that the roofline is mimicking the existing house, they are actually kind of excited by this proposal. He stated that there is really something kind of romantic about looking through the woods and seeing the Cashill’s house. He stated that he feels this is a legacy property in the City and it was really nice to see it being cared for the way the Cashill family takes care of it. He stated that the Cashill’s are also really good about having kids over to their house and using the outdoor space. He stated that they can hear that from their house and really enjoy it because the kids are outside having fun playing. He stated that he and his wife are completely in support of this project without any of the revisions that have been discussed tonight. Seeing no one additional coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DENY THE VARIANCES TO ALLOW A PROPOSED DETACHED OVERSIZED GARAGE UP TO 2,400-SQ. FT. IN AREA AND UP TO 17.5-FT. (MID-POINT MEASURE) AND 24-FT. IN OVERALL HEIGHT, BASED ON THE ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 7. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he would like to make sure that if the Planning Commission as a collective body feels that this project does not warrant a variance, they can recommend that the variance be denied, but if they feel that Mr. Cashill has a right to come back with a CUP, he believes it would be prudent to bring that plan back to the Commission to ensure they are approving something that meetings the code and ordinance. If the Commission feels the variance is not warranted tonight, staff would ask that the Commission request that Mr. Cashill withdraw the variance and have the CUP tabled to the next meeting and have staff work with him to bring back a different plan. The other opportunity is for a proposed text amendment. He stated that if Mr. Cashill, or other property owners that have a larger lot, wished to provide a larger scale garage of this nature, he could work with staff and present an amendment and there could be, for example, another line added to the table that could be applied to parcels over 5 acres for a permitted and CUP. He stated that the Commission cannot approve a CUP based on a plan that they have not yet seen. Commissioner Corbett stated that the reasoning behind his motion was that while he agrees that the property is unique, he feels things are being misinterpreted. He gave the example of the admission by the applicant that part of this is for an ice rink that has been added to the property, which means that the property is not causing the issue, but the homeowner. He stated that he thinks this request is based mainly on convenience, which is why he does not think the variances hold, but the CUP would. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would agree because it seems intuitively obvious to him that for a property this size, the footprint of this proposed project would be like him putting an outhouse on his property. He stated that he feels that there is an additional line that could and probably should be added to the table. He stated that, in general, he supports the scale of this project but he cannot find his way to make this work, given their instructions on practical difficulty. He reiterated that he would support a text amendment to add a line to the table. Chair Field stated that unfortunately that is not what is in front of the Planning Commission this evening. He stated that while he appreciates Commissioner Corbett’s reasoning, he feels the variances kind of rises and falls with the entire case. He stated that he is a bit troubled and stated that if the City goes through the variance with a CUP and it is denied, his recollection is that no action can be taken for 6 months on the property because the CUP would have been denied. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this was correct and explained that the CUP application process is the only one that has a provision that says if the CUP is denied, you must wait 6 months after the denial period to reapply. John Hartman, 812 Deer Trail Point, stated that he thinks the Cashill’s did a spectacular job. Chair Field respectfully pointed out that the public hearing has been closed and asked him to allow the Planning Commission to do their job. Mr. Hartman stated that his backyard borders Ms. Cashill’s northern extremity. Chair Field repeated his request that Mr. Hartman allow the Planning Commission to follow their procedures and asked for a motion to reopen the public hearing to confer with the applicant. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field asked Mr. Cashill to address the Commission following some of the discussion that has happened tonight. He stated that it has been suggested that a code amendment may be a better approach to this situation and, in his opinion, has more potential for gathering approval based on the conversation this evening. Mr. Cashill stated that he understands the dilemma of the Planning Commission and is open to pursuing a text amendment and was amenable to tabling this issue. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the action deadline for this application is May 28, 2021, so the review period would also need to be extended. He stated that Mr. Cashill would also need to waive the 60-day rule. Chair Field asked if Mr. Cashill would be willing to table the matter and to extend the review period beyond May 28, 2021. Mr. Cashill stated that he would be willing to do both of those things. Chair Field noted that he also owns property in excess of 5 acres and has this same issue, however at the moment, has no desire to build on it. He stated that he believes there are probably about ten parcels or so within the City that this could potentially affect and believes a code amendment is a better way to approach this issue. Mr. Cashill reiterated that he was definitely willing to work with staff on a possible text amendment. Commissioner Corbett asked if this item should be tabled or actually withdrawn by Mr. Cashill and resubmitted as a different application. Chair Field stated that there is an application and the Commission can see where it goes and for now, the Commission is tabling this application, which would be the chair’s ruling. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that since the public hearing has been reopened, she would like to hear from the person in the Council Chambers that had attempted to speak earlier. John Hartman, 812 Deer Trail Point, noted that he was on the Mendota Heights City Council for twelve years. He stated that his backyard runs up against Mr. Cashill’s northern boundary and he has never had a problem. He stated that he doesn’t see anything that could be done that would make his proposal any better than what Mr. Cashill has brought before the Commission. He stated that it is an old farm which means you have to deal with some of the things that occurred on an old farm. He stated that this is the way the property is configured and as long as it does not harm any of the neighboring properties, he does not see any problem with what Mr. Cashill is planning and reiterated that what is being proposed could not be done any better. Chair Field thanked Mr. Hartman for his past service to the City, for coming to tonight’s meeting and suggested that he come back and visit the Planning Commission again. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON CASE 2021-02 MICHAEL CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE KEPT OPEN, TO NO SOONER THAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 25, 2021. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field recommended that staff and Mr. Cashill begin working together as soon as possible Commissioner Katz recommended that Mr. Cashill also come back with a detailed plan that showed vegetation so they know exactly what will be added and taken away. Board of Appeals A) PLANNING CASE 2021-03 JULIE A. OLSON (APPLICANT) AND MIKE & JULIE GEREND (OWNERS), 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE – APPEAL OF ZONING DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED MASSAGE THERAPY USE AS A HOME OCCUPATION IN THE R- 1 ZONE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Julie A. Olson was requesting an appeal of an official zoning decision made by the City’s Zoning Administrator regarding the allowance or licensing of a massage therapy business in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. The applicant is requesting said business be allowed as a permitted home occupation use, and to operate from an accessory structure on the subject property. The item was presented under a duly noticed public hearing process; copy of notice was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all neighboring property owners within 350- feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received from the neighbors. 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 denial of the appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision that a massage therapy use or business can and should only be licensed in an established and recognized business district. Staff is also recommending that the Board of Appeals denying the request to allow massage therapy as a Home Occupation Use in a residential district. Commissioner Katz stated that he had a question related to other businesses that request to operate out of the home. He stated that he understands that this is massage therapy in this case, but asked how the City deals with people who want to, for example, cut hair out of their home. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that issue does come up periodically and typically the standard has always been whether you would normally find a barber chair or a salon chair inside of a normal residential home. He stated that equipment that would normally be found inside of a home can be part of a Home Occupation. He stated that it is a gray area and the City typically limits the Home Occupational uses that are, for all intents and purposes, very benign. They do not want to see a lot of traffic or deliveries, no employees, no retail sales, and uses one room of the home, and gave the example of an insurance agent or an accountant. He stated that they tend to keep it to a low level and low activity for a home occupation. Commissioner Katz asked if the City had granted any permits like that before. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Home Occupations are an allowed permitted accessory use as long as they meet the requirements of the City’s definition of a home occupation. He stated that people have called and asked him about various services and noted that the pandemic made home occupation requests much more popular. He gave examples of requests to operate lawn mower repair services or auto services which are ones that are not wanted in residential areas because they are just trouble from the day they begin. Commissioner Katz stated that his understanding is that in the past the request has always come from the homeowner itself, but in this case, it is coming from someone else who uses the property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was correct and this is a situation where this individual has to be licensed by the State of Minnesota and has to be site specific to the license and the City is the only issuer of the license and the City cannot issue the license unless they approve the location. He stated that if she is not approved for the location, the City will not issue the license. Chair Field clarified that the owner of the property is part of the application but the person who is requesting to provide the massage therapy is not the owner of the home. Julie Olson stated that she is a massage therapist currently working in Mendota Heights where she has worked for 9 years. She stated that she has been a massage therapist for almost 19 years. Part of the reason she wants to share a bit with the Commission about her education and background is to support the idea of why the City should consider doing this in a residential area. She stated that she realizes it is not a normal thing that happens and has had some bad connotations with it in the past. She explained that she had graduated from Center Point School of Massage in Minneapolis and also got some of her education in San Diego, California as a prenatal therapist. She noted that she has also done some additional trainings since she has graduated from massage school to maintain her continuing education credits. She stated that she is also licensed through each individual city that she works at and has worked at several over the last 19 years such as Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Woodbury, and Shakopee. She stated that she has always maintained good standing with her licensure and passed all her background checks. This past year, due to COVID, her business was closed for 3 months which was a very difficult situation both professionally and personally, because she works in a therapeutic and healing field. She explained that in times of change and stress, people often come to her to decompress and receive care as well as maintain physical and emotional support. She was unable to offer that service for her clients and spent time focusing on how she could continue in this field and offer a safe place to provide massage therapy when they were able to reopen and move forward. She stated that she wants to be able to provide massage as long as she is physically able. She stated that when they reopened in June, she was presented with a business opportunity by clients Mike and Julie Gerend, who own the property at 2159 Delaware Avenue. She explained that they have a beautiful space that they have created in the converted barn on their property which is a fully modern, free-standing structure, has its own parking, a private room for massage and a sitting area for clients to enjoy to have a space to relax and regroup. The land surrounding the barn butts up to the Dodge Nature Center and the driveway is a long, split driveway going in one direction to the main residence and the other to the barn and parking. The parking can accommodate ample room for massage clients and still maintain privacy for neighbors including the road leading to the property and the Gerend family. She would plan to be open Monday through Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a maximum of 5 clients per day. Some of the time would be for administrative duties that she would complete and explained that she would have not employees. She stated that during COVID and beyond, she will maintain strict sanitation protocols following the CDC guidelines for massage therapists as well as local policies for business owners. Minors would be required to have written consent and be accompanied by a parent or guardian. All clients would be spaced an hour apart, no signs would be visible from the road, marketing would be done from her website, scheduling would be done on-line and through referrals, which is most of her clientele. She stated that she will not sell any retail product and all deliveries will go to her home address in Burnsville. She explained that the reason for her appeal is so she can offer a space that is private, form a small business, and help her continue to maintain a good work environment for herself and her clients on a small scale. She stated that it is her intent to maintain privacy to the residential neighbors and the Gerend family. Commissioner Corbett asked if Ms. Olson could elaborate on the opportunity that was presented to her. He asked if she would be paying to lease this space and asked what is advantageous about this space versus a zoned, appropriate commercial business use space. Ms. Olson stated that she is currently in a business space that is in the appropriate zoning and the benefit of going to a private residential area would be to keep a smaller scale as far as foot traffic. She stated that one of the things that was difficult during COVID was because she had to take into consideration all the foot traffic that was coming in and out, and not just her own clients which really limited what she could do. She stated that having a smaller scale available for both clients and herself would help facilitate keeping it low profile. Commissioner Katz asked how long Ms. Olson was hoping to be able to use this space for her work. Ms. Olson replied that she is hoping to have the space as long as she can. She stated that she is a seasoned therapist and the reality is that her body will not be able to do this work forever. She stated that she is hoping to maintain this small business as she ages for as long as she can and as long as the Gerend’s are willing to have her in that space. She stated that to answer Commissioner Corbett’s earlier question, when this opportunity was offered to her, it was offered from the Gerend’s just as she was getting started back working after being closed, as an alternative for her business. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mike Gerend, 2159 Delaware Avenue, stated that Ms. Olson has been a great massage therapist for a number of people that he knows and this whole idea was hatched out of a desire to help. When COVID hit, the people in the health and fitness industry who should have been supported as much or more than anyone as an essential business, were hurt the absolute worst and treated the most harshly. He stated that the individuals that were hurt the most were customers of Ms. Olson and were the kind of people that need massage therapy for both physical and mental healing. He stated that it was an unfortunate situation and he saw Ms. Olson potentially having to look for new space in a very trying situation after a very difficult period of time which brought to mind the possibility of using the barn space since it is not used very often. He explained that they put a lot of tender loving care into the property when it was renovated. He noted that at one point in time he was the President of Lifetime Fitness and has employed thousands of massage therapists across the country and even built studios for them. He explained that he understands the healing benefits that they provide and the conditions that they need and he felt the barn would be the perfect place to provide the kind of healing environment in a time when people need it more than they ever have. He stated that Ms. Olson needed a softer landing and felt like her clients also needed that. He stated that the business terms and length of time are pretty loose because he honestly just said to her that he didn’t really care and asked her to figure out what would be fair along with what would make her business work. He stated that the terms are pretty informal and they are just trying to make something work. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Katz stated that he was thinking of the scenario when the City has people who just call independent contractors to their residence and the massage therapist comes and brings their own chair or table and sets it up at their home, provides the service and leaves. He asked if those people were not licensed in the City if they were in violation of City Ordinance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he believes that they would be in violation because the City only allows licensed therapists at a specific fixed location. He stated that if people are hiring someone to come into their home and provide this service, there is really no way to track it. He stated that he would hope that there are at least licensed massage therapists, but believes under the City’s licensing program, they have to be at a fixed location. Commissioner Katz stated that he questions how other cities handle those situations and whether there are ordinances that allow for individuals to come and work in the home temporarily. Chair Field stated that he believes this line of questioning is going down a line that is not germane to the case at hand. Commissioner Katz stated that he disagreed and wonders if in this case it is a situation where the ordinance does not necessarily match what the application is. He stated that it may be better to go and ask the City Council to take a look at the issue if there is something that may be more appropriate rather than just saying that it isn’t allowed without looking at the overall issue. Chair Field stated that he would object to Commissioner Katz disagreement on the basis that this is not a home business because the applicant does not reside in the home. Commissioner Katz noted that the homeowner is part of this application. Chair Field stated that was true but they would not be performing the service and this is an accessory structure. He stated that he doesn’t want the Commission to go down a rabbit hole that they aren’t being asked to go down. Commissioner Katz stated that he understands Chair Field’s point, but does not necessarily agree with it because he thinks that is the reason that this is being appealed to the Commission. Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of the statutory constraints and asked if the Commission was allowed by Minnesota law to grant any kind of use variance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that as the report indicates, this is coming dangerously close to allowing for a use variance, but when Ms. Olson approached the City Clerk requesting this license at the residential property that request was denied. He stated that Ms. Olson asked if she could still operate it as a home occupation with different standards applied to her because it is site specific and just for her which is the crux of her appeal. Use variances, as the Commission learned at the last workshop, are not allowed, which State statute makes very clear. He gave the example of a convenience store in a residential area that could not be granted a variance. In this case, because the City does allow for certain levels of professional services under a home occupation and Ms. Olson is clearly a professional that is providing a service, it would meet part of some home occupation, if she lived there and if this was not run out of an accessory structure. He stated that even if she did own this property and was not operating out of the accessory structure, the debate would go on about whether the City would allow a massage therapy license at this residence. The City Council has chosen the three districts as a permitted right for massage therapist services, so this would be going against the home occupation and the massage therapy ordinance. He stated that the Council could consider allowing massage therapy as a home occupation but he believes the ordinance for massage therapy was just gone through a few years ago, so he is not sure if there would be an inclination to change it at this point in time. Chair Field stated that the Council could do something, but as a Planning Commission, they have some very clear charges. He stated that speaking editorially, he would love to find a way to make this work, but he cannot. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FROM JULIE A. OLSON SEEKING TO OVERTURN THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION TO NOT ALLOW A MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE R- 1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY AT 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-31, A DENIAL BASED ON CERTAIN FINDINGS-OF-FACT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION. FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD REITERATED THAT HE DOES NOT RELISH MAKING THIS DECISION, BUT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, GIVEN THE EXISTING CODE, THE REQUEST JUST DOESN’T FIT. COMMISSIONER KATZ AGREED THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE WANTS TO DO AND WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO WORK WITH MS. OLSON ON THIS, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO OPERATE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT ARE SET WITHIN THE ORDINANCES. HE STATED THAT HE THINKS THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL TYPE OF INSTANCES WHERE THE CITY SHOULD HAVE SOME DIFFERENT ORDINANCES IN PLACE IN ORDER TO HAVE A BIT OF FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY LIKE MS. OLSON. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 4, 2021 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Chair Field noted that at the start of Mr. Cashill’s case, Community Development Director Tim Benetti made reference to a letter that didn’t go to the Commissioners and asked that the letter be distributed to those individuals, since the public hearing is still open. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that at the last Council meeting staff presented an administrative Critical Area Permit for a property on Woodridge Drive to fill in a front step area with a covered porch and allow a 12 x 10 shed for Shawn Hoffman. The City has enacted a moratorium, but this was one of the minor developments that met the exemption criteria and was approved. Adjournment COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Request for City Council Action DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Renewal of Liquor Licenses COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve the renewal of the current liquor licenses. BACKGROUND The current liquor licenses will expire on June 30, 2021. Renewal applications have been received from the following: Off-Sale Liquor licenses: • Starlights 168 Liquor LLC dba Mendota Liquor Barrel, 766 North Plaza Drive Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday Liquor: • Felipe’s LLC dba Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant, 762 North Plaza Drive • Courtyard Management Corp. dba Courtyard by Marriott, 1352 Northland Drive Club Liquor and Sunday Liquor: • Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive • Somerset Country Club, 1416 Dodd Road Wine licenses: • Haiku MH Inc. dba Haiku Japanese Bistro, 754 North Plaza Drive • King and I Thai Corporation dba King and I Thai, 760 North Plaza Drive • Windy City Pizza LLC dba Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria, 730 Main Street On-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor licenses: • Haiku MH Inc. dba Haiku Japanese Bistro, 754 North Plaza Drive • King and I Thai Corporation dba King and I Thai, 760 North Plaza Drive • Windy City Pizza LLC dba Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria, 730 Main Street Off-Sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor licenses: • Northern Tier Retail LLC dba Speedway #4516, 1200 Mendota Heights Road • Northern Tier Retail LLC dba Speedway #4521, 1080 Highway 62 Background investigations have been conducted on all of the licensees resulting in no negative findings on the above applicants. The following documentation is still needed to complete the renewal applications: Mendakota Country Club – certificate of liquor liability insurance Speedway #4516 & #4521 – certificate of workers compensation insurance Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria – license fees, certificate of liquor liability insurance The licenses would be issued upon receipt of the outstanding documentation. If approved, the liquor licenses would be effective July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve the issuance of the license renewals as listed above for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, contingent upon the outstanding documentation. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Steve Hilyar, Police Officer SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-43 Authorizing the Disposal of Obsolete Computers, Cellular and Electronic Storage Devices and Accessories INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to declare certain obsolete Computers, Cellular and Electronic Storage Devices and Accessories as surplus and authorize their disposal. BACKGROUND State law requires that City Council declare materials that are no longer to be used as being obsolete or surplus and authorize their disposal by an appropriate method. The City currently has 37 personal computers, 37 cellular and electronic storage devices and 9 computer accessories that are specifically used in conjunction with the computers. These devices have been used in the Police Department and City Hall to create, transmit and conduct city related business, to include confidential data, and have been replaced with devices that are compatible with the most current technology. All data that these devices created has been stored on a secure City storage server in accordance to data storage policies. If these devices were donated, the data created and stored on them is still retrievable. Therefore city staff has obtained a quote from OceanTech to conduct a “Level 3 –Inventory and Shred” of all data storage on the devices and recycling of parts that do not store data. BUDGET IMPACT The estimated cost of this service is $950.75 and funding is available in the Information Technology budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the obsolete Computers, Cellular and Electronic Storage Devices and Accessories be declared surplus and that they be authorized for disposal using OceanTech’s services. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve Resolution 2021-43 “A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS, CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC STORAGE DEVICES AND ACCESSORIES TO BE SURPLUS, AND AUTHORIZING DISPOSITION”. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-43 A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN CITY HALL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS, CELL PHONES AND ELECTRONIC STORAGE DEVICES AND ACCESSORIES TO BE SURPLUS, AND AUTHORIZING DISPOSITION WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights follows the requirements in State Law and City Code for the appropriate disposition of unused or unneeded property; and WHEREAS, the City Administrator recommends that the following materials currently owned by the City should be considered surplus property: 37 Personal Computers 37 Cell Phones and Electronic Storage Devices 9 Computer Accessories; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and declares the afore listed material to be surplus, and of no further need or value to the City; and WHEREAS, destruction of the stored data on the devices should be ordered and the other parts recycled or otherwise disposed using OceanTech’s services. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby declares the listed Computers, Cell Phones and Electronic Storage Devices and Computer Accessories to be surplus, and authorizes staff to destroy, recycle or dispose of same. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ___________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor _______________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Request for City Council Action DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Approval of an Ordinance Amendment to the 2021 Fee Schedule for Parks and Recreation Fees-Par 3 Annual Senior Pass INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve an ordinance amendment to the 2021 Fee Schedule in relation to adding a Par 3 Annual Season Pass for seniors. BACKGROUND At the May 18, 2021 meeting, the City Council reviewed information regarding the addition of a Par 3 Annual Senior Pass. Staff posted the notice of the consideration of adding a Par 3 Annual Season Senior Pass on Wednesday, May 19. The anticipated initial availability date of the pass would be the first full week in June. The following conditions apply for the Par 3 Annual Senior Pass: • Cost $200 for the remainder of the 2021 golf season; greens fees only carts not included. If extended to 2022, those fees will be determined at that time for a full season. • Hours of play/use: Monday through Friday from 7:30am – 1:00pm. • Tee times are available first come, first serve and may not be made more than 7 days in advance. Golfers/senior pass holders will not be able to play on the course when a portion of the holes or the entire course is closed due to weather, course maintenance, city programming or other special events. • One round per pass holder per day; identification and season pass is required at check- in. • Passes are not transferable or refundable. • All other course rules apply. Attachments: Ordinance Amendment to the 2021 Fee Schedule for Parks and Recreation Fees-Par 3 BUDGET IMPACT The impact an annual senior golf pass has on the Par 3 revenues will be dependent on the amount of passes sold, and the number of rounds played by a senior user. The remainder of 2021 would be a demonstration/test year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the ordinance amendment to the 2021 Fee Schedule in relation to adding a Par 3 Annual Season Pass for seniors. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion approve the ordinance amendment to the 2021 Fee Schedule in relation to adding a Par 3 Annual Season Pass for seniors. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 567 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2021 FEE SCHEDULE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION FEES – PAR 3 SENIOR PASS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. The City’s Fee Schedule for 2021 is hereby amended by adding the following: PARKS AND RECREATION FEES Par 3 Senior Pass $ 200.00 per year (does not include golf cart) Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-49 Approving Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Operation of a Residential Organics Drop-off Site COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Dakota County for the Operation of a Residential Organics Drop-off site at Mendakota Park. BACKGROUND Organics Recycling participation has been increasing over the past couple years. Organics currently make up approximately 26 percent of the waste going to the landfill. This material can be composted and converted into a useable product. 273 Mendota Heights residents have registered for the drop-off program (250 at Thompson County Park in WSP and 23 at the Holland Lake Trailhead in Eagan). This represents about 5% of total program participation throughout the County (5,642 total registered users). Dakota County provided additional facts for their Organics program: • Currently, there are five residential organics drop-off sites. • Twin Cities Metro counties are required to develop plans and implement programs that will increase our overall recycling rate (both traditional recycling and organics) to 75% by 2030. Currently, Dakota County is around a 53% rate. Food scraps are a heavy component of the waste stream, diverting them from landfills will help Dakota County achieve compliance with this state statute. • The County Environmental Resources Department is ready to partner with all Dakota County communities to ensure as many residents have convenient access to an organics drop-off site. Past survey’s have shown that the majority of participants live within 2 miles of a site. The more sites available, the greater the accessibility and diversion rates become. • The sites are intended to be short-term sites, until curbside collection of residential organics is widely available throughout the region (which is anticipated to occur over the next 5-10 years). The drop-sites are a wonderful way to educate the public leading up to curbside programs. DISCUSSION The attached Joint Powers Agreement identifies the estimated cost reimbursement of a six year period and identifies the shared responsibilities of each entity. The County would provide: • Site planning and support for elected officials, administrators, public groups and other support needs that come up • Reimbursements for various start-up costs (such as signage and bag distribution boxes) • Reimbursement for ongoing program costs such as compostable bag purchases and hauling/disposal costs • City-wide recruitment via direct mail • Ongoing program registration and Welcome Kit distribution • Public training sessions and a dedicated program webpage and email address • Ongoing communication (via site specific Listserv) Municipalities would be requested to provide the following: • Site location • Staff time: o Staff would order, store and distribute compostable bags (bags are purchased off the state contract and county staff would provide detailed purchasing instructions) (the County would reimburse the City for compostable bag costs) o Remove snow and ice in the winter time o Install site location sign o Retain a licensed waste hauler (again the County would reimburse the City for hauling costs) o Submit reimbursement requests to the County (minimum 2 times per year) o Collaborate with the County to plan, promote and report on the site (report includes occasional observations for volume tracking and right-sizing) Dakota County has scheduled a grand opening of July 15, 2021 for the start of operations at this site. BUDGET IMPACT The County would reimburse the City for the costs to implement the drop site. There would be some staff time required as identified above. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for the Operation of a Residential Organics Drop-off site. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution 2021-49 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAKOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR THE OPERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS DROP-OFF SITE. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-49 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAKOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR THE OPERATION OF A RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS DROP-OFF SITE WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, Dakota County (“County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights (“City”) is a Minnesota municipal corporation (collectively herein the County and the City are referred to as the “Parties”); and WHEREAS, the County and City are desirous of entering into this Agreement to provide a residential organics drop-off site at Mendakota Park, 2171 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120. The partnership responsibilities are further defined in Dakota County Contract #C0034100. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that in consideration of the mutual benefits the County and the City shall derive from this Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”), the Parties hereby enter into this Agreement for the purpose of cooperation and funding by the County to the City for actual costs of the Project and to define the responsibilities and obligations of the County and the City for cost contribution. All funds provided by the County are to be used by the City solely for this purpose. The City shall use funds pursuant to this Agreement exclusively for the payment of actual costs as provided in this Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk   Dakota County Contract #C0034100  Page | 1 of 6  Joint Powers Agreement  JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO OPERATE A RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS DROP-OFF SITE This Agreement is between the County of Dakota (County) and the City of Mendota Heights (Municipality). WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the County and the Municipality are governmental units as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 471.59; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan counties are responsible for waste management policy and programs (Minn. Stat. §115A.551); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No.18-493 (September 18, 2018), the Dakota County Board of Commissioners adopted the 2018-2036 Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan); and WHEREAS, the Master Plan includes a strategy to expand opportunities for residential organics recovery; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan includes a tactic to co-develop and provide assistance for residential organics drop off sites with priority municipalities and/or partners until curbside organics collection is widely available; and WHEREAS, the Municipality in partnership with the County desires a residential organics drop-off site to be located at Mendakota Park, 2171 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120; and WHEREAS, the County receives Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) funds from the state to implement landfill abatement programs; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 115A.557 requires the County to expend a portion of the state-allocated SCORE funds on organics programming; and WHEREAS, allocated SCORE funds are used for residential organics drop sites at Thompson County Park, Lebanon Hills Regional Park, the Mulch Store in Empire Township, the Lakeville Water Treatment Facility, and the Hastings Transportation Shop; and WHEREAS, Municipality responsibilities include providing one drop-off location to collect organics from Dakota County residents; retaining a licensed hauler; collaborating with the County on promotion and communications; purchasing compostable bags; monitoring and maintaining the site; and administering invoicing and reimbursement submittals; and WHEREAS, County responsibilities include maintaining a list of acceptable organic materials and guidelines; developing and providing promotion, communications materials, and training; reimbursing the Municipality for recurring operational expenses; and administering participant recruitment, registration, and ongoing communication. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that the County and Municipality shall derive from this Agreement, the County and Municipality hereby enter into this Agreement for the purposes stated herein. SECTION 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation and funding between the County and the Municipality for the operation of a residential organics drop off site.   Dakota County Contract #C0034100  Page | 2 of 6  Joint Powers Agreement  SECTION 2 PARTIES The parties to this Agreement are the County and the Municipality. SECTION 3 TERM Notwithstanding the dates of the signatures of the parties, this Agreement shall be in effect June 1, 2021, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 2027, or until curbside organics collection is offered to residents in the Municipality whichever comes first, or until termination in accordance with the provisions herein. This Agreement may be amended in accordance with Section 11. SECTION 4 COOPERATION The County and the Municipality agree to cooperate and use their reasonable efforts to ensure prompt implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement and to, in good faith, undertake resolution of any dispute in an equitable and timely manner. SECTION 5 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES 5.1 County Responsibilities. The County shall: A. Ensure any necessary residential drop-off location approvals from the state, county, or municipality are fulfilled. B. Maintain a list of acceptable organic materials, compostable bag specifications, and drop site guidelines. C. Develop and supply outreach, education, and communications materials to County residents. D. Provide recurring drop-off site participation promotion. E. Reimburse drop-off site costs to the Municipality, including for recurring costs for compostable bags; organics hauling and disposal service fees; and other supplies and services with pre- approval from the County liaison. F. Recruit initial participants through direct mail to all households located in the municipality. G. Administer participant recruitment, registration, training and ongoing participant communication. H. Provide a dedicated organics email for direct contact to County liaison for residents and Municipality for regular communication. I. Provide appropriate drop-off signage and labels to the Municipality. 5.2 Municipality Responsibilities. The Municipality shall: A. Provide at least one convenient and safe drop-off site accessible from 5:00 am – 10:00 pm daily for Dakota County residents to drop off acceptable organics. B. Notify County staff if any local approvals or notifications are required. C. Retain, manage and pay for licensed waste hauler services including container(s) for organics collection and delivery of collected organics from drop-off site to a permitted and licensed commercial compost facility using adequate container size and at a frequency necessary for a clean, well-maintained site, and at a frequency not less than one collection per week.   Dakota County Contract #C0034100  Page | 3 of 6  Joint Powers Agreement  D. Provide the waste hauling pickup schedule to the County. E. Obtain County approval prior to changes in dumpster size and changes to hauling frequency. F. Install bag distribution box, program signage and labels. G. Provide training location and participate in up to three participant training sessions at no charge to the County. H. Collaborate for implementation and recurring promotion using County-supplied materials. I. Refer all participant inquiries to the County’s designated email. J. Communicate to County’s dedicated email any and all plans or unforeseen circumstances impacting participant use of the sites(s). K. Purchase and store a sufficient supply of BPI-certified compostable bags for use at the drop-off site at a size determined by the County for residential use. L. Provide daily monitoring (Monday-Friday) and necessary maintenance of drop-off area (Monday- Sunday) to ensure a clean, safe, and accessible drop-off site for residents, including snow and ice removal; BPI-certified compostable bag restocking; and container capacity observations to ensure proper sizing and hauling frequency. M. Restock compostable bags at least once each day Monday – Friday, or as needed to ensure a continuous supply of compostable bags is available for participants. N. Observe dumpster capacity no later than 24 hours prior to scheduled collection service and report to the County’s dedicated email at least monthly. O. Submit itemized invoices to the County in accordance with Section 6.2 for organics drop-off site expenses, including: compostable bags; organics hauling and disposal service fees; and other supplies and services pre-approved by the County liaison. SECTION 6 FUNDING 6.1 FUNDING AMOUNT. The allocated reimbursement funding for the Municipality shall be in the total amount not to exceed $28,500 as set forth in Exhibit 1. 6.2 FUNDING PAYMENT. The Municipality shall submit itemized invoices to the County covering drop-off site expenses by June 30 of each program year and February 1 following the program year. Costs not billed to the County by February 1 of a given calendar year may not be eligible for reimbursement. The invoices shall be paid within 35 days from the presentation of the claim. 6.3 ELIGIBLE EXPENSES. Municipality may use allocated funds only on eligible items as identified in Section 5 and includes recurring costs for compostable bags; organics hauling and disposal service fees; and other supplies and services including necessary maintenance with pre-approval from the County liaison. SECTION 7 PROPERTY Upon termination of this Agreement, any necessary infrastructure purchased by the County and provided to the Municipality shall be the sole property of the Municipality.   Dakota County Contract #C0034100  Page | 4 of 6  Joint Powers Agreement  SECTION 8 INDEMNIFICATION 8.1 IN GENERAL. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers, employees or agents. 8.2 LIMITATIONS. The provisions of Minn. Stat. § 471.59, the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the County and the Municipality. In the event of any claims or actions are filed against either Party, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to allow a claimant to obtain separate judgments or separate liability caps from the Individual Parties. 8.3 SURVIVORSHIP. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. SECTION 9 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND LIAISONS 9.1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: The following named persons are designated the Authorized Representatives of the parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications, except that the authorized representative shall have only the authority specifically or generally granted by their respective governing boards. Notice required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement. TO THE COUNTY Georg T. Fischer Environmental Resources Director 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 TO THE MUNICIPALITY Stephanie Levine, Mayor 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 In addition, notification to the County regarding termination under Section 10 of this Agreement by the other party shall be provided to the Office of the Dakota County Attorney, Civil Division, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033. 9.2 LIAISONS. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement, to ensure compliance, and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the County and the Municipality. The County and the Municipality shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the following persons are the designated liaisons: County Liaison: John Exner, or successor Telephone: (952) 891-7112 Email: john.exner@co.dakota.mn.us Municipality Liaison: Name: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Telephone: (651) 452-1850 Email: ryanr@mendota-heights.com SECTION 10 TERMINATION 10.1 IN GENERAL. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by giving seven days’ written notice or without cause by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice, of its intent to terminate, to the other   Dakota County Contract #C0034100  Page | 5 of 6  Joint Powers Agreement  party. Such notice to terminate for cause shall specify the circumstances warranting termination of the Agreement. Cause shall mean a material breach of this Agreement and any supplemental agreements or amendments thereto. Notice of Termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the authorized representative of the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 10.2 TERMINATION BY COUNTY FOR LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the County may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies, or other funding source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of the amounts due under this Agreement. Written notice of termination sent by the County to the Municipality by email or facsimile is sufficient notice under this section. The County is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after written notice of termination for lack of funding. The County will not be assessed any penalty or damages if the Agreement is terminated due to lack of funding. SECTION 11 GENERAL PROVISIONS 11.1 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS. The County and Municipality agree to abide by all federal, state or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereafter adopted pertaining to this Agreement or to the facilities, programs and staff for which either party is responsible. 11.2 EXCUSED DEFAULT – FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be liable to the other party for any loss or damage resulting from a delay or failure to perform due to unforeseeable acts or events outside the defaulting party's reasonable control, providing the defaulting party gives notice to the other party as soon as possible. Acts and events may include acts of God, acts of terrorism, war, fire, flood, epidemic, acts of civil or military authority, and natural disasters. 11.3 CONTRACT RIGHTS CUMULATIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE A. All remedies available to either party for breach of this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. B. Waiver. Any waiver is only valid when reduced to writing, specifically identified as a waiver, and signed by the waiving party’s Authorized Representative. A waiver is not an amendment to the Contract. The County’s failure to enforce any provision of this Contract does not waive the provision or the County’s right to enforce it. 11.4 RECORDS RETENTION AND AUDITS. Each party’s bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices, and other records relevant to this Agreement are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the other party, the Legislative Auditor or State Auditor under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5. If any funds provided under this Agreement use federal funds these records are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the United States and his or her approved representative. Following termination of this Agreement, the parties must keep these records for at least six years or longer if any audit-in-progress needs a longer retention time. 11.5 MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the County and Municipality. 11.6 ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign any of its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Said consent may be subject to conditions.   Dakota County Contract #C0034100  Page | 6 of 6  Joint Powers Agreement  11.7 GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES. For purposes of this Agreement, all data on individuals collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated shall be administered consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. 11.8 MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Dakota County, Minnesota or U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11.9 MERGER. This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon and shall supersede all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. There are no representations, warranties, or provisions, either oral or written, not contained herein. 11.10 SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. DAKOTA COUNTY Approved as to form: _________________________________ /s/ Helen R. Brosnahan 5/25/21 Assistant County Attorney/Date Georg T. Fischer, Director Environmental Resources Department KS-21-236 Date of Signature: __________________ County Board Res. No. 21-264 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor City of Mendota Heights Date of Signature: __________________ Attest: ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk City of Mendota Heights Date of Signature: _________________   Exhibit 1 Allocated Funds Six (6) – Year Term Anticipated reimbursement amount for the City of Mendota Heights Organics Drop-Off Site Total Anticipated Reimbursement Amount Hauling – Collection and Composting Fees (6 Years) $15,130 Compostable Bags – Participant Use $13,370 Total Reimbursement Amount $28,500 Date: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-45 Authorizing the Disposal of Obsolete Equipment COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to declare the outdated self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) in the Fire Department as obsolete, and authorize its disposal. Background State law requires that City Council declare materials which are no longer to be used as being obsolete or surplus, and authorize their disposal by an appropriate method. The City’s Fire Department currently has 28 sets of SCBA and 28 spare bottles for each, which is no longer usable due to their age. Efforts were made to sell or trade these to four commercial companies, but no interest from any of those companies was indicated. The equipment cannot be given away for use. As a result, the equipment should be declared to be obsolete, and either recycled where possible, or disposed of. Recommendation I recommend that the SCBA sets and spare bottles be declared to be obsolete and that they be authorized for recycling where possible, or disposed of. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the following Resolution 2021-45: A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN FIRE EQUIPMENT TO BE OBSOLETE, AND AUTHORIZING DISPOSITION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-45 A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN FIRE EQUIPMENT TO BE OBSOLETE, AND AUTHORIZING DISPOSITION WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights follows the requirements in State Law and City Code for the appropriate disposition of unused or unneeded property; and WHEREAS, the Fire Chief recommends that following materials currently in the possession of the Mendota Heights Fire Department should be considered obsolete equipment: 28 Self Contained Breathing Units 28 spare bottles for Self-Contained Breathing Units WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and declares the afore listed material to be obsolete, and of no further need or value to the City; and WHEREAS, efforts to sell or trade this equipment have been unsuccessful, and so the equipment which can’t be recycled should be either landfilled or otherwise properly disposed. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby declares the listed equipment to be obsolete, and authorizes staff to recycle or dispose of same. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ___________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor _______________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Approve Temporary Authorization of the Police Department’s Sworn Staff to 21 and Hiring of 2 Police Officers INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the temporary authorization of the Police Department’s sworn staff to 21 and hire Kyle Pagel and Beau Jacobson to the position of Police Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department. BACKGROUND Staff recommends the hiring of Kyle Pagel and Beau Jacobson to the position of Police Officer. Kyle served in the United States Marine Corps for four years. After being honorably discharged, Kyle attended Alexandria Technical and Community College where he earned an Associate’s degree in Law Enforcement. Beau attended Rasmussen College where he earned an Associate’s degree in Law Enforcement and St. Cloud State University where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Currently, Beau is a licensed police officer with the Williston Police Department in Williston, North Dakota and has held that position since July of 2017. The anticipated timeframe to begin employment for both Kyle and Beau is June, 2021, and is dependent upon approval by the City Council and notice to employers. The City currently has an authorized strength of 20 sworn officers. BUDGET IMPACT Funding would come from the Police Department’s 2021 authorized budget. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff recommends the City Council approve the temporary authorization of the Police Department’s sworn staff to 21 (an increase of one) through the end of 2021. We also recommend the hiring of Kyle Pagel and Beau Jacobson as Police Officers. Starting salary will be based on the 2020-2021 Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. labor agreement. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council concurs, it should by motion, approve the hiring of Kyle Pagel and Beau Jacobson to the positions of Police Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department, and increase the authorized number of sworn officers to 21 effective through the end of 2021. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-40 Public Hearing on Right-of-Way Vacation for Mendota Heights Road - Continuation COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to hold proceedings for Resolution 2021-40, a public hearing on a right-of- way vacation commenced by petition. This public hearing was opened at the City Council meeting on May 18, 2021 and continued to June 1, 2021. BACKGROUND The city of Mendota Heights approved a final plat for “The Oaks of Mendota Heights” in 2018. A copy of the plat is attached which shows the areas of right-of-way that were dedicated for public use. Along the north property, the underlying plat had previously dedicated right-of-way which was retained during the replatting to the Oaks of Mendota Heights. DISCUSSION The Mendota Heights City Code for subdivision right-of-way dedication is based on the following table: Mendota Heights Road is identified as a major collector road on the State functional classification map (attached). Based on this designation, Mendota Heights Road should have a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet. Staff would desire a larger right-of-way in this area for potential future expansion as this road intersects with State Highway 149 (Dodd Road). The current right-of-way measure 115 feet along the perpendicular measurement from the northwest property corner and around 170 feet from the northeast property corner. Vacating the right-of-way as shown on the attached exhibit would result in in a right-of-way width of 92.5 feet Arterial street 80 - 100 feet Collector street 60 feet Minor street 60 feet Cul-de-sac or marginal access service streets 60 feet Alley 30 feet Pedestrianway 10 feet *Private common access 30 feet from the northwest corner and 95 feet from the northeast corner which would be acceptable for compliance with the city requirements. The existing single family lot of Lot 1, Block 1, The Oaks of Mendota Heights, would have this vacated right-of-way added to their property. The area of right-of-way vacation totals approximately 5,000 square feet and would be added to the approximately 18,000 square feet of the existing lot. This property would not be able to be subdivided per the current Mendota Heights zoning standards. The home owner of the adjacent Lot 1, Block 1, is desiring this vacation as a means to protect three large oak trees which reside in this right-of-way. The property owners of 2535 Condon Court desire to speak at the Public Hearing but were unable to attend the May 18, 2021 meeting and asked that the hearing be continued until June 1, 2021. BUDGET IMPACT The Mendota Heights fee schedule includes a required $250 application fee to cover mailing and recording fees and staff time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council open the hearing and hear any comments. Staff also recommends that Council approve the Resolution Vacating a portion of Right-of-way. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2021-40, “RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION”. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION WHEREAS, The Oaks of Mendota Heights Plat, Dakota County, Minnesota was approved in 2019 and identified dedicated right-of-way for Mendota Heights Road; and WHEREAS, an area of Mendota Heights Road Right-of-Way described below is not required for road and utility purposes That part of the right of way of Mendota Heights Road, as dedicated on the recorded plat of THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, said plat; thence northerly, along the northerly extension of the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right 64 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 81.04 feet to the intersection with the northwesterly extension of the northeast line of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly, along said northwesterly extension, a distance of 84.19 feet to a northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence westerly, along the north line of said Lot 1, a distance of 127.01 feet to the point of beginning.; and WHEREAS, said described area is added to Lot 1, Block 1, The Oaks of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, said described area is also covered under a drainage and utility easement; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on May 18, 2021, at the City Hall of Mendota Heights and continued until June 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said vacation. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the described portion of Mendota Heights Road Right-of-Way, is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the above described right-of-way be and the same is hereby vacated. 3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the proper Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk ? ?? ? ? ? ?(((((G!. G!. G!. EU EUEUEU EU EU EUEU EUEU EUEU$1 $1$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 666666666666666666 66666666666 6 66" !³ ³ ³ ³ " " " " " " " " """*66666666!!2 !!2 (] 2511 2525 2535 819 277161186178296 160287144 143 95141 92135 126 8 340 114113110210 61 50 3029 181159 320162 2013 12160 30 161 162 DODD RDCONDON CTMENDO T A H EI G H T S R D DODD RD RAMPVISITATION DRINTE R S T A T E 4 9 4 W B R A M PDODD RDVacation Map Date: 4/15/2021 City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. That part of the right of way of Mendota Heights Road, as dedicatedon the recorded plat of THE OAKS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DakotaCounty, Minnesota, described as beginning at the northwest corner ofLot 1, Block 1, said plat; thence northerly, along the northerlyextension of the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 30.00 feet;thence deflecting to the right 64 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds adistance of 81.04 feet to the intersection with the northwesterlyextension of the northeast line of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly,along said northwesterly extension, a distance of 84.19 feet to anortheast corner of said Lot 1; thence westerly, along the north line ofsaid Lot 1, a distance of 127.01 feet to the point of beginning.PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was preparedby me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulylicensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of theState of Minnesota.Signed this 23rd day of March, 2021For: James R. Hill, Inc.By:Marcus F. Hampton, Land Surveyor, MN License No. 47481SKETCH & DESCRIPTIONFOR: DICK BJORKLUND PROPERTIES, LLCJames R. Hill, Inc.2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100, BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952.890.6044 www.jrhinc.comPLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS'RAWN BY'ATEREVISIONSMFH03/23/2021CA' FILEPRO-ECT NO.PAGE 1 OF 223046skt-row.dwg23046-00 PROPERTY TO BE AQUIRED Page 2 of 2 James R. Hill, Inc.Scale: 1"=30'PROJECT NO. 23046-00SKETCH & DESCRIPTION FOR: DICK BJORKLUND PROPERTIES, LLC 1 Ryan Ruzek From: Sent: To: Subject: Sue Laughlin Monday, May 3, 2021 11:37 AM Mark McNeill; Stephanie Levine; Ryan Ruzek Request for Postponement of Hearing TO:  City Administrator Mark McNeill, Mayor Stephanie Levine and City Engineer Ryan Ruzek  RE:  City Council Hearing May 18, 2021      On Saturday May 1, 2021 we received a notice that the City Council will hear a request to vacate a portion of a right‐of‐ way on property adjacent to Mr. Bjorklunds development on Condon Court in Mendota Heights.  A copy of the notice is  attached.  We own the only other property on Condon Court and wish to be heard on this matter, but will be out of town on that  date.  I spoke to Mr. Ruzek and he suggested that we send our comments.  In the past, we have sent comments which  have not been forwarded to the council for hearing, so we have little confidence in that method.  More importantly, we  wish to be heard on this issue and we wish to hear all the commentary which might be made, so we want to be present  for the hearing.  Mr. Ruzek stated that this matter might be continued to the next hearing date June 1, 2021 if we provide an email with  our request for postponement.  As of today, we have several unresolved issues concerning the sewer system design which was created to accommodate  Mr. Bjorklund’s development.  It currently appears that we cannot safely attach to the sewer line due to the design.  This  is impeding our sale of our property.  The City is requiring that we pay all assessment fees (which we have done) and  that we attach to the sewer line (which is not recommended).  We believe that nothing further should be done to assist  Mr. Bjorklund in furthering his development plans until our issues are resolved.  Request for City Council Action DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 565 – Amending Title 12-1D.3 of the City Code by Amending Certain Sections Regarding Accessory Structures [Planning Case No. 2021-06] Introduction The City Council is asked to consider an ordinance amendment to City Code Title 12 – Zoning, specifically Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, which would amend and revise certain design standards and allowances for various accessory structures in the city. This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and posted on the city’s website. Background At the April 27, 2021 planning commission meeting, Mr. Mike Cashill presented for consideration a request of a conditional use permit (CUP) with variances to build a new 2,400-sq. ft. detached garage on his residential property. Based upon the discussions that evening, it appeared some commissioners supported the applicant’s desire to have a larger garage with a CUP, but did not support the related variances to exceed the maximum structure size (area) or height standards as prescribed by the current code. The commission later directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment, which they felt may resolve some of the issues related to the variances. At the follow-up May 25, 2021 meeting, staff presented a Draft Ordinance No. 565, with suggested changes to Section B.2. Height: standards and Section C. Accessory Structures in all Residential Districts with regards to size allowances for larger sized parcels. The ordinance also included added language on allowable stories, loft spaces, and a new section addressing larger playhouses and treehouses. After considerable discussion with city staff and opening/closing the public hearing, the planning commission elected to make some minor changes to height limitations on different sized sheds/accessory structure; adjusted setback k standards for different sized structures; added larger sized garages for parcels 5 acres or more; revised and specified language related to upper story or loft spaces in said structures; and elected to removed/strike the section on playhouses and treehouses for now (possibly address these types of structures at a later time). A copy of this 05/25/2021 planning staff report, which includes the original submitted draft ordinance document (noted as Vers. 05/20/2021) and the May 25th PC Meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Authority The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a zoning code amendment request and has broad discretion, provided said action is constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation At the May 25, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the commission opened a public hearing; received no comments from the general public; closed the hearing; and recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the requested amendment as presented under attached Draft Ordinance No. 565 (noted as Vers. 05/25/2021). The city attorneys have reviewed this updated draft ordinance for layout and content, and have deemed it acceptable for official consideration. Action Requested City Council may choose to affirm this recommendation; suggest or make added revisions, and make an official motion to adopt Ordinance No. 565 as presented. If the Council chooses to reverse this recommendation from the planning commission, a motion to deny the ordinance would be needed, or the council may choose to table the item to a future meeting date. Any of the three noted actions requires a simple-majority vote of the council. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 565 AMENDING PARTS OF TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows: Title 12-1D-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language as follows: 12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: B.Accessory Structures in All Zoning Districts: 1.Setbacks: b.Side And Rear Yard Setbacks: (1)Accessory structure one hundred forty four (144) square feet or less in area: Five feet (5'). (2)Accessory structure exceeding one hundred forty four (144) square feet but less than two thousand (2,000) square feet in area: Ten feet (10'). (3)Accessory structures exceeding two thousand (2,000) square feet in area: Fifteen feet (15'). 2.Height: a.All districts: No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building. b.Residential districts: No accessory building shall exceed fifteen feet (15') in height. (1)Accessory structures one hundred forty four (144) square feet or less in area shall be limited to a single-level only, and must not exceed ten feet (10') in height. (2)Accessory structures exceeding one hundred forty four (144) square feet, but less than two thousand (2,000) square feet in area shall be limited to one and one- half (1-1/2) stories, and must not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height. (3)Accessory structures exceeding two thousand (2,000) square feet in area, as allowed under 12-1D-3.C.(3) below, shall be limited to one and one-half (1-1/2) stories, and must not exceed eighteen feet (18’) in height. C.Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts: 1.Private garages in all residential districts: b. Size: Size, as measured by the building footprint: (3)Detached Private Garage: One detached private garage may be allowed on residential property as a second garage by permitted use, or by conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres - 5.0 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. >5.0 acres 2,000 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft. c.Standards For Private Garages In All Residential Districts: (4)Use: No use of the garage shall be permitted other than private residential storage of personal motorized and non-motorized vehicles, household goods and equipment, and must be strictly for noncommercial use. (6)Any detached garage with an allowed upper story or loft area shall not be used as habitable space, an accessory dwelling unit or residential living space. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: May 25, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-06 Zoning Code Amendments – Accessory Structure Ordinance APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an ordinance amendment to City Code Title 12 – Zoning, specifically Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, which would amend and revise certain design standards and allowances for various accessory structures in the city. This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and posted on the city’s website. DISCUSSION At the April 27, 2021 planning commission meeting, Mr. Mike Cashill presented for consideration a request of a conditional use permit (CUP) with variances to build a new 2,400-sq. ft. detached garage on his residential property. Based upon the discussions that evening, it appeared some commissioners supported the applicant’s desire to have a larger garage with a CUP, but did not support the related variances to exceed the maximum structure size (area) or height standards as prescribed by the current code. The commission later directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment, that may help resolve some of the issues related to the variances. The changes being offered under this new ordinance begin with Section B.2. Height: b. Residential districts:, which include new language specifically on heights standards for accessory structures 144-sq. ft. and less; with separate standards for those more than 144-sq. ft. but less than 2,000-sq. ft.; and even new standards for those structures exceeding 2,000-sq. ft. in size. For heights standards, staff is asking the commissioners to give careful consideration of the differing height standards and storage allowances under each subpart. The table found under Section C. Accessory Structures in all Residential Districts: 1. Private Garages in all residential districts: b. Size: (3) Detached Private Garage has also been revised to include a line for lots greater than 2.5 acres up to 5.0 acres; and a new table line for those parcels 5 acres or more. Section C.1.c. Standards for Private Garages… include changes to Subpart (4); and a new Subpart (6) that includes new language addressing allowable upper stories or lofts. Finally, due to the recent COVID pandemic and the resulting shelter-in-place/home schooling rules, there have been a number of recent requests by homeowners seeking to install outdoor play houses and tree forts for kids. As such, staff is proposing a new Subpart (4) to allow temporary playhouses and tree forts on residential properties, with certain size and height limitations. Structures of this type would still need to be reviewed and given zoning approval under an accessory structure permit. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Since part of this ordinance amendment involves Title 12-Zoning, the Planning Commission is required to provide a review under a public hearing process, and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission may consider one of the three following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 565, which amends certain sections of Zoning Code Title 12 – Zoning, as presented herein or with added/revised language and standards deemed necessary by the commission; or 2. Recommend denial of the requested zoning code amendments and make no changes to Title 12 – Zoning, with findings to support such a recommendation; or 3. Table the amendment request, and direct city staff to provide additional information for further consideration by the Planning Commission, and present this information at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing; allow comments; discuss with city staff the requested zoning code amendments; and make a motion to recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 565 as presented herein. The Commissioners should bear in mind that any amendment(s) approved under this draft ordinance, may directly affect the outcome of Planning Case No. 2021-02 (Mike Cashill – 806 Bachelor Ave.), which is under separate review and hearing. Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 565 2) Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures (shown with new language/revisions) 3) Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures (un-altered) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 565 AMENDING PARTS OF TITLE 12 – ZONING OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. City Code Title 12 – ZONING is hereby amended as follows: Title 12-1D-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the double-line struck-through language as follows: 12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: B.Accessory Structures in All Zoning Districts: 2.Height: a.All districts: No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building. b.Residential districts: No accessory building shall exceed fifteen feet (15') in height. (1)Accessory structures one hundred forty four (144) square feet or less in area shall be limited to a single-level only, and must not exceed fifteen feet (15') in overall height from the ground elevation to the highest point of a flat roof, shed roof, pitched roof or gabled roof. (2)Accessory structures exceeding one hundred forty four (144) square feet, but less than two thousand (2,000) square feet in area shall be limited to one and one- half (1-1/2) stories, must not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height as determined by the vertical distance from the average grade of the front building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to a point of the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (3)Accessory structures exceeding two thousand (2,000) square feet in area, as allowed under 12-1D-3.C.(3) below, shall be limited to one and one-half (1-1/2) stories, and must not exceed [eighteen feet (18’)] / [twenty feet (20')] in height as determined by the vertical distance from the average grade of the front building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to a point of the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Vers. 05/20/2021 C.Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts: 1.Private garages in all residential districts: b. Size: Size, as measured by the building footprint: (3)Detached Private Garage: One detached private garage may be allowed on residential property as a second garage by permitted use, or by conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres - 5.0 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. >5.0 acres 2,000 sq. ft. 2,600 sq. ft. c.Standards For Private Garages In All Residential Districts: (4)Use: No use of the garage shall be permitted other than private residential storage of personal motorized and non-motorized vehicles, household goods and equipment, and must be strictly for noncommercial use. (6)Any detached garage with an allowed upper story or loft area shall only be used for the storage of personal household goods and equipment. No part of the upper story or loft area may be used as habitable space, an accessory dwelling unit or residential living space. The area of the upper story or loft space shall be factored in when determining the total amount of garage size (area) allowed in this section. 3.Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: (4)Temporary playhouse or elevated treehouse exceeding twenty five (25) square feet in size shall not exceed [eighty (80) square feet] / [one hundred (100) square feet]; not exceed six (6) feet in overall height from the ground level, or fifteen (15) feet at its highest point if elevated off the ground. The area of the playhouse or treehouse in combination with another permitted accessory structure less than 144 square feet must not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. The owner shall maintain the playhouse or treehouse in good repair. The owner shall ensure the playhouse or treehouse does not present a health or safety threat. Vers. 05/20/2021 Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this _____ day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Vers. 05/20/2021 12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: [CURRENT EDITION] A. Definitions: ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE: A use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. GARAGE, PRIVATE: A detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used primarily for storing passenger vehicles, trailers or one truck of a rated capacity not in excess of one and one-half (11/2) tons. GARAGE, PUBLIC: A building or portion of a building used for the storage of vehicles for remuneration or gratis. B. Accessory Structures In All Zoning Districts: 1. Setbacks: a. Front Yard Setbacks: (1) No detached garage, or other accessory building, shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot. (2) No accessory structure shall be located within any front yard. b. Side And Rear Yard Setbacks: (1) Accessory structure one hundred forty four (144) square feet or less: Five feet (5'). (2) Accessory structure exceeding one hundred forty four (144) square feet: Ten feet (10'). c. Setback From Principal Building: No accessory structure shall be erected, altered, or moved within five feet (5') of the principal building. See figure 1D-3.1 of this section. FIGURE 1D-3.1: ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 2. Height: a. All districts: No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building. b. Residential districts: No accessory building shall exceed fifteen feet (15') in height. 3. Time For Construction: No accessory building or structure, including parking area, shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 4. Use Restrictions: No cellar, basement, tent, tent trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling primarily for human habitation. 5. Subdivision: In the event that any property upon which an accessory structure or structures have been erected shall later be subdivided, then the number and size of accessory structures on the subdivided property shall conform to the requirements of this chapter, and those which do not conform shall be relocated, removed or reconstructed so that they do conform. C. Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts: 1. Private garages in all residential districts: a. Number: One detached private garage, as an accessory building, and one attached private garage shall be allowed on residential property, subject to the size allowances identified in this section. b. Size: Size, as measured by the building footprint: (1) Attached Private Garage: (A) Up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet is permitted. (B) More than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet is allowed via a conditional use permit. (2) Single-Family Residential Parcels: Single-family residential parcels that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one detached garage up to seven hundred fifty (750) square feet as a permitted structure, or up to one thousand (1,000) square feet upon approval of a conditional use permit. (3) Detached Private Garage: One detached private garage may be allowed on residential property as a second garage by permitted use, or by conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. (4) Garage Building Footprint Area: Notwithstanding the size allowances in subsection C1b(3) of this section, no single- family parcel shall have total attached and detached garage building footprint area that exceeds the finished square footage of the principal structure. c. Standards For Private Garages In All Residential Districts: (1) Floor Of A Garage: In all R districts, the floor of a garage shall be at least one and one-half feet (11/2') above the street grade at the curb unless a deviation is granted by the public works director upon determination that a lower elevation is appropriate. (2) Garage Doors: No more than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door per structure, measured horizontally, may be installed to provide access to any private garage or other accessory building space on a single- or two-family residential property. More than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door may be provided by conditional use permit when such additional garage door exposure is not visible from a public street or from surrounding residential property. (3) Height: No garage doors over nine feet (9') in height shall be permitted. (4) Use: No use of the garage shall be permitted other than private residential noncommercial use. (5) Detached Private Garages: Detached private garages must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure, including exterior design, materials and colors. 2. Chicken coops and runs in all residential districts: a. Number, Size And Building Requirements: (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this title. (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: (A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor area of the run must have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred forty four (144) square feet. (B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of ten feet (10') tall, whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten feet (10') tall. (C) The coop and run must be set back ten feet (10') from the side and rear lot lines of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: (A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: 1) weather resistant, protective covering material, decay resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and 2) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this code. (B) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests. (C) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this code. (D) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) Limit: No more than six (6) chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters: Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughter: Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) Eggs: No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Fighting: Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. (6) Food: Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) Sanitation: All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or other pests at all times. (8) Disposal Of Waste: Fecal waste or coop related litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage. Waste or litter is allowed to be composted on the property, provided the composting is done in a sturdy, weather resistant compost bin or dedicated enclosure. Should the composting be done in an unhealthy or ineffective manner, whereby creating a public nuisance or complaint from a neighboring resident, the permit holder shall immediately cease all waste composting on the property and remove such waste composting bin(s) if so ordered by the zoning administrator or animal warden. (9) Nuisance: Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be deemed a public nuisance. (10) Inspection: Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by the city zoning administrator, animal warden or their designee. (11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: (i) The applicant signed thereto; and (ii) The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in this section; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. (12) Revocation: A permit granted under this section of the code may be revoked by the zoning administrator or animal warden with a finding in writing to the applicant that a violation of any of these standards has occurred or that there is a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Such revocation may be appealed to the city council, whose decision shall be final. 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number And Size: (1) Accessory buildings (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. (2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coop and run provided the total area of both structures shall not exceed two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet. (3) Property is more than four (4) acres*: Total area cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (425) square feet, provided: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet; the exception being a single structure with an attached chicken coop and run shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet in total area. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. b. Through Lots: All accessory buildings greater than one hundred forty four (144) square feet on through lots located in R districts shall require a conditional use permit. D. Accessory Structures In Single-Family Residential Districts (R-1, R-1A, R-1B, And R-1C): One private, single-level garage with a minimum floor area of four hundred forty (440) square feet and a maximum area of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet shall be required to be built concurrent with the principal structure. E. Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings: Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota statutes section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the city of Mendota Heights opts out of the requirements of Minnesota statutes section 462.3593, which defines and regulates temporary family healthcare dwellings. By opting out, the city expressly prohibits temporary family healthcare dwellings as defined in Minnesota statutes section 462.3593. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 454, 1-7-2014; Ord. 499, 8-2-2016; Ord. 508, 3-7-2017; Ord. 553, 2-4-2020) 12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: [Changes/Revisions Highlighted in RED underlined text] A. Definitions: ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE: A use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto. GARAGE, PRIVATE: A detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used primarily for storing passenger vehicles, trailers or one truck of a rated capacity not in excess of one and one-half (11/2) tons. GARAGE, PUBLIC: A building or portion of a building used for the storage of vehicles for remuneration or gratis. B. Accessory Structures In All Zoning Districts: 1. Setbacks: a. Front Yard Setbacks: (1) No detached garage, or other accessory building, shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot. (2) No accessory structure shall be located within any front yard. b. Side And Rear Yard Setbacks: (1) Accessory structure one hundred forty four (144) square feet or less: Five feet (5'). (2) Accessory structure exceeding one hundred forty four (144) square feet: Ten feet (10'). c. Setback From Principal Building: No accessory structure shall be erected, altered, or moved within five feet (5') of the principal building. See figure 1D-3.1 of this section. FIGURE 1D-3.1: ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 2. Height: a. All districts: No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building. b. Residential districts: No accessory building shall exceed fifteen feet (15') in height. (1) Accessory structures one hundred forty four (144) square feet or less shall be limited to a single-level only, and must not exceed fifteen feet (15') in overall height from the ground elevation to the highest point of a flat roof, shed roof, pitched roof or gabled roof. (2) Accessory structures exceeding one hundred forty four (144) square feet, but less than two thousand (2,000) square feet shall be limited to one and one-half (1-1/2) stories, must not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height as determined by the vertical distance from the average grade of the front building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to a point of the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (3) Accessory structures exceeding two thousand (2,000) square feet, as allowed under 12-1D- 3.C.(3) below, shall be limited to one and one-half (1-1/2) stories, and must not exceed [eighteen feet (18’)] / [twenty feet (20')] in height as determined by the vertical distance from the average grade of the front building line to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to a point of the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. 3. Time For Construction: No accessory building or structure, including parking area, shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 4 Use Restrictions: No cellar, basement, tent, tent trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling primarily for human habitation. 5. Subdivision: In the event that any property upon which an accessory structure or structures have been erected shall later be subdivided, then the number and size of accessory structures on the subdivided property shall conform to the requirements of this chapter, and those which do not conform shall be relocated, removed or reconstructed so that they do conform. C. Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts: 1. Private garages in all residential districts: a. Number: One detached private garage, as an accessory building, and one attached private garage shall be allowed on residential property, subject to the size allowances identified in this section. b. Size: Size, as measured by the building footprint: (1) Attached Private Garage: (A) Up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet is permitted. (B) More than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet is allowed via a conditional use permit. (2) Single-Family Residential Parcels: Single-family residential parcels that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one detached garage up to seven hundred fifty (750) square feet as a permitted structure, or up to one thousand (1,000) square feet upon approval of a conditional use permit. (3) Detached Private Garage: One detached private garage may be allowed on residential property as a second garage by permitted use, or by conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres - 5.0 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. >5.0 acres 2,000 sq. ft. 2,600 sq. ft. (4) Garage Building Footprint Area: Notwithstanding the size allowances in subsection C1b(3) of this section, no single- family parcel shall have total attached and detached garage building footprint area that exceeds the finished square footage of the principal structure. c. Standards For Private Garages In All Residential Districts: (1) Floor Of A Garage: In all R districts, the floor of a garage shall be at least one and one-half feet (11/2') above the street grade at the curb unless a deviation is granted by the public works director upon determination that a lower elevation is appropriate. (2) Garage Doors: No more than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door per structure, measured horizontally, may be installed to provide access to any private garage or other accessory building space on a single- or two-family residential property. More than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door may be provided by conditional use permit when such additional garage door exposure is not visible from a public street or from surrounding residential property. (3) Height: No garage doors over nine feet (9') in height shall be permitted. (4) Use: No use of the garage shall be permitted other than private residential storage of personal motorized and non-motorized vehicles, household goods and equipment, and strictly for noncommercial use. (5) Detached Private Garages: Detached private garages must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure, including exterior design, materials and colors. (6) Any detached garage with an allowed upper story or loft area shall be used only for the storage of personal and household equipment. No part of the upper story or loft area can be used as habitable space, an accessory dwelling unit or residential living space. The area of the upper story or loft space shall be factored in when determining the total amount of garage size (area) allowed in this section. 2. Chicken coops and runs in all residential districts: a. Number, Size And Building Requirements: (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this title. (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: (A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor area of the run must have a minimum of five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred forty four (144) square feet. (B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of ten feet (10') tall, whether the accessory structure is for sole use as a chicken coop or if it is part of an accessory structure also used for other purposes. The chicken coop portion of such a structure may be no more than ten feet (10') tall. (C) The coop and run must be set back ten feet (10') from the side and rear lot lines of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: (A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: 1) weather resistant, protective covering material, decay resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and 2) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this code. (B) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents or other pests. (C) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this code. (D) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) Limit: No more than six (6) chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters: Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughter: Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) Eggs: No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Fighting: Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. (6) Food: Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) Sanitation: All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or other pests at all times. (8) Disposal Of Waste: Fecal waste or coop related litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage. Waste or litter is allowed to be composted on the property, provided the composting is done in a sturdy, weather resistant compost bin or dedicated enclosure. Should the composting be done in an unhealthy or ineffective manner, whereby creating a public nuisance or complaint from a neighboring resident, the permit holder shall immediately cease all waste composting on the property and remove such waste composting bin(s) if so ordered by the zoning administrator or animal warden. (9) Nuisance: Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be deemed a public nuisance. (10) Inspection: Any chicken coop and run authorized under this section may be inspected at any reasonable time by the city zoning administrator, animal warden or their designee. (11) Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: (i) The applicant signed thereto; and (ii) The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in this section; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. (12) Revocation: A permit granted under this section of the code may be revoked by the zoning administrator or animal warden with a finding in writing to the applicant that a violation of any of these standards has occurred or that there is a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Such revocation may be appealed to the city council, whose decision shall be final. 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number And Size: (1) Accessory buildings (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. (2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coop and run provided the total area of both structures shall not exceed two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet. (3) Property is more than four (4) acres*: Total area cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (425) square feet, provided: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet; the exception being a single structure with an attached chicken coop and run shall not exceed three hundred (300) square feet in total area. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. (4) Temporary playhouse or elevated tree house exceeding twenty five (25) square feet in size shall not exceed [eighty (80) square feet] / [one hundred (100) square feet]; not exceed six (6) feet in overall height from the ground level, or fifteen (15) feet at its highest point if elevated off the ground. The area of the playhouse in combination with another permitted accessory structure less than 144 square feet must not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. Should the playhouse or treehouse be determined by the city as no longer in use, in disrepair, or a threat to the health and safety of children or residents, the owner shall remove the structure within thirty (30) days of written notice from the city zoning administrator. b. Through Lots: All accessory buildings greater than one hundred forty four (144) square feet on through lots located in R districts shall require a conditional use permit. D. Accessory Structures In Single-Family Residential Districts (R-1, R-1A, R-1B, And R-1C): One private, single-level garage with a minimum floor area of four hundred forty (440) square feet and a maximum area of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet shall be required to be built concurrent with the principal structure. E. Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings: Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota statutes section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the city of Mendota Heights opts out of the requirements of Minnesota statutes section 462.3593, which defines and regulates temporary family healthcare dwellings. By opting out, the city expressly prohibits temporary family healthcare dwellings as defined in Minnesota statutes section 462.3593. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 454, 1-7-2014; Ord. 499, 8-2-2016; Ord. 508, 3-7- 2017; Ord. 553, 2-4-2020) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 25, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 25, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 27, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2021. Further discussion: Commissioner Katz noted on Page 5 the fourth paragraph, it should state, “…approval or denial.” Instead of: “...approval of denial.” Chair Field also noted on Page 11, it should read, “Chair Field…” instead of “Chair Fields…” AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-06 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an ordinance amendment to City Code Title 12 – Zoning, specifically Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, which would amend and revise certain design standards and allowances for various accessory structures in the city. Hearing notices were published and posted to the City’s website; no comments or objections to this request were received. 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 available actions the Commission could take. Commissioner Katz noted that the staff reports notes that this would be for residential areas only but advised that there are a few homes located within industrial zoning. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that because of the underlying industrial land use, those homes would need to come in and apply for a variance, therefore this would not apply to this instances. Commissioner Petschel referenced the language limiting to a single level and not allowing lofts. He asked for clarification on how a shop area in the lofted part of a detached garage would be viewed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would be viewed as a livable or habitable space and therefore that would be discouraged. He explained that what could be a shop one day could easily be converted into living space the next. He stated that once a building is built the property owners could change the intended use and therefore staff would want to ensure it is clear that cannot be used for habitable space. Commissioner Petschel agreed that secondary residences should not be created on a property but noted that is usually prevented by not allowing plumbing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that plumbing, kitchen features and mechanical access are typically what qualify something as a dwelling unit. Commissioner Corbett asked if the roof height is a local definition and should be repeated throughout the Code. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that measurement definition is consistent throughout Code with the exception of an accessory structure under 144 square feet. He stated that he would like to limit the scale of the accessory structures under 144 square feet. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would be nice to have a consistent definition for roof height. He asked how the numbers were determined within the table by staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that those numbers were a reflection of a review of ordinances from other communities and then tweaking that information in attempt to best fit this community. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she reviewed the table and the percentage changes between the categories are not consistent. She suggested making the dimensions more in line with the other proportional advances. She recommended 2,400 square feet rather than 2,600. Commissioner Corbett stated that this would allow structures that are 100 percent than what is currently allowed in terms of height. He stated that he would imagine that the setbacks are related to the impacts for neighboring properties. He asked if different setbacks should be considered for larger accessory buildings as the largest building allowed would be three times the size of some homes in Mendota Heights. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that initially he had a suggested increased setback but after speaking with legal counsel and other planners, it was suggested that the same setback for a home be used. He stated that if the Commission feels a larger setback is warranted, he would support that. Commissioner Corbett commented that he would find a larger setback reasonable. He noted that a home on one third of an acre could abut an eight-acre lot that could support a larger accessory structure, therefore he would support a larger setback as a larger lot would have space to provide that additional setback. He referenced the playhouse accessory structure language and asked if a resident would be prohibited from purchasing a premade plastic playhouse because they already have the maximum size of accessory buildings. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that this language would apply to permanent structures, not the plastic temporary structures that are easily moved around the yard. He stated that the language was intended to address the recent inquiries and demand to permanent playhouse, or treehouse structures. Commissioner Johnson referenced accessory structure 144 square feet or less, which is limited to a single story less than 15 feet in height, noting that there is also language allowing 1.5 stories but still under 15 feet in height. She asked for clarification. She stated that an accessory structure 15 feet in height setback five feet from the property line would impact the light and air for the neighboring property and could bring about complaints. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that if the setback is changed, that would put a lot of structures into nonconforming status, and he would not recommend doing that. He recommended leaving the accessory structures of 144 square feet or less at a five-foot setback. He noted that if the setback is desired to be increased for the other allowed accessory structures that could be done. Commissioner Corbett explained that the height different mentioned between the two statements related to accessory structures under 144 feet is the difference in how the measurement is completed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that currently today, the City allows for accessory structures under 144 feet to have a height of 15 feet at the midpoint. He noted that changes to that language would place existing structures in nonconforming status. He stated that limiting those structures to one story could be done. Commissioner Corbett commented that it has been mentioned that the midpoint of 15 feet is high. He stated that it would seem it could be warranted to change that but was unsure how many structures would become nonconforming. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that most shed range from ten to 12 feet in height, at most. He noted that sheds are typically temporary structures and therefore he was unsure how much of an issue it would be for some to become nonconforming. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps language could be included to address those existing sheds that would become nonconforming. She stated that even though sheds are considered temporary, some people go to a large expense in designing and constructing them. Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the guidance for nonconforming uses. He stated that if the desire is to limit to a certain height, he suggested 15 feet at the top in order to keep everyone in a safe range to not create an issue with nonconformance but could support the 15 feet midpoint as well. Commissioner Johnson stated that she likes the ideas brought forward related to the table and reviewing that more in detail related to setbacks. She referenced the temporary or elevated playhouses. She noted that some treehouses have become very popular for both adults and children and are not meant to be temporary. She asked if the floor of the treehouse could be at 12 feet with a railing at three feet for a total height of 15 feet. She asked if there would be setbacks for the structure or whether a treehouse could be placed next to a privacy fence, which would circumvent the purpose of a privacy fence. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that a playhouse or treehouse would currently fall under an accessory structure of 144 square feet or less and would have a five-foot setback requirement. Chair Field asked if the word temporary were removed to describe those accessory structures, would it alleviate some of the confusion that has been expressed towards the plastic playhouse example. Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that could be done. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that treehouse and playhouse have not been defined within this language and therefore perhaps those definitions need to be added. Chair Field stated that there have been a lot of suggestions made tonight, but someone would need to make a motion to incorporate those suggested changes. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the terms playhouse and treehouse are pretty universal, and he would be inclined to leave the language as such. He stated that portion could also be removed from the ordinance at this time and could be brought back in the future when the more comprehensive review of the ordinance is completed. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she would support removal of that language at this time. Commissioner Johnson agreed as she believed that more thought should be put into that and how it could impact adjacent properties. She asked if the Commission feels that 15 feet would be appropriate five feet from the property line for accessory structures under 144 square feet. Commissioner Corbett noted that the “problem structure” would be smaller in size than what is already allowed. He stated that he would like to change the limit to 15 feet at the high point rather than midpoint. He asked if the Commission feels that calculations could be done tonight for the discussed changes, or whether this should be tabled. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he would strongly suggest that the setback remain at five feet for structures under 144 square feet. He stated that B-2 and B-3 would require a ten-foot setback. He noted that if the desire is for an increased setback for the larger accessory structures, that could be made equivalent to the setback for a home. Chair Corbett noted that the issue of midpoint and high point is always a challenge. Commissioner Petschel commented that he would be comfortable with a midpoint of 12 feet, which would be fairly standard across the metro area as well as the majority of readily available structures at local stores. He stated that given with how people may play around with the geometry of roofs, someone could build a 15-foot box with a flat roof, which is not the intention. He stated that he would like to see people able to use their garages for other activities, as is common in the northern portion of the community. He noted that often times there are stairs to the lofted portion of a garage for additional structure. He noted that he would strike almost the entire portion of section six related to garages. He agreed that a backdoor should not be left for habitability. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the few times he has received inquiries, he has always been clear that the space cannot be converted into a dwelling unit or habitable space. He noted that often times workspace is morphed into a rental space or additional living space. He stated that he would be okay with shop tools or equipment stored/used in that area as long as it does not disturb neighbors. Commissioner Toth asked if the change to a midpoint of 12 feet for the structures under 144 square feet would eliminate the possibility of a barn style garden shed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that would still be allowed and explained how those barn style roofs are measured. Commissioner Johnson asked the top height of the shed with a 12-foot midpoint. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it would depend on the pitch of the roof but estimated that it would be below 15 feet. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps the high point is 12 feet. Commissioner Corbett stated that he would still want to define it with a midpoint for consistency but wanted to ensure that the sheds available for purchase at store would fit within that range. Commissioner Johnson suggested that a midpoint of ten feet be used. Commissioner Lorberbaum provided the example of someone with an eight-acre lot building a large accessory structure and then sold and subdivided their lot and asked what would happen to the accessory structure in that instance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the accessory structure could remain as long as it remains on the lot with the principal dwelling unit; it could not be subdivided onto a new parcel. He stated that if the accessory structure were not proposed to remain on the lot with the original home it would be required to be removed. It was confirmed that was actually done in a previous case where the accessory structure was required to be removed prior to filing the lot split. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she supports removal of the playhouse/treehouse language to be considered at another time. She referenced the setback language and photographic example and asked how far the structures can be together. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the accessory structures must be five feet from a principal structure. Chair Field stated that he spoke with staff this morning and obtained an opinion from legal counsel as well. He noted that if the table is expanded above five acres, he does have a lot that is over five acres in size and therefore there could be a perceived opinion that he could benefit from the change. He stated that he wanted to disclose that information in case someone objects to him voting on the matter. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 565, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE, TITLE 12 – ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: A 12 FOOT MIDPOINT SHOULD BE USED IN 1, 2 AND 3; IN C1 B3 2,400 SQUARE FEET SHOULD BE USED; AND SECTION 3 SHOULD BE DELETED. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM WITHDREW HER MOTION. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that a larger structure would tend to have a larger demand for engineered roof trusses that would require or necessitate a higher roof line or structure which is why 18 or 20 feet is suggested for the midpoint for item B3. He stated that he would be open to suggestions. Chair Field noted that the setback for larger accessory structures was also not included in the potential motion. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that if desired, that could be left for the comprehensive zoning review. Commissioner Petschel asked if that language would be more appropriate for the next section related to detached garages. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it falls under the broad category of height and this section applies to all accessory structures, regardless of shed or garage. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 565, WHICH AMENDS CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ZONING CODE, TITLE 12 – ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: PROPERTIES OVER FIVE ACRES (AS NOTED IN THE TABLE) LIMITED TO 2,400 SQUARE FEET WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; SETBACKS FOR PROPERTIES THAT FALL INTO CATEGORIES UNDER B.2.b.(1), (2) AND (3) REVISED TO 10 FEET, 15 FEET AND 18 FEET RESPECTIVELY; AND SECTION C.3 SHALL BE REMOVED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND SECTION C.1C.(6) TO STATE THAT ANY DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN ALLOWED UPPER STORY OR LOFT SHALL NOT BE USED AS A HABITABLE SPACE AND THAT THE LOFT SPACE NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE “ OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR LIVING SPACE”. CHAIR FIELD CONFIRMED THE LANGUAGE TO THEN READ, “ANY ATTACHED GARAGE WITH AN ALLOWED UPPER STORY OR LOFT SHALL NOT BE USED AS HABITABLE SPACE OR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.” COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL NOTED THAT HE WOULD ALSO LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT THE LOFT SPACE NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. COMMISSIONER CORBETT AND COMMISSIONER JOHNSON APPROVED INCLUSION OF THE LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL. COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. COMMISSIONER CORBETT CLARIFIED THAT WOULD BE 18 FEET. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Request for City Council Action DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-46 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for 806 Bachelor Avenue [Planning Case No. 2021-02] Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a conditional use permit (CUP) to Mr. Mike Cashill, which would allow the construction of a new oversized detached garage on the property located at 806 Bachelor Avenue. Approval of this CUP is contingent upon the acceptance and adoption of Ordinance No. 565 by the Council, which is under separate consideration at this same meeting. Background The subject property is generally located west of the city’s Par-3 Golf Course, and slightly over 8-acres in size. Mr. Cashill is seeking to construct a 17.5-ft. high, 2,400-sf. detached garage on the property. Current City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures states detached garages must not exceed 15-feet in height, and residential parcels of 2.5-acres or more have right to build a 1,500-sf. detached garage as a permitted use or up to 1,800-sf. with approval of a CUP. At the April 27, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Cashill originally submitted a request for a CUP with Variances to exceed these 15-ft. height and 1,800-sf. size limits. After the public hearing and discussion concluded, it appeared the commission was not in full support to granting the variances. Instead of recommending denial, they tabled the item, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow larger parcels with increased height and size standards; and bring these changes (and the tabled land use application) back to the May 25th meeting. At the May 25, 2021 meeting, the planning commission took up the matter addressing the proposed changes to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, and gave a favorable recommendation to allowing parcels 5-acres or more with increased height and size standards for detached garages. The new height standard is now 18-feet and the size allowance is up to 2,400-sq. ft. (with CUP approval). With these new [increased] standards, the requested detached garage height of 17.5-ft. and size of 2,400-sq. ft. would meet the new ordinance amendments. At the May 25, 2021, the Planning Commission re-opened the public hearing on this planning case, whereby an amended planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant were received and noted for the record. A copy of this 05/25/2021 amended report, along with the original 04/27/2021 PC report, and minutes from both meetings, are all appended to this memo. Authority The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this conditional use permit, and has broad discretion in either approving or denying this application. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit (with no variances) to allow a new detached garage up to 2,400 sq. ft. in size and height of 17.5-feet, for the property located at 806 Bachelor Avenue, with conditions and specific findings-of-fact supporting this approval. This recommendation however, is contingent upon the City Council accepting or adopting the proposed amendments to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures ordinance (proposed Ordinance No. 565). Action Requested If City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 46 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 806 BACHELOR AVENUE. Action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. Should the Council reject the proposed amendments presented under Ordinance No. 565; or wishes to over- turn this recommendation on the CUP application, please make a motion to table this matter; and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution of denial for consideration at the June 15, 2021 meeting. (note: the 60-day statutory review period (extended) on the land use application expires 07/27/2021) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-46 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING AN OVER-SIZED DETACHED GARAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 803 BACHELOR AVENUE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-02] WHEREAS, Mike Cashill (the “Applicant”) requests approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a new oversized detached garage 17.5-feet in height and 2,400- square feet in size, for the property located at 803 Bachelor Avenue (the “Subject Property”), as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-02, and legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, pursuant to current City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, states private detached garages must not exceed 15-feet in height, and residential parcels of 2.5-acres or more have the right to ask for detached garages up to 1,800-sq. ft. in size with approval of a CUP; and WHEREAS, the subject property is 8 acres in size, and the Applicant originally sought approval to build the 17.5 high and 2,400-sq. ft. sized garage with a CUP and variances to the height and size standards noted under City Code Title 12-1D-3; and WHEREAS, as part of the City of Mendota Heights consideration and adoption of separate Ordinance No. 565, which contains certain amendments to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, this proposed garage would meet certain new height and size standards for detached garage structures, and therefore all variances requested under Planning Application Case No. 2021-02 are no longer needed; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use permit request, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit (with no variances) to allow a new detached garage up to 2,400 sq. ft. in size and height of 17.5-feet, for the property located at 806 Bachelor Avenue, with conditions and specific findings-of-fact supporting this approval, with the added finding this CUP can only be approved subject to the City Council accepting or adopting Ordinance No. 565, the proposed amendments to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures. . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit to allow a new detached garage up to 2,400 sq. ft. in size and height of 17.5- feet, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-02 and for the property located at 806 Bachelor Avenue, is approved with the following findings-of-fact and conditions: 1. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses, the city council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. As part of the review of this proposed project and plan as presented under Planning Case No. 2021-02, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a proposed detached oversized garage up to 2,400-sq. ft. in area and up to 17.5-ft. in height, based on the following findings-of-fact: A. In accordance with City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures [amended], residential properties of 5 acres or greater are allowed to have one additional detached garage up to 2,400-sq. ft. in size by means of a conditional use permit, and the Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable need and justification for the garage, which is supported by the following findings-of-facts: i. The proposed oversized detached garage on the subject residential property is found to be in generally conformance with many other provisions and standards of the City Code, and meets other related City Code standards such as setbacks, appearance and aesthetics. ii. The large (8-acres) subject property is somewhat unique when compared with other typical single family residential properties in the community; therefore, the proposed over-sized detached garage under this application can be considered a reasonable request and may be viewed as being consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. iii. The proposed over-sized detached garage will not cause or create any negative impacts to the surrounding properties or subject property. iv. The proposed over-sized detached garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. v. The proposed over-sized detached garage will be compliant with the conditions included in the [amended] City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. vi. The proposed over-sized detached garage represents a reasonable reinvestment in a residential property and neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. B. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses, the city has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to any conditional use permit request, provided these conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use permit. Conditions related to this application are as follows: 1. The new detached garage must match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling on the subject property. 2. The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. 3. The garage will be setback a minimum of ten feet (10’) or more from the side yard, and the Applicant/Owner agrees to work with city staff in determining the final location in order to reduce or eliminate additional removal of trees in this area. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new garage addition. 5. 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. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 6. As part of the building permit review process, a landscape/tree replacement plan, which will include native or pollinator friendly plantings, must be submitted for review, completeness and appropriateness to the city’s Natural Resources Technician and other city staff as needed. 7. Approval of this conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the conditional use permit is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage structure within one-year from said approval date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Property Address: 806 Bachelor Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 PID: 27-03760-010-02 Legal Description: Lot 2, Auditors Subdivision No. 8, Dakota County, Minnesota. [Abstract Property] Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Staff Report [Addendum ] MEETING DATE:May 25, 2021 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2021-02 Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Oversized Detached Garage APPLICANT:Mike Cashill PROPERTY ADDRESS:806 Bachelor Avenue ACTION DEADLINE:July 27, 2021 (60-Day Review Period Extended) INTRODUCTION At the April 27, 2021 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant (Mike Cashill) presented for consideration a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an over-sized detached garage, with added variances to allow the garage to exceed the maximum area of 1,800-sq. ft. up to 2,400-sq. ft.; and allow the garage to exceed the maximum height of 15-ft. up to 17.5-ft. (measured) or 24-ft. in overall height. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, larger single family sized parcels are allowed to have an additional (or larger) detached private garage, either by permitted use or by conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft.1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft.1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres 1,500 sq. ft.1,800 sq. ft. The subject property is 8-acres in size, so a 1,500-sf. detached would be permitted, while an 1,800-sf. garage could be allowed by CUP. The proposed garage under this application was shown as 2,400-sf. , which is 600-sf over the maximum amount allowed under the CUP process. In order to allow (approve) this excess garage space above 2,400 sq. ft., the Applicant was required to submit two variances to exceed the allowable area and to exceed the maximum height of 15-ft. for accessory structures (see building elevations – below). Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 2 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 This item was originally presented under a public hearing process; and after comments from the public; and follow-up discussion with the applicant and staff, a motion was initially made to approve the CUP, but deny the requests for variances. Based upon the discussions that evening, it appeared that some commissioners felt the applicant should be afforded the right or ability to construct a larger garage, primarily due to his larger than normal residential property; however, City Code specifically limits these accessory structure sizes, and the requested variances were not supported (by the commissioners) under this application. In order to avoid an unnecessary six month delay in Mr. Cashill’s project (note: per City Code, if a CUP is denied, applicants must wait up to six months from a date of denial to reapply for another CUP request on the property), Staff suggested this matter be tabled; and offered up one of two options for the commission to consider: 1) allow Mr. Cashill to re-design and resubmit an amended site plan with architectural/building elevation plans that show the detached garage will meet the max. 1,800-sq. ft. allowed under the CUP process and one that meets the 15-ft. structure height standard, and bring a revised plan back to the May 25th meeting; or 2) allow Staff to bring a proposed Zoning Code [text] amendment to change certain standards and parameters under the Accessory Structure ordinance, which may eliminate the variances requested under this application review; bring those changes to the commission at the May 25th meeting, and if found to be acceptable, the new CUP could theoretically be approved based on new (allowable) accessory structure standards. Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 3 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 The Commission elected to TABLE this matter to the May 25th meeting, and kept the public hearing open. The commission further directed staff to work on an Zoning Code amendment for further consideration at the same May 25th meeting. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The amendments that directly impact or affect the successful outcome of this CUP/over-sized garage structure, includes a provision to allow accessory structures exceeding 2,000 sq. ft. may now be up to 18 feet or 20’ in mid-point measured height (staff seeking input form the commission on this height allowance standard); and the table has been modified to include parcels 5-acres or more can have up to 2,000-sq. ft. as a permitted right or up to 2,600-sq. ft. with a conditional use permit (see amended table – below): Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft.1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft.1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres - 5.0 acres 1,500 sq. ft.1,800 sq. ft. >5.0 acres 2,000 sq. ft. 2,600 sq. ft. AMENDED ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit Should the city accept the proposed changes offered in the Accessory Structure ordinance, then the Applicant’s need for a variance to exceed the CUP maximum area of 1,800-sf. and height variance of 17’- 6” would no longer be needed. However, a conditional use permit is still needed to approve the garage over the 2,000-sf. (proposed) limits. Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request, with the following standards to be taken into consideration: ƒThe proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; ƒwill not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; ƒwill not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and ƒthe proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. The new garage remains as a very nice design with exceptional exterior building finish materials. The garage is designed to match with the appearance and architectural elements of the current home; and should easily accommodate the needs of parking additional personal vehicles and equipment. The Applicant has submitted a revised aerial Site Plan that illustrates the approximate location of the new garage with a driveway layout. The Applicant stated he intends to keep the garage at least 10-feet or more from the adjacent property line, with the understanding that any increased setback will be used to minimize or reduce additional tree removals in this area. City staff will work with the Applicant in determining the final location as part of the building permit review process. Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 4 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 The easterly property line meets the city’s Par-3 Golf property, and along this shared line is a row of planted and volunteer type trees, that provide an effective screen and buffer between properties. The north sides of the subject property are also heavily wooded and provide a nice buffer and screening for residences to the north. As was noted in the original May 25th Planning Report, the new garage is being placed near the east edge of the site, in a slightly lower elevated section of the property. This area chosen by the Applicant does contain some trees that are slated to be removed as part of this project. The city’s Natural Resources Technician inspected the garage site and the impacted trees, and in her professional opinion “…the trees in this garage layout space were not of high-quality; most appeared to be planted or volunteer red pine and boxelder trees – most of which had storm damage or not very healthy. There were some mature cherry trees as well, but nothing significant that could be replaced with new trees and vegetation.” Mr. Cashill stated to city staff that he intends to plant three (3) white pines, three (3) birch trees; and two (2) flowering crab trees as part of this garage project. Staff has amended its recommendations on the conditions of approval to include a landscape/tree replacement plan as part of this new garage project, which will include native or pollinator friendly plantings, and must be reviewed for completeness and appropriateness by the city’s Natural Resources Technician and other city staff as needed. This larger parcel owned by the Applicant is somewhat of an anomaly in this community, and there are very few residential parcels in this community that share or compare in size to this property. By calculating and comparing a building to land ratio, and comparing the city code allowance versus the proposed, staff notes the following: x 1,800-sf. garage with a 2.5 ac. (min.) parcel: 1,800-sf. / 108,900-sf. = .0165% (bldg. to land area) x 2,400-sf. garage on 8-acres (subject) parcel: 2,400-sf. / 348,480-sf. = .0069% (bldg. to land area) As demonstrated above, the proposed oversized garage on this very large parcel should have minimal or nominal impacts on lot coverage; nor should it create any significant impacts or concerns to added impervious surface coverage. Due to the over-sized nature and scale of the Applicant’s property at this location, staff believes the new, larger garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community; or cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate surrounding property values. This proposed garage appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan; and the CUP to allow a larger, oversized garage can be reasonably supported due to the size and scale of this larger residential parcel. AMENDED ALTERNATIVE(S) for ACTION These alternatives have been modified from the April 27, 2021 Planning Report to reflect only the consideration of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an accessory structure up to 2,400-sq. ft. and without any variances, but is based on the understanding the city needs to accept the proposed amendments to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures ordinance. If the Planning Commission chooses to reject the new accessory structure standards, or modifies said standards that may make this CUP application still subject to additional variances, then the commissioners should refer back to the original alternatives of Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 5 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 action as stated in the April 27th Planning Report (Case No. 2021-02), along with the original findings-of- facts and conditions noted therein. If the Planning Commission deems this CUP as acceptable (subject to the amended standards) then the city may consider the following recommendation: 1.Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses, the city council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. As part of the review of this proposed project and plan as presented under Planning Case No. 2021-02, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a proposed detached oversized garage up to 2,400-sq. ft. in area and up to 17.5-ft. in height, based on the following findings-of-fact: A.In accordance with City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures [amended], residential properties of 5 acres or greater are allowed to have one additional detached garage up to 2,600-sq. ft. in size by means of a conditional use permit, and the Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable need and justification for the garage, which is supported by the following findings-of-facts: i. The proposed oversized detached garage on the subject residential property is found to be in generally conformance with many other provisions and standards of the City Code, and meets other related City Code standards such as setbacks, appearance and aesthetics. ii. The large (8-acres) subject property is somewhat unique when compared with other typical single family residential properties in the community; therefore, the proposed over-sized detached garage under this application can be considered a reasonable request and may be viewed as being consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. iii. The proposed over-sized detached garage will not cause or create any negative impacts to the surrounding properties or subject property. iv. The proposed over-sized detached garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. v. The proposed over-sized detached garage will be compliant with the conditions included in the [amended] City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. vi. The proposed over-sized detached garage represents a reasonable reinvestment in a residential property and neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. B.Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses, the city has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to any conditional use permit request, provided these conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use permit. Conditions related to this application are as follows: Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 6 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 1.The new detached garage must match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling on the subject property. 2.The proposed garage addition and all other proposed improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. 3.The garage will be setback a minimum of ten feet (10’) or more from the side yard, and the Applicant/Owner agrees to work with city staff in determining the final location in order to reduce or eliminate additional removal of trees in this area. 4.The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the new garage addition. 5.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. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 6.As part of the building permit review process, a landscape/tree replacement plan, which will include native or pollinator friendly plantings, must be submitted for review, completeness and appropriateness to the city’s Natural Resources Technician and other city staff as needed. 7.Approval of this conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the conditional use permit is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage structure within one-year from said approval date. 2.Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. The city hereby finds the following: A. Under City Code Title 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses, the city council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. As part of the review of this proposed project and plan as presented under Planning Case No. 2021-02, the city hereby finds: i. The proposed oversized detached garage on the subject residential property is found not to be in general conformance with the provisions and standards of City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures. ii. Although the large 8-acre sized subject property is somewhat unique in the community, the over-sized detached garage is determined not to be a reasonable request and is viewed as being inconsistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. iii. The proposed over-sized detached garage may cause or create negative impacts to the surrounding properties or the subject property. Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 7 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 iv. The proposed over-sized detached garage is found to be a potential detriment to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; may depreciate surrounding property values; and said use appears to be not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 3.Table the request and direct staff to work with the Applicant to provide other options or an optional plan to be brought back for continued consideration at the July 27, 2021 meeting. If this alternative is selected, the Applicant must agree to waive or extend the statutory review period, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. (Note: if the Applicant chooses not to waive or extend this review period, then one of the Alternatives for Action in this May 25 th Planning Report or the previous April 27th Planning Report must be acted on). ATTACHMENTS 1. April 27, 2021 Planning Report for Case No. 2021-02 (with related plan attachments) 2. Revised Site Plan – Garage Location SITE IMAGES LOOKING SOUTHWARD – TOWARDS ENTRANCE OFF BACHELOR AVENUE LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARDS DWELLING Planning Case No. 2021-02 (M. Cashill)Page 9 Amended Report – 05.25.2021 LOOKING NORTHERLY – TOWARDS LOCATION OF NEW GARAGE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEW GARAGE (NOTE MARKING STAKES – RED CIRCLES) 4*5&1-"/#"$)&-03"7&3523(57</,1(PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"10'-09'-0"10'-0 May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 18 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-02 MIKE CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that at the April 27, 2021 regular Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented for consideration a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an oversized detached garage, with added variances to allow the garage to exceed the maximum area of 1,800 square feet; and allow the garage to exceed the maximum height of 15 feet up to 17.5 feet (measured) or 24 feet in overall height. The Commission elected to table this matter to the May 25th meeting and kept the public hearing open. The Commission further directed staff to work on a Zoning Code amendment for further consideration at the same May 25th meeting. 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 available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field welcomed input from the applicant. Mike Cashill, applicant, commented that he is present to address any questions. Chair Field referenced the previous language related to the potential for a lot split and impact to accessory structure. He noted in that in a previous instance an accessory structure was required to be demolished in order to proceed with the lot split and asked that the applicant acknowledge that stipulation. Mr. Cashill confirmed he understands that and noted that he does not have the intent to split his lot in the future. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to comment and commend the homeowner for replacing some of the trees. She stated that some of the trees chosen are native trees that will help to enhance the pollinator friendly City. She referenced the comments from the Natural Resources Technician and stated that while there were ill trees and trees that were not in good condition, some of those trees are native even though they have struggled. She stated that while some of the volunteer trees are pollinator friendly, they are not generally that desirable. She stated that the cherry trees will be missed by butterflies and the birds. She stated that perhaps the homeowner could find a place on their property to plant cherry trees. She stated that crab apples trees can be May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 18 a challenge and suggested an alternative. She also appreciated that the homeowner will be removing buckthorn. Commissioner Petschel noted that his only concern in the findings of fact would be whether this would be subject to the amended standards. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that is included in the introduction but could be tied into the end of the motion. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 565. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE LEFT IF THE ORDINANCE IS CHANGED AND THE MOTION IS MADE CONTINGENT. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT IF THE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDATION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE APPLICANT IN THAT INSTANCE. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ORDINANCE MAY NOT PASS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT THE MOTION COULD BE MADE CONTINGENT UPON THE ORDINANCE AS APPLICABLE TO THIS APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO MAKE CHANGES TO DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT IMPACTING THIS CASE. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE CLARIFIED THAT THE ACTION IS CONTINGENT UPON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. 565 AS IT RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD HOPE THIS ITEM BE ADDED TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA AS THE PROPERTY LINE TOUCHES PARK LAND. HE NOTED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING COULD BE ADDED TO THE GOLF COURSE TO BUFFER THE USE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT COULD BE DONE. AYES: 7 May 25, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 18 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2021 meeting. 3ODQQLQJ6WDII5HSRUW 0((7,1*'$7($SULO 723ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ )5207LP%HQHWWL&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'LUHFWRU 68%-(&73ODQQLQJ&DVH1R &RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW DQG9DULDQFHIRU2YHUVL]HG'HWDFKHG*DUDJH $33/,&$170LNH&DVKLOO 3523(57<$''5(66%DFKHORU$YHQXH $&7,21'($'/,1(0D\ ,1752'8&7,21 7KH DSSOLFDQWLVVHHNLQJ D FRQGLWLRQDO XVH SHUPLW IRU DQ RYHUVL]HG G HWDFKHGJDUDJHZLWKPXOWLSOH YDULDQFHVWRWKHIROORZLQJGHWDFKHGDFFHVVRU\VWUXFWXUHVWDQGDUGV D DOORZJDUDJHWRH[FHHGWKHPD[LPXP DUHDRIVTIWXSWRVTIWDQG E DOORZJDUDJHWRH[FHHGWKHPD[LPXPKHLJKWRIIWXSWR IWIWLQRYHUDOOKHLJKW 7KLVLWHPLVEHLQJSUHVHQWHGXQGHUDGXO\QRWLFHGSXEOLFKHDULQJSURFHVV$QRWLFHRIKHDULQJZDVSXEOLVKHG LQWKH3LRQHHU3UHVVDQGQRWLFHOHWWHUVZHUHPDLOHGWRDOOQHLJKERULQJSURSHUW\RZQHUVZLWKLQIHHWRI WKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\7KHFLW\UHFHLYHGQRREMHFWLRQVRUFRPPHQWVIURPWKHQHLJKERULQJSURSHUWLHV '(6&5,37,212)7+(5(48(67 7KH VXEMHFW VLWH LV JHQHUDOO\ ORFDWHG LPPHGLDWHO\ZHVWRIWKH3DU*ROI&RXUVH see aerial image- right  7KH SURSHUW\ FRQVLVWV RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\  DFUHV DQG FRQWDLQVDODUJHVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJ image – below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¶[¶ VTIW GHWDFKHGJDUDJHVWUXFWXUHZLWKD PLGSRLQWPHDVXUHGKHLJKWRI¶´DQGDQRYHUDOO XSSHUPRVW KHLJKWRIIHHW 7KHJDUDJHLVSODQQHGWREHSODFHGQHDUWKHHDVWHGJHRIWKHSURSHUW\VHWEDFNDSSUR[LPDWHO\IW IURP WKLVHDVWHUO\ SURSHUW\OLQH$VHSDUDWH QHZ DVSKDOWGULYHZD\LVSODQQHGWRVHUYHWKHQHZJDUDJHZKLFK ZLOOFRPHRIIWKHPDLQGULYHZD\  3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R 0 &DVKLOO 3DJH $1$/<6,6 ™&RQGLWLRQDO8VH3HUPLW 3XUVXDQWWR&LW\&RGH7LWOH' $FFHVVRU\6WUXFWXUHVRZQHUVRIODUJHUVLQJOHIDPLO\VL]HGSDUFHOV DUH DOORZHG WR KDYH DQ DGGLWLRQDO RU ODUJHU  GHWDFKHG SULYDWHJDUDJH HLWKHU E\ SHUPLWWHG XVH RU E\ FRQGLWLRQDOXVHSHUPLWDFFRUGLQJWRWKHIROORZLQJWDEOH >Žƚ^ŝnjĞWĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůhƐĞWĞƌŵŝƚ Ϭ͘ϳϱĂĐƌĞŽƌůĞƐƐEŽƚĂůůŽǁĞĚEŽƚĂůůŽǁĞĚ хϬ͘ϳϱĂĐƌĞͲϭ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐϳϱϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ϭ͕ϬϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ хϭ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐͲ Ϯ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐ ϭ͕ϬϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ϭ͕ϮϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ хϮ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐϭ͕ϱϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘ϭ͕ϴϬϬƐƋ͘Ĩƚ͘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ƒThe proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; ƒwill not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; ƒwill not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and ƒthe proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 7KHQHZJDUDJHSURSRVHGE\WKH$SSOLFDQWDSSHDUVWREHDYHU\QLFHGHVLJQLVLQWHQGHGWRPDWFKZLWKWKH DSSHDUDQFHDQGDUFKLWHFWXUDOHOHPHQWVRIWKHFXUUHQWKRPHDQGVKRXOGHDVLO\DFFRPPRGDWHWKHQHHGVRI SDUNLQJDGGLWLRQDOSHUVRQDOYHKLFOHV DQGHTXLSPHQW $OOVHWEDFNVZLOOEHPHWXQGHUWKLVSODQ %DVHG RQWKHVLWHSLFWXUH image-right DQGVLWH LQVSHFWLRQ0U&DVKLOOPDUNHGRXWWKHORFDWLRQ RI WKH QHZ JDUDJH ZLWK JUHHQ VXUYH\ VWDNHV FLUFOHGLQ5('  ,WDSSHDUVDSSUR[LPDWHO\ ±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x VIJDUDJHZLWKDDF PLQ SDUFHOVI  VI  EOGJWRODQGDUHD x VIJDUDJHRQDFUHV VXEMHFW SDUFHOVIVI  EOGJWRODQGDUHD $V GHPRQVWUDWHG DERYH WKH SURSRVHG RYHUVL]HG JDUDJH RQ WKLV YHU\ ODUJH SDUFHO ZRXOG KDYH PLQLPDOQRPLQDOLPSDFWVRQORWFRYHUDJHQRUZRXOG LW FUHDWH DQ\VLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVRUDGGLWLRQWR LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHFRYHUDJH 'XHWRWKHRYHUVL]HGQDWXUHDQGVFDOHRIWKH$SSOLFDQW¶VSURSHUW\DWWKLVORFDWLRQVWDIIEHOLHYHVWKHQHZ ODUJHUJDUDJHZLOOQRWEHGHWULPHQWDOWRWKHKHDOWKVDIHW\RUJHQHUDOZHOIDUHRIWKHQHLJKERUKRRGRUWKH FRPPXQLW\RUFDXVHDQ\VHULRXVWUDIILFFRQJHVWLRQKD]DUGVRUVHULRXVO\GHSUHFLDWHVXUURXQGLQJSURSHUW\ YDOXHV7KLVSURSRVHGJDUDJHDSSHDUVWREHLQKDUPRQ\ZLWKWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHDQGLQWHQWRIWKH&LW\ &RGHDQGWKHFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQDQGWKH&83WRDOORZDODUJHURYHUVL]HGJDUDJHFDQEHUHDVRQDEO\ VXSSRUWHG GXHWRWKHVL]HDQGVFDOHRIWKLVODUJHUUHVLGHQWLDOSDUFHO ™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³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´WHVWFRQWDLQVWKUHHSDUWV L WKHSURSHUW\RZQHUSURSRVHVWRXVHWKHSURSHUW\LQ D UHDVRQDEOHPDQQHU QRWRWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHGE\WKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH LL WKHSOLJKWRIWKHSURSHUW\RZQHU LVGXHWRFLUFXPVWDQFHVXQLTXH WRWKHSURSHUW\QRWFUHDWHGE\WKHSURSHUW\RZQHUDQG LLL WKHYDULDQFHZLOO QRWDOWHUWKHHVVHQWLDOFKDUDFWHU RIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG$OVRHFRQRPLFFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDORQH GRQRWFRQVWLWXWH SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV 6HFWLRQ/ (  IXUWKHUUHIHUHQFHVRWKHUYDULDEOHVWKH&LW\FDQFRQVLGHUZKHQJUDQWLQJRUGHQ\LQJD YDULDQFHQRWHGDVIROORZV x Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. x Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. x Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. x Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. x Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty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italic WH[W   7KHSURSHUW\RZQHUSURSRVHVWRXVHWKHSURSHUW\LQDUHDVRQDEOHPDQQHU QRWRWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHG E\WKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFH ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗/ƐƚŚŝƐsĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞ͍zĞƐ͕ĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƐŝnjĞŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƐƚŽƌĞĂůůŽĨƚŚĞ ĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂůŽƚŽĨϴĂĐƌĞƐ͘DLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJďĂĐŬƐƵƉƚŽƚŚĞsĂůůĞLJWĂƌŬĂŶĚƚŚĞ DĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐWĂƌϯŐŽůĨĐŽƵƌƐĞ͘/ŚĂǀĞǀĞƌLJĨĞǁŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽďĞ ǀŝĞǁĞĚďLJƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŝƚǁŝůůŶŽƚĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚ͕ƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ĂŶĚǁĞůĨĂƌĞŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ŽƌƉŽƐĞ ĂŶLJƌŝƐŬƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƐĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚǁŝůůŶŽƚĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞǀĂůƵĞŽĨƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͘  6WDII¶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ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗/ůŝǀĞŽŶĂŶϴĂĐƌĞƉĂƌĐĞůŽĨůĂŶĚĂŶĚĂŵƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŶŐĂǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞƚŽďƵŝůĚĂϲϬĨŽŽƚǁŝĚĞ ďLJϰϬĨŽŽƚĚĞĞƉƐƚŽƌĂŐĞƐŚĞĚ͘DLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐƵŶŝƋƵĞŝŶƚŚĂƚŝƚŝƐŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞƌƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐŽĨůĂŶĚŝŶƚŚĞ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŝƚƚĂŬĞƐĂƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƚŽƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJĐĂƌĞĨŽƌŝƚ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ŝƚŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽ ďƵŝůĚĂƐƚŽƌĂŐĞŐĂƌĂŐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐƐŝnjĞƚŽƐƚŽƌĞĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJĐĂƌĞ ĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉĂƌĐĞů͘^ŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŶĞĞĚĞĚĂƌĞƐŶŽǁďůŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƵƐŚŵĂŶĂƌƌLJůůŐŽůĨĐĂƌƚ͕ ďĂĐŬƉĂĐŬďůŽǁĞƌƐ͕ĨĞƌƚŝůŝnjĞƌƐƉƌĞĂĚĞƌƐ͕ůĂǁŶŵŽǁĞƌƐ͕ƚƌĂĐƚŽƌƐ͕ǁŽŽĚĐŚŝƉƉĞƌƐ͕ƚƌŝŵŵĞƌƐ͕ƚƌĂŝůĞƌƐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ ĨŽƌĐĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌŵLJĂƉƉůĞƚƌĞĞƐ͘/ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂϲϬĨŽŽƚdžϭϮϬĨŽŽƚŝĐĞƌŝŶŬŝŶŵLJƐŝĚĞLJĂƌĚĂŶĚŶĞĞĚĂĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJƚŽƐƚŽƌĞ ƚŚŝƐĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ/ůŝŬĞƚŽŚĂǀĞĂĐůĞĂŶLJĂƌĚĂŶĚůŝŬĞƚŽƚĂŬĞĐĂƌĞŽĨŵLJĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƐŽ/ĚŽŶŽƚǁĂŶƚƚŽůĞĂǀĞ ĂŶLJƚŚŝŶŐŽƵƚŝŶƚŚĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘/ĂůƐŽǁĂŶƚƚŽďĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůĨŽƌƚŚŽƐĞŝŶƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͕ƚŽŬĞĞƉĂĐůĞĂŶLJĂƌĚ ĨƌĞĞŽĨĐůƵƚƚĞƌĂŶĚĚĞďƌŝƐ͘  6WDII¶V5HVSRQVH7KHFLW\ZLOODGPLWWKLVSURSHUW\LVWUXO\³XQLTXH´ZKHQFRPSDUHGWRPDQ\RWKHU VLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOSURSHUWLHVWKURXJKRXWWKHFLW\$JDLQWKHFLW\PXVWGHWHUPLQHLIWKHUHTXHVWHG YDULDQFHWRDOORZWKHLQFUHDVHGJDUDJHDUHDDQGKHLJKWDQGWKHUHDVRQVVWDWHGKHUHLQIRUWKHDGGHG VWRUDJHVSDFH E\WKH$SSOLFDQWDUH³XQLTXH´HQRXJKWRVXSSRUWVXFKDYDULDQFHDSSURYDO  7KH YDULDQFH ZLOO QRW DOWHU WKH HVVHQWLDO FKDUDFWHU RI WKH QHLJKERUKRRG DQG HFRQRPLF FRQVLGHUDWLRQVDORQH GR QRWFRQVWLWXWHSUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗dŚŝƐƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁŝůůŵĂƚĐŚŵLJĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞĂŶĚďůĞŶĚŝŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨ ƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŵĂƚĐŚŵLJĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƐƚŽŶĞĂŶĚ ƐƚƵĐĐŽŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂƐ/ŚĂǀĞŽŶŵLJŚŽŵĞ͘/ƉůĂŶƚŽƵƐĞƚŚĞĞdžĂĐƚƐĂŵĞƐŚŝŶŐůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƌŽŽĨƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐŵĂƚĐŚĞĂĐŚŽƚŚĞƌ͘ 3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R 0 &DVKLOO 3DJH  6WDII¶V5HVSRQVH7KHH[LVWLQJQHLJKERUKRRGLVDOOUHVLGHQWLDOLQFKDUDFWHU7KHSODFHPHQWRIWKLV JDUDJHQHDUWKHHDVWHGJHDQGORZHUDUHDRIWKHSURSHUW\DORQJZLWKNHHSLQJWKHH[LVWLQJZRRGODQGV VXUURXQGLQJWKHSURSHUW\DORQHVKRXOGUHGXFHDQ\YLVXDOLPSDFWVDQGSURYLGHDGHTXDWHEXIIHUDQG VFUHHQLQJ IRUP WKH QHLJKERUV  6WDII GRHV QRWEHOLHYH WKH ODUJHUJDUDJHZRXOGDOWHUWKHHVVHQWLDO FKDUDFWHURIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG  5HVWULFWLRQVRQ*UDQWLQJ9DULDQFHV 7KHIROORZLQJUHVWULFWLRQVVKRXOGEHFRQVLGHUHGZKHQUHYLHZLQJDYDULDQFH D Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties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b)Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. 7KHVXEMHFW SURSHUW\LV]RQHG52QH)DPLO\5HVLGHQWLDODQGLVGHVLJQDWHG/5/RZ'HQVLW\ 5HVLGHQWLDOLQWKHFXUUHQW&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDQGWKHSURSRVHG3ODQ&HUWDLQODQGXVH JRDOVDQGSROLFLHVDUHQRWHGEHORZ x LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. x LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. x LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. 7KH JXLGLQJ SULQFLSOHV LQ WKH FRPSUHKHQVLYH SODQ SURYLGH IRU PDLQWDLQLQJ SUHVHUYLQJ DQG HQKDQFLQJH[LVWLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\QHLJKERUKRRGV7KHSURSRVHGRYHUVL]HGJDUDJHVWUXFWXUH VKRXOG QRWSRVHDQ\WKUHDWRUFUHDWH DQ\ QHJDWLYHLPSDFWVWRWKHUHVLGHQWLDOFKDUDFWHURIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG DQGSURYLGHV DVXEVWDQWLDOLQYHVWPHQWLQWRDSURSHUW\WRHQKDQFHLWVRYHUDOOXVHDQGHQMR\PHQWE\ WKHRZQHU7KHSURSRVHGJDUDJHDOVRSRVHVQRWKUHDWRUDQ\HIIHFWon light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. 7KLVQHZJDUDJHDQGUHTXHVWIRUYDULDQFHFDQEHYLHZHG RUFRQVLGHUHGLQKDUPRQ\ZLWKWKHJHQHUDOSXUSRVHRIWKH]RQLQJRUGLQDQFHDQGFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH FXUUHQWDQGSURSRVHGODQGXVHSODQVIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ 3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R 0 &DVKLOO 3DJH $/7(51$7,9(IRU&83$33529$/6 3HU&LW\&RGHRQ&RQGLWLRQDO8VHV Section 12-1L-6.E.2 Denial Of Permit: Conditional uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a conditional use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the planning commission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¶VJRDOV IRUUHVLGHQWLDOODQGXVHV %8QGHU7LWOH/$RIWKH&LW\&RGHWKH&RXQFLOPD\ RQO\JUDQWYDULDQFHVIURPWKHVWULFW DSSOLFDWLRQRIWKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKH&RGHLQFDVHVZKHUHWKHUHDUH³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´LQFDUU\LQJ RXWWKHVWULFWOHWWHURIWKHUHJXODWLRQVRIWKH&RGH³3UDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´FRQVLVWVRIDWKUHHSDUW WHVW L WKH$SSOLFDQWSURSRVHVWRXVHWKHSURSHUW\LQDUHDVRQDEOHPDQQHUQRWRWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHG E\WKH&RGH LL WKHSOLJKWRIWKH$SSOLFDQWLVGXHWRFLUFXPVWDQFHVXQLTXHWRWKHSURSHUW\QRW FUHDWHGE\WKH$SSOLFDQWDQG LLL WKHYDULDQFHLIJUDQWHGZLOOQRWDOWHUWKHHVVHQWLDOFKDUDFWHURI WKHQHLJKERUKRRG(FRQRPLFFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDORQHGRQRWFRQVWLWXWH³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´ &7KH$SSOLFDQWKDVPHWWKHEXUGHQRIGHPRQVWUDWLQJWKHUHTXLVLWH³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´LQRUGHUWR MXVWLI\WKHJUDQWLQJRID9DULDQFHWRDOORZWKHRYHUVL]HGJDUDJHQRWWRH[FHHG VTIWLQDUHD RUH[FHHGWKHKHLJKWRIIW DQGIWZLWKWKHIROORZLQJILQGLQJV L 7KHSURSRVHGRYHUVL]HGJDUDJHLVFRQVLGHUHGD UHDVRQDEOHUHTXHVWRQWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\ GXHWRWKHQHHGWRSURYLGHVXLWDEOHDQGDGGLWLRQDOVWRUDJHQHHGVIRUWKHKRPHRZQHUVGXHLQ SDUWWRWKHRYHUVL]HG DFUHV DQGXQLTXHFKDUDFWHURIWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\ LL 7KLVODUJHUVXEMHFWSURSHUW\SURYLGHVXQLTXHFLUFXPVWDQFHV IRUVXSSRUWLQJRUDOORZLQJWKH JUDQWLQJRIWKLVYDULDQFH LLL 7KHYLVXDOLPSDFWVRUHIIHFWRIWKHRYHUVL]HGGHWDFKHGJDUDJH DW WKLVORFDWLRQ DSSHDUV PLQLPDOERWKRQWKHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\DQGZLWK WKHVXUURXQGLQJQHLJKERUKRRGDQGWKHUHIRUH DSSURYLQJWKHSURSRVHGRYHUVL]HGGHWDFKHGJDUDJHXQGHUWKLVYDULDQFH DQG&83 ZLOOQRW DOWHUWKHHVVHQWLDOFKDUDFWHURIWKHQHLJKERUKRRG '7KH SURSRVHG JDUDJH ZLOO QRW EH GHWULPHQWDO WR WKH KHDOWK VDIHW\ RU JHQHUDO ZHOIDUH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ VKRXOG QRW FDXVH DQ\ VHULRXV WUDIILF FRQJHVWLRQ QRU KD]DUGV ZLOO QRW VHULRXVO\ GHSUHFLDWHVXUURXQGLQJSURSHUW\YDOXHDQGVDLGXVHDSSHDUVWREHLQKDUPRQ\ZLWKWKHJHQHUDO SXUSRVHDQGLQWHQWRIWKH&LW\&RGHDQGWKH&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ (7KH&LW\KDVFRQVLGHUHGWKHIDFWRUVUHTXLUHGE\7LWOH/(RIWKH&LW\&RGHLQFOXGLQJEXW QRWOLPLWHGWRWKHHIIHFWRIWKH9DULDQFHXSRQWKHKHDOWKVDIHW\DQGZHOIDUHRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ H[LVWLQJDQGDQWLFLSDWHGWUDIILFFRQGLWLRQVWKHHIIHFWRIWKH9DULDQFHRQWKHGDQJHURI ILUHDQGWKH ULVNWRSXEOLFVDIHW\DQGXSRQWKHYDOXHRISURSHUWLHVLQWKHVXUURXQGLQJDUHDDQGXSRQWKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQDQGKDVGHWHUPLQHGWKLVYDULDQFHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKLVFRQGLWLRQDOXVHSHUPLW ZLOOQRWDIIHFWRUSRVHDQ\QHJDWLYHLPSDFWVXSRQWKHQHLJKERUKRRGRUWKHFRPPXQLW\LQJHQHUDO )$SSURYDORIWKLV9DULDQFHLVIRU%DFKHORU$YHQXHRQO\DQGGRHVQRWDSSO\RUJLYHSUHFHGHQWLDO YDOXHWRDQ\RWKHUSURSHUWLHVWKURXJKRXWWKH&LW\$OOYDULDQFHDSSOLFDQWVPXVWDSSO\IRUDQG SURYLGHDSURMHFWQDUUDWLYHWRWKH&LW\WRMXVWLI\DYDULDQFH$OOYDULDQFHUHTXHVWVPXVWEHUHYLHZHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\E\&LW\VWDIIDQGOHJDOFRXQVHOXQGHUWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&LW\&RGH 3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R 0 &DVKLOO 3DJH *7KHIDFWXDOILQGLQJVDQGDQDO\VLVIRXQGLQWKH3ODQQLQJ6WDII5HSRUWIRU3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R  GDWHGDQGSUHVHQWHG$SULO Rn file with the City of Mendota Heights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¶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³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´LQFDUU\LQJ RXWWKHVWULFWOHWWHURIWKHUHJXODWLRQVRIWKH&RGH³3UDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´FRQVLVWVRIDWKUHHSDUW WHVW L WKH$SSOLFDQWSURSRVHVWRXVHWKHSURSHUW\LQDUHDVRQDEOHPDQQHUQRWRWKHUZLVHSHUPLWWHG E\WKH&RGH LL WKHSOLJKWRIWKH$SSOLFDQWLVGXHWRFLUFXPVWDQFHVXQLTXHWRWKHSURSHUW\QRW FUHDWHGE\WKH$SSOLFDQWDQG LLL WKHYDULDQFHLIJUDQWHGZLOOQRWDOWHUWKHHVVHQWLDOFKDUDFWHURI WKHQHLJKERUKRRG(FRQRPLFFRQVLGHUDWLRQVDORQHGRQRWFRQVWLWXWH³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´ % 7KH&LW\KHUHE\GHWHUPLQHVWKH$SSOLFDQWKDVQRWPHWWKHEXUGHQRIGHPRQVWUDWLQJWKHUHTXLVLWH ³SUDFWLFDOGLIILFXOWLHV´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d/D'^ >KK</E'^Khd,tZʹdKtZ^EdZEK&&,>KZsEh    >KK</E't^dZ>zʹdKtZ^t>>/E' 3ODQQLQJ&DVH1R 0 &DVKLOO 3DJH >KK</E'EKZd,Z>zʹdKtZ^>Kd/KEK&Et'Z'   WWZKy/Dd>Kd/KEK&Et'Z';EKdDZ</E'^d<^ʹZ/Z>^Ϳ 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66                               75$,/5'%$&+(/25$9( (9(5*5((1.1/ 687721/1 '((575$,/37 :$&+7/(5$9(35,9$7(52$''((5 7 5 $, / & 7                        %$&+(/25$9(18( 0LNH&DVKLOOUHV &LW\RI 0HQGRWD +HLJKWV 6&$/(,1)((7 *,60DS'LVFODLPHU 7KLVGDWDLVIRULQIRUPDWLRQDOSXUSRVHVRQO\DQGVKRXOGQRWEHVXEVWLWXWHGIRUDWUXHWLWOHVHDUFKSURSHUW\DSSUDLVDOSODW VXUYH\RUIRU]RQLQJYHULILFDWLRQ7KH&LW\RI0HQGRWD+HLJKWVDVVXPHVQROHJDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHG LQWKLVGDWD7KH&LW\RI0HQGRWD+HLJKWVRUDQ\RWKHUHQWLW\IURPZKLFKGDWDZDVREWDLQHGDVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\IRUDQ\HUURUV RURPLVVLRQVKHUHLQ,IGLVFUHSDQFLHVDUHIRXQGSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH&LW\RI0HQGRWD+HLJKWV &RQWDFW*RSKHU6WDWH2QH&DOODWIRUXWLOLW\ORFDWLRQVKRXUVSULRUWRDQ\H[FDYDWLRQ       20'3URSRVHG  [  'HWDFKHG *DUDJH Request for City Council Action DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-47 Approving a Variance for 662 Ivy Falls Court [Planning Case No. 2021-05] Introduction The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a variance to allow a new half-circle shaped driveway to the property located at 662 Ivy Falls Court. The applicant and property owner is Joe Opack. Background The subject property is generally located at the southwest corner of Ivy Falls Court and Sylvandale Road; approx. 160’ x 140’ or 0.52 acres in size; contains a 5,083-sf. SF dwelling and two car attached garage, with a bituminous driveway from Ivy Falls Court to the north. Mr. Opack is seeking to install a new crescent shaped (half-circle) single-lane driveway off Sylvandale Road to the east. Per City Code Section 12-1E-1.B., driveways are limited to 25-feet in total width at the property line. Mr. Opack’s current drive is approx. 22 feet wide off Ivy Falls Ct., and the two 12-ft. openings on Sylvandale would exceed this allowance by 21 feet. On May 25, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant were received and noted for the record. A copy of this 05/25/2021 report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Authority The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion in either approving or denying this application. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the Variance for the property located at 662 Ivy Falls Court, with conditions and specific findings-of-fact supporting this approval. Action Requested If City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 47 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 662 IVY FALLS COURT. Action on the resolution requires a simple majority vote. If the Council wishes to over-turn this recommendation, make a motion to table this matter; and direct city staff to prepare an alternative resolution of denial for consideration at the June 15, 2021 meeting. (note: the 60-day statutory review period for this application expires 07/02/2021) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-47 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 662 IVY FALLS COURT (PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-05) WHEREAS, Joe Opack, (the “Applicant”) applied for a Variance on the property located at 662 Ivy Falls Court(the “Subject Property”), legally described on attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Propert y is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, per City Code Section 12-1E-1.B., driveways are limited to twenty-five feet (25’) in total width at the property line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant currently has a driveway 22-feet wide off Ivy Falls Court, and is seeking a variance in order to install a new crescent shaped single-lane (12-ft. wide) driveway from adjacent Sylvandale Road, which with the two 12-ft. wide openings, exceeds the 25-foot width allowance by 21-feet; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted: and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item with staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the application for variance, with certain findings-of-fact to support such approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the variance requested under Planning Application Case No. 2021-05 is hereby approved, with the following findings of fact: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance requested herein, by: i.) the request for the variance to allow the added driveway, and therefore the additional driveway width, is deemed relatively minor in its overall scope and impacts, and can be considered in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; ii.) the existing conditions of the property and placement of the home, which was not created by the current homeowner, presents a case of a practical difficulties and unique situation to the homeowner wishing to provide an additional driveway and off-street parking area for the residential property, and said driveway improvement will be more convenient to the homeowner and future owners of the property; iii.) the requested variance are considered a reasonable request and the impacts caused by the increased driveway widths will not negatively affect the adjacent or neighboring properties; iv.) approving this variance would not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval of this variance; v.) approving the variance preserves the residential character of the neighborhood, and provides a reasonable amount of investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner; and vi.) the new driveway/parking area is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 662 Ivy Falls Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021-05, dated and presented May 25, 2021 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-47. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request, and said conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions of approval as related to this transaction are as follows: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The Applicant must provide an effective screen of the driveway from Sylvandale Road with landscaping consisting of native and pollinator friendly plantings. 4. Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a permit for construction and installation of the proposed driveway addition within one (1) year from said approval date. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance application for the property located at 662 Ivy Falls Court, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-05 is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk EXHIBIT-A PROPERTY ADDRESS: 662 Ivy Falls Court Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID No. 27-37601-01-100 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 10, Block 1, IVY FALLS 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. (Torrens property; Certificate No. 181105; date 03/22/2021) Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: May 25, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-05 VARIANCE for Additional Driveway APPLICANT: Joe Opack PROPERTY ADDRESS: 662 Ivy Falls Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: July 2, 2021 INTRODUCTION Joe Opack, owner of 662 Ivy Falls Court is requesting a variance to allow a new half-circle shaped driveway on the subject property. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The applicant has provided a “Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from six (6) of his neighbors not objecting to the variance request. The city received no other comments or objections from neighboring residents. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is generally located at the southwest corner of Ivy Falls Court and Sylvandale Road; measures approx. 160’ x 140’ or 0.52 acres of lot area; has a 5,083-sf. dwelling built in 1971, with a two car attached garage. The garage faces and is served by a driveway coming off Ivy Falls Court (to the north). According to the Applicant/Owner, the home – even though addressed off Ivy Falls Court, actually has its main or front door entryway on the east side, facing Sylvandale Road(see image below - left). The driveway off Ivy Falls Court is bituminous with an approximate 25’ wide opening at the curb line, which meets City Code. There is a separate door/access along the north side coming off the driveway, but the owners state this is more of a side-door/non-main entryway (see image below – right). The property at one time had a slight curvilinear sidewalk on the east side that leading out from the front door entryway on to Sylvandale Road (see ESRI aerial image 2015 – right). It appears this sidewalk was removed by the previous owners sometime around 2016. According to the Applicant’s narrative: “We are in the process of doing a number of projects to the home, one of which is hopefully gaining access to our "front" or "main" door. The home is on a corner lot and the main door is oriented towards Sylvandale. Currently there is not any access. There is evidence that there used to be a sidewalk from that door to Sylvandale. The previous owners of the home took out that sidewalk and changed the address from 1231 Sylvandale to 662 Ivy Falls Ct.” The Applicant is requesting to add a new half- circle/crescent shaped driveway off Sylvandale Road, in order to serve the main front entryway for visitors and their own needs (see sketch image – right). The new driveway would consists of two, twelve-foot (12’) wide access points off Sylvandale Road, a bituminous paved surface 12-feet in even width inside the property, and approx. 150-feet in length. The apex of the driveway will meet up with a small set of blue- stone stairs leading to the front, covered entryway facing Sylvandale Rd. City Code Section 12-1E-1.B provides regulations for driveways in residential districts, especially with setbacks and widths: 4. Driveways shall be a minimum of five feet (5') from side lot lines and shall be no greater than twenty five feet (25') wide at the property line. All driveways constructed to serve single- family dwellings on corner lots shall be set back a minimum of thirty feet (30') from the property lines adjacent to the street corner. City staff has consistently held that the twenty-five foot (25’) width standard – at the property line, means the total amount of driveways on one property or street frontage must not exceed this amount. Since corner lots usually have more lot frontage than a typical interior platted lot, there may be some flexibility or leeway to granting corner lots with the same twenty-five foot standard along each street frontage. However, since our Code does not grant this flexibility, a variance is in order. VARIANCE ANALYSIS City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Currently there is not a sidewalk or driveway access to the main front door of the home. We feel that the side access being the only option and having multiple stone steps leading to it could present difficulties in the winter months for older relatives. Our parents from out of town visit us often for extended stays. Staff Response: There are a number of properties scattered throughout the city that have similar crescent shaped drives and/or dual access drive openings on street frontages. In fact, there are three properties just to the immediate northeast of this site at 1200, 1205 and 1220 Sylvandale Road; and one about one block south at 1289 Sylvandale Rd. (see aerial image –below/right). As stated previously, there may be some room for “flexibility” to granting corner lots with some added allowance to driveway width standards, since these lots typically have longer street frontages than a typical interior lot. Limiting access points along any street frontage is ideal; however, on a local, neighborhood street such as Sylvandale Road, in which vehicle (and non-motorized/pedestrian) traffic is relatively low, it may seem reasonable to allow the added driveway off this roadway, in order to better serve the front entryway, as the Applicant/Owner has clearly demonstrated that exists today. The impervious surface coverage expected to occur by installing this driveway also appears nominal, particularly when taking into account the larger corner lot size and open space that will remain. When we analyze the “reasonableness” of this request, the city can take into account similar development patters or existing uses that may contain similar driveways, however, decision-makers should be careful not to grant this variance solely based on any other “precedent established” lands or driveways; and must weigh the evidence and applicability of the request being presented for independent consideration on this property only. The Planning Commission [the City] will need to determine if this requested variance is reasonable and in harmony with the general purpose and spirit of City Code. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The previous owners changed the address of the home with possible future intentions of changing the floor plan to create a different main entry. After changing the address, landscaping was done to “block off” the main entrance (front door). Staff Response: Although staff acknowledges corner lots are not entirely “unique” in this city, and even though they are a bit larger or have more street frontage than a typical interior platted lot, at times they can and do present some challenges or unique situations for homeowners to address, especially when proposing or dealing with new development and/or site improvements. In this case, the Owner is presenting a unique situation that was created by the development of the home on the corner lot back in 1971, where the main home and front-door entryway clearly faces towards Sylvandale Road, but the main access point/entryway into the home has defaulted to the Ivy Falls Court side, which does not work for the owners or their visitors. Dwellings on corner lots are allowed to have their choice of the address off one or the other street; and in this case, the home started off with an address off Sylvandale but later transitioned to Ivy Falls Court by action of the previous owners. Code currently provides that all driveways shall be no greater than 25' wide at the property line, and set back a minimum 30’ from the property lines adjacent to the street corner. The existing and proposed driveways either do meet or would meet both of these design standards – but only when measured along respective street frontage of the property. No added allowance is provided for additional driveways with corner lots; but the planning commission (the City) may wish to give some consideration or support an interpretation that this City Code section may permit a driveway(s) of 25’ in width along each frontage. If agreed, then this property may have some unique circumstances that may be used to support his variance. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: This would be a conservative driveway design with an appearance that is not unlike many other homes in the neighborhood with half-circle driveways. Staff Response: The surrounding neighborhood is all residential in character; and a handful of properties have or consists of similar style crescent/dual access driveways. This new driveway represents a small investment by the Applicant to include an added entrance feature that will ideally serve and draw visitors to the existing and established front entryway to the home, which seems very reasonable in this case. The driveway is “conservative” in its design as a 12-wide surface, which will only permit one way vehicle movements in and out from this driveway. The Applicant has stated they intend to screen the new driveway with landscaping; and demonstrated on their site plan that the new driveway lines up with the neighboring driveways across the street (commendable); and the amount of new hard/impervious surface is nominal in comparison to the remaining open space left on the lot. This new driveway should not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing dwelling, or impact and detract from the neighboring properties in this neighborhood. Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by granting this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to install a new narrow driveway along the established front entryway to the home. The new driveway should not impact any neighboring properties. Although we can conclude this new driveway provides some access convenience and small economic value to the property, the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting this variance. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the request can be viewed in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district; as Code requires off-street parking for vehicles in residential districts, and allowing for more suitable space to park visitor vehicles on the property (driveway) as opposed to the street should be encouraged. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: • LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. • LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner. The proposed garage poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new driveway and request for variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Variance for the additional driveway, which would exceed the 25-foot width allowed at the property line, based on the following findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance requested herein, by: i.) the request for the variance to allow the added driveway, and therefore the additional driveway width, is deemed relatively minor in its overall scope and impacts, and can be considered in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; ii.) the existing conditions of the property and placement of the home, which was not created by the current homeowner, presents a case of a practical difficulties and unique situation to the homeowner wishing to provide an additional driveway and off-street parking area for the residential property, and said driveway improvement will be more convenient to the homeowner and future owners of the property; iii.) the requested variance are considered a reasonable request and the impacts caused by the increased driveway widths will not negatively affect the adjacent or neighboring properties; iv.) approving this variance would not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval of this variance; v.) approving the variance preserves the residential character of the neighborhood, and provides a reasonable amount of investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner; and vi.) the new driveway/parking area is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 662 Ivy Falls Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021- 05, dated and presented May 25, 2021 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later) F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request, and said conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions of approval as related to this transaction are as follows: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The Applicant must provide an effective screen of the driveway from Sylvandale Road with landscaping consisting of native and pollinator friendly plantings. 4. Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a permit for construction and installation of the proposed driveway addition within one (1) year from said approval date. 2. Recommend DENIAL of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City of Mendota Heights hereby deems the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for the additional driveway, which would exceed the 25-foot width allowed at the property line, and further hereby declares: i.) the proposed added driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; ii.) the added driveway is not considered a reasonable addition or improvement of the property, since the subject property already has an existing and functional driveway to serve the homeowners needs; iii.) the proposed added driveway is inconsistent with the intent of the City Code to limit driveway widths at the street curb/property lines, and increases unneeded impervious surface coverage on the lot; and iv.) the proposed driveway may negatively affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and is therefore not supported. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the variance of the proposed driveway as requested herein, and the Commission should make a motion on one of the three alternatives of action noted above. The commission may choose to accept or modify the proposed findings-of-facts and/or conditions as presented under the first two alternatives if needed. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 3. Driveway Site Plan 4. Exterior Dwelling Pics – Interior Floor Plan Images 5. Images of Neighboring Properties w/ Dual Access Driveways 662 IVY FALLS COURT (Opack) 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. Map Scale 1 inch = 54 feet 5/18/2021 Existing HouseExisting DrivewayProperty Line City of Mendota Heights, My name is Joe Opack. My wife Katie and I along with our 4 kids recently purchased a home at 662 Ivy Falls Ct and we are excited to be moving to Mendota Heights. We are in the process of doing a number of projects to the home, one of which is hopefully gaining access to our "front" or "main" door. The home is on a corner lot and the main door is oriented towards Sylvandale. Currently there is not any access. There is evidence that there used to be a sidewalk from that door to Sylvandale. The previous owners of the home took out that sidewalk and changed the address from 1231 Syvandale to 662 Ivy Falls Ct. I am not sure of the long term intentions of the previous homeowners. I can assume that they were possibly planning a large scale remodel that would have shifted the entire main entry to the Ivy Falls Ct side of the home. Our remodel does not change the home layout and the main door is very obviously facing Sylvandale. The Ivy Falls Ct access enters near the garage into a mudroom and also involves going up a number of stone steps prior to entering the home. Our hope, pending the city's approval, is to have a half-circle driveway installed with both access points on Sylvandale (please see diagram that is included). This would accomplish giving us access to the main door for visitors with out requiring them to park on the street. We both have parents from out of town that are in their 70's and although they are very healthy at this point, we feel that it would be a good idea to provide an access to our home with only one step vs. multiple steps if we have the opportunity, especially for the winter months. The half circle design would also give us the opportunity to have visitors who use that access driving forward when accessing Sylvandale vs backing into the street. We also like the aesthetics of the half-circle design vs a traditional single driveway access and parking pad. We have had a driveway company evaluate the site and we discussed three options. 1) Closing off the current Ivy Falls Ct access but keeping the large parking pad. Making a half circle drive starting on Ivy Falls Ct and exiting onto Sylvandale after passing our main door with two 12 foot entrances. We would also need to include an access lane off of the main driveway to the side parking pad to allow access to the garage. This design would not require a variance, but would definitely be the most unsightly to us due to the enormous amount of blacktop/concrete involved. It would also be the most costly and would close off access to the street that our address is on. 2) Keeping an access at Ivy Falls Ct. to access our side door and garage but slenderizing the access. Making a second driveway on Sylvandale to access our front door with a parking pad. This option would also not require a variance if we slenderize the current Ivy Falls Ct. access. What we don't like about this option is that it would be a more obtrusive look in the front of our house (ie more concrete/blacktop for the pad). It also would be a situation that more often than not would result in backing onto Sylvandale. 3) Our third option and the option that we would prefer is the one proposed in the diagram. This is a half circle drive off of Sylvandale with two 12 foot access points. We would design the driveway around the existing two Ash trees with the intention of saving them, and hide as much of the driveway as we can with landscaping. This seems to be the preferred design by the neighbors if we do move forward with a driveway. There are a number of other similar half circle driveways in the neighborhood which I will include addresses for. We need a variance for this design however due to the need for 3 curb cuts onto our property that would result in a larger curb cut than what is currently allowed. If the variance is granted we would be willing to slenderize the Ivy Falls Ct access to 12 feet (or whatever is reasonable to still be useful to access the garage). Our intention is to move forward with some type of driveway to access our main door on Sylvandale. It does not seem reasonable especially in the winter to not be able to use that door. We feel that the half circle driveway that is conservatively designed would be the most aesthetic and safest design for our family and the neighborhood. Thank you for considering this variance and we are happy to provide any additional information that could be helpful in making a decision. Joe and Katie Opack Close neighbors with Half Circle Drives 1220 Sylvandale Rd 1205 Sylvandale Rd 1200 Sylvandale Rd (most similar to our circumstance with a connection to a side garage, but a shorter distance to the garage) 1278 Laura St 1289 Sylvandale Rd Images of Neighboring Properties w/ Dual Access Driveways 1289 SYLVANDALE ROAD 1200 SYLVANDALE ROAD 1205 SYLVANDALE ROAD 1220 SYLVANDALE ROAD C) PLANNING CASE 2021-05 JOE OPACK, 662 IVY FALLS COURT – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Joe Opack, owner of 662 Ivy Falls Court, is requesting a variance to allow a new half-circle shaped driveway on the subject property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a “Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from six of his neighbors not objecting to the variance request. No other comments were received. 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 available actions the Commission could take. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Joe Opack, applicant, commented that he appreciates consideration of his request. He stated that the main door of the home is fairly obvious to the floorplan and it does not have access in the winter months. He stated that he would like to provide access without the use of steps for his older relatives that visit his home. Commissioner Katz referenced the ash trees and asked if those trees are alive. Mr. Opack commented that he was informed that the previous homeowner treated the trees. He stated that if they cannot be saved, he would plan to replace the trees as he would like to keep as many trees as possible. Commissioner Katz commented that even though trees are treated, they still tend to die because of the Emerald Ash Borer. He stated that the root system for the trees is also most likely around where the driveway will run and therefore this could be a good time to remove those trees. Mr. Opack commented that the contractors he has consulted did not believe the trees would be impacted by this project and that a decision would be needed at this time. He noted that they are mature trees, and he would like to keep them. Commissioner Johnson asked the distance from the proposed driveway and tree trunks. She stated that about 20 feet of the trunk is needed in order to avoid root impacts. Mr. Opack stated that he could have an arborist review the situation before making a decision. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked why 12 feet was selected for the driveway width. Mr. Opack commented that he does not feel he would use the driveway a lot for their personal use and want it as a spot for their visitors to park on their driveway to access the front door and then continue to pull through and avoid backing out onto the busy roadway. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she has a horseshoe driveway and believes Mr. Opack will love it. She commented that the driveways would generally align with those across the street. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant considered a sidewalk from the street to the door and why that would not be adequate. Mr. Opack commented that he considered that. He noted that he has relatives from Nebraska that routinely visit, and he would like to provide access without steps, noting that there are about eight steps from the garage side. He commented that he believes there are overnight parking restrictions that would prevent guests from parking on the road and then using the front door. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that the driveway would provide closer access for those with mobility issues. Commissioner Corbett asked if an internal circle was considered rather than two curb cuts. Mr. Opack commented that he considered other alternatives but noted those options seemed to use more cement. He stated that they felt this design would be the best choice for the neighborhood and preference for the neighbors. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a stop sign at the Sylvandale Curve and it was confirmed there is not. He stated that could support it being a unique circumstance in terms of traffic and not having people park on the roadway. Commissioner Johnson asked about another alternative that would have two curb cuts rather than three. Mr. Opack commented that they did consider that but that would result in a large amount of sidewalk through the yard. Commissioner Toth referenced the original building permit and asked if those plans included a curved driveway. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he did not review the original building permit. He noted that the property was previously addressed from Sylvandale and the previous property owner switched it to Ivy Falls Court. He noted that this driveway would not change the addressing or functionality of the property. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE 25 FOOT WIDTH ALLOWED AT THE PROPERTY LINE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 1, 2021 meeting. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 1, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-48 Accept Bids and Award Contract for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements and Approve Professional Services Contract COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2021-48 accepting bids and awarding a contract for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvement Project. The Council is also asked to approve a professional services contract for construction management. BACKGROUND Council ordered the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements at their April 6, 2021 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the April 20, 2021 meeting. DISCUSSION Two bids (see below) were received per the online bidding platform of QuestCDN on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements. NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID Alcon Construction $1,560,477.72 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,610,355.86 Alcon Construction submitted the lowest responsible bid of $1,560,477.72. Their bid was less than the Engineer's Estimate of $1,811,548.30. Alcon Construction is a contractor with many years of experience with an office in Rochester, Minnesota. Staff recommends them for this contract. The substantial completion date for the project is October 29, 2021. We expect Alcon Construction, serving in the capacity of General Contractor, is capable of meeting the completion dates and installing the proposed improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications given their experience and the amount of equipment and manpower they have at their disposal. Staff solicited a professional services contract from three consultants. Two of the consultants were unable to provide a quote for this service due to staffing shortages. TKDA, consultant on the Marie Ave and Wesley projects, submitted the attached quote for services. The services provided include construction staking (surveying), geotechnical and material testing, and an on-site construction manager. The professional services contract is a not-to-exceed contract based on 50 hours per week for 16 weeks. BUDGET IMPACT The Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements are proposed to be financed by Special Assessments, Municipal Bonds, St. Paul Regional Water funds, and Utility Funds. The total cost for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements is $1,560,477.72. The project costs are further expanded to include indirect costs for administration, engineering, finance, legal, etc.: PROJECT COSTS ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL STREET REHABILITATION & CURB REPLACEMENT $913,928.55 $228,482.14 $1,142,410.69 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION $45,189.90 $11,297.48 $56,487.38 STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION $105,296.00 $26,324.00 $131,620.00 WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION $496,063.27 $74,409.50 $570,472.77 Totals $1,560,477.72 $340,513.12 $1,900,990.84 * Includes 25% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. ** Indirect costs for water main construction limited to 15%. FUNDING SOURCES ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT MUNICIPAL BONDS UTILITY FUNDS S.P.R.W.S. STREET REHABILITATION & CURB $1,142,410.69 $390,500.00 $751,910.69 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION $56,487.38 $56,487.38 STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION $131,620.00 $131,620.00 WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION $570,472.77 $570,472.77 Totals $1,900,990.84 $390,500.00 $808,398.07 $131,620.00 $570,472.77 ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION Assessable Costs $1,142,410.69 Assessment $571,205.34 Assessable Units 71 Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $8,045.14 Proposed Unit Assessment $5,500.00 The professional services contract from TKDA is proposed at $130,000. The indirect costs for the project are currently estimated to be $340,000 which will be sufficient to provide this service. The project design was done by city staff which resulted in reduced costs for the design. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council accept the bids and award the construction contract to Alcon Construction for their bid in the amount of $1,560,477.72. Staff also recommends that the professional services contract be approved for TKDA. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS and approving a professional services contract to TKDA for their not-to-exceed quote of $130,000. This action requires a simple majority vote. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-48 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed construction of bituminous pavement reclamation, water main improvements, storm sewer extensions, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter repair, catch basin repair, bituminous surfacing, restoration, and appurtenant work of rehabilitating Brompton Place, Downing Street, London Road, Sutcliff Circle, Winston Circle, and Winston Court, bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with said advertisement: NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID Alcon Construction $1,560,477.72 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $1,610,355.86 and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommended that the lowest responsible bid submitted by Alcon Construction of Rochester, Minnesota, be accepted. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the bids for the Marie Avenue Street Improvement project are hereby received and accepted. 2. That the bid of Alcon Construction of Rochester, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted. 3. That the contract be awarded to Alcon Construction of Rochester, Minnesota, and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of June, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST ___________________________ _____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk Stephanie Levine, Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSPROJECT:Ivy Falls East Neighborhood ImprovementsPROJECT #:MH201906Date: 5/20/2021I certify that I have personally opened and read all bids, verified this abstract and find it correct.By:__________________________________________________________________Alcon Excavating Inc (Bid as Submitted)Alcon Excavating Inc (Bid as Corrected)Bituminous Roadways IncITEM NO. SPEC. NO. ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICEENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNTSCHEDULE 'A' - STREET REHABILITATION & WATER MAIN1 2021.501 MOBILIZATIONL.S. 1.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $171,000.00 $171,000.00 $171,000.00 $171,000.00 $71,000.00 $71,000.002 2101.501 CLEARINGACRE0.05 $10,000.00 $500.00 $10,100.00 $505.00 $10,100.00 $505.00 $10,427.00 $521.353 2101.506 GRUBBINGACRE0.05 $10,000.00 $500.00 $10,100.00 $505.00 $10,100.00 $505.00 $10,427.00 $521.354 2101.602 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 4" AND LARGER DIAMETERTREE9 $500.00 $4,500.00 $1,215.00 $10,935.00 $1,215.00 $10,935.00 $1,147.00 $10,323.005 2101.602 TREE TRIMMINGEach10 $200.00 $2,000.00 $250.00 $2,500.00 $250.00 $2,500.00 $1,043.00 $10,430.006 2104.502 SALVAGE CASTINGEach51 $250.00 $12,750.00 $100.00 $5,100.00 $100.00 $5,100.00 $101.00 $5,151.007 2104.502 REMOVE CASTINGEach1 $250.00 $250.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $90.00 $101.00 $101.008 2104.502 REMOVE HYDRANTEach7 $500.00 $3,500.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $2,975.00 $1,639.00 $11,473.009 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS CURB AND GUTTERL.F. 52 $5.00 $260.00 $4.00 $208.00 $4.00 $208.00 $5.60 $291.2010 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERL.F. 4,641 $5.00 $23,205.00 $6.00 $27,846.00 $6.00 $27,846.00 $9.20 $42,697.2011 2104.503 REMOVE 6" CAST IRON WATER MAINL.F. 2,018 $10.00 $20,180.00 $8.00 $16,144.00 $8.00 $16,144.00 $8.80 $17,758.4012 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTS.Y. 486 $20.00 $9,720.00 $4.00 $1,864.00 $4.00 $1,944.00 $17.00 $8,262.0013 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTS.Y. 721 $9.00 $6,489.00 $4.00 $2,884.00 $4.00 $2,884.00 $6.20 $4,470.2014 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE DRIVEWAYL.F. 403 $6.00 $2,418.00 $4.90 $1,974.70 $4.90 $1,974.70 $4.70 $1,894.1015 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAYL.F. 593 $3.50 $2,075.50 $1.75 $1,037.75 $1.75 $1,037.75 $3.70 $2,194.1016 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L.F. 306 $3.00 $918.00 $1.75 $535.50 $1.75 $535.50 $2.60 $795.6017 2104.618 SALVAGE BRICK PAVERSS.F. 622 $10.00 $6,220.00 $0.95 $590.90 $0.95 $590.90 $8.10 $5,038.2018 2105.607 COMMON EXCAVATION (P)C.Y. 1,650 $25.00 $41,250.00 $12.00 $19,800.00 $12.00 $19,800.00 $21.50 $35,475.0019 2105.607 COMMON EXCAVATION - HAUL OFF-SITE (EV)C.Y. 142 $35.00 $4,970.00 $17.70 $2,513.40 $17.70 $2,513.40 $21.50 $3,053.0020 2105.607 COMMON BORROW (RECLAIM MATERIAL; IN-PLACE)C.Y. 73 $35.00 $2,555.00 $13.25 $967.25 $13.25 $967.25 $9.50 $693.5021 2105.507 SUBGRADE/AGGREGATE BASE CORRECTION EXCAVATION OUTSIDE THE AREA OF INFLUENCE OF CONTRACTOR INSTALLED UTILITY TRENCHES (SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS - SECTION 2)C.Y. 2,102 $28.00 $58,856.00 $22.30 $46,874.60 $22.30 $46,874.60 $23.50 $49,397.0022 2105.526 SELECT TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)C.Y. 784 $25.00 $19,600.00 $31.50 $24,696.00 $31.50 $24,696.00 $57.00 $44,688.0023 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE 5S.Y. 3,468 $2.00 $6,936.00 $1.40 $4,855.20 $1.40 $4,855.20 $1.70 $5,895.6024 2112.604 STREET SUBGRADE PREPARATIONS.Y. 17,344 $1.00 $17,344.00 $0.90 $15,609.60 $0.90 $15,609.60 $1.10 $19,078.4025 2112.604 BASE PREPARATION (SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS - SECTION 2)S.Y. 14,644 $1.00 $14,644.00 $0.90 $13,179.60 $0.90 $13,179.60 $1.10 $16,108.4026 2123.501 COMMON LABORHR 10 $100.00 $1,000.00 $65.00 $650.00 $65.00 $650.00 $75.00 $750.0027 2123.509 DOZER WITH OPERATORHR 10 $150.00 $1,500.00 $125.00 $1,250.00 $125.00 $1,250.00 $171.00 $1,710.0028 2123.514 2 CU YD FRONT END LOADER WITH OPERATORHR 10 $150.00 $1,500.00 $130.00 $1,300.00 $130.00 $1,300.00 $168.00 $1,680.0029 2123.610 SKID STEER (BOBCAT) WITH OPERATORHR 10 $125.00 $1,250.00 $106.00 $1,060.00 $106.00 $1,060.00 $131.00 $1,310.00PROJECT TOTALBID ABSTRACTPage 1 of 3 Alcon Excavating Inc (Bid as Submitted)Alcon Excavating Inc (Bid as Corrected)Bituminous Roadways IncITEM NO. SPEC. NO. ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICEENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNTPROJECT TOTAL30 2123.610 BACK HOE WITH OPERATORHR 10 $200.00 $2,000.00 $190.00 $1,900.00 $190.00 $1,900.00 $175.00 $1,750.0031 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HR 20 $250.00 $5,000.00 $150.00 $3,000.00 $150.00 $3,000.00 $172.00 $3,440.0032 2211.501 RECLAMATION MATERIAL HAULED OFF-SITE (P)TON 2,948 $20.00 $58,960.00 $9.95 $29,332.60 $9.95 $29,332.60 $3.50 $10,318.0033 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 (RECYCLED, ON-SITE), IN PLACE (P)TON 5,448 $15.00 $81,720.00 $23.80 $129,662.40 $23.80 $129,662.40 $5.60 $30,508.8034 2211.501 1 1/2" SCREENED CLEAN ROCKTON 400 $22.00 $8,800.00 $34.50 $13,800.00 $34.50 $13,800.00 $29.50 $11,800.0035 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE (1.5" NOMINAL DEPTH) (PRIOR TO WEAR COURSE)S.Y. 102 $7.00 $714.00 $10.15 $1,035.30 $10.15 $1,035.30 $11.50 $1,173.0036 2331.604 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION (10" NOMINAL DEPTH)S.Y. 14,644 $3.50 $51,254.00 $2.50 $36,610.00 $2.50 $36,610.00 $0.90 $13,179.6037 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COATGAL 1,464 $3.25 $4,758.00 $2.02 $2,957.28 $2.02 $2,957.28 $3.20 $4,684.8038 2360.501 TYPE SPWEA240C WEARING COURSE, IN-PLACETON 1,428 $90.00 $128,520.00 $68.00 $97,104.00 $68.00 $97,104.00 $70.00 $99,960.0039 2360.502 TYPE SPNWB230B NON WEARING COURSE, IN-PLACETON 2,347 $85.00 $199,495.00 $59.75 $140,233.25 $59.75 $140,233.25 $55.50 $130,258.5040 2360.503 3" TYPE SPWEA230B WEARING COURSE FOR DRIVEWAYSS.Y. 721 $40.00 $28,840.00 $30.35 $21,882.35 $30.36 $21,889.56 $21.00 $15,141.0041 2451.507 GRANULAR BACKFILL (CV)C.Y. 1,180 $24.00 $28,320.00 $24.20 $28,556.00 $24.20 $28,556.00 $25.50 $30,090.0042 2502.602 PROTECT, SALVAGE, RESTORE, OR REPLACE IRRIGATION, PER LOTEach 37 $500.00 $18,500.00 $350.00 $12,950.00 $350.00 $12,950.00 $213.00 $7,881.0043 2503.503 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL VL.F. 614 $70.00 $42,980.00 $60.00 $36,840.00 $60.00 $36,840.00 $82.50 $50,655.0044 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTUREEach 3 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 $850.00 $2,550.00 $850.00 $2,550.00 $991.00 $2,973.0045 2503.603 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE REPAIRL.F. 20 $125.00 $2,500.00 $250.00 $5,250.00 $250.00 $5,000.00 $82.00 $1,640.0046 2504.602 HYDRANT INSTALLATIONEach 7 $5,500.00 $38,500.00 $5,850.00 $40,950.00 $5,850.00 $40,950.00 $8,235.00 $57,645.0047 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE INSTALLATIONEach 14 $2,500.00 $35,000.00 $1,700.00 $23,800.00 $1,700.00 $23,800.00 $3,373.00 $47,222.0048 2504.602 1" CORPORATION STOPEach 27 $500.00 $13,500.00 $475.00 $12,825.00 $475.00 $12,825.00 $1,229.00 $33,183.0049 2504.602 2" CORPORATION STOPEach 2 $750.00 $1,500.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 $1,393.00 $2,786.0050 2504.602 1" CURB STOP & BOXEach 3 $950.00 $2,850.00 $615.00 $1,845.00 $615.00 $1,845.00 $1,244.00 $3,732.0051 2504.602 2" CURB STOP & BOX W/ WASTEEach 2 $1,800.00 $3,600.00 $1,525.00 $3,050.00 $1,525.00 $3,050.00 $2,248.00 $4,496.0052 2504.602 REPAIR SERVICE STOP BOXEach 5 $350.00 $1,750.00 $210.00 $1,050.00 $210.00 $1,050.00 $469.00 $2,345.0053 2504.602 ADJUST SERVICE STOP BOXEach 1 $250.00 $250.00 $240.00 $240.00 $240.00 $240.00 $286.00 $286.0054 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX, INCLUDING PARTSEach21 $500.00 $10,500.00 $305.00 $6,405.00 $305.00 $6,405.00 $342.00 $7,182.0055 2504.602 SACRIFICIAL ANODEEach 20 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 $580.00 $11,600.00 $580.00 $11,600.00 $1,310.00 $26,200.0056 2504.602 SACRIFICIAL ANODE RETRO-FITEach 8 $2,500.00 $20,000.00 $700.00 $5,600.00 $700.00 $5,600.00 $1,831.00 $14,648.0057 2504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPEL.F. 15 $800.00 $12,000.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $90.00 $1,350.0058 2504.603 2" TYPE K COPPER PIPEL.F. 32 $800.00 $25,600.00 $130.00 $4,160.00 $130.00 $4,160.00 $140.00 $4,480.0059 2504.603 6" DI WATER MAIN CL 53L.F. 1,978 $65.00 $128,570.00 $64.00 $126,592.00 $64.00 $126,592.00 $116.00 $229,448.0060 2504.604 2" INSULATIONS.Y. 43 $40.00 $1,720.00 $30.30 $1,302.90 $30.30 $1,302.90 $46.00 $1,978.0061 2504.608 DUCTILE AND GREY IRON FITTINGSLB 909 $10.00 $9,090.00 $10.90 $9,908.10 $10.90 $9,908.10 $18.00 $16,362.0062 2506.502 INSTALL CASTING (SALVAGED), REPLACE CONCRETE RINGSEach51 $650.00 $33,150.00 $625.00 $31,875.00 $625.00 $31,875.00 $514.00 $26,214.0063 2506.502 INSTALL CASTING (NEW), NEW CONCRETE RINGSEach11 $650.00 $7,150.00 $835.00 $9,185.00 $835.00 $9,185.00 $948.00 $10,428.0064 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE TYPE 2x3Each7 $3,500.00 $24,500.00 $2,860.00 $20,020.00 $2,860.00 $20,020.00 $2,969.00 $20,783.0065 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020Each1 $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $2,471.00 $2,471.00 $2,471.00 $2,471.00 $3,891.00 $3,891.0066 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4022Each2 $5,500.00 $11,000.00 $3,050.00 $6,100.00 $3,050.00 $6,100.00 $4,516.00 $9,032.0067 2506.604 CONSTRUCT RAIN GARDENS.Y.311 $225.00 $69,975.00 $65.00 $20,215.00 $65.00 $20,215.00 $131.00 $40,741.0068 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALKS.F. 212 $15.00 $3,180.00 $8.60 $1,823.20 $8.60 $1,823.20 $14.00 $2,968.0069 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 (HAND FORMED)L.F. 2,780 $45.00 $125,100.00 $38.45 $106,891.00 $38.45 $106,891.00 $31.50 $87,570.0070 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 (MACHINE FORMED)L.F. 1,913 $35.00 $66,955.00 $24.30 $46,485.90 $24.30 $46,485.90 $19.00 $36,347.0071 2531.507 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTS.Y. 486 $65.00 $31,590.00 $77.40 $37,616.40 $77.41 $37,621.26 $81.00 $39,366.0072 2540.604 INSTALL SALVAGED PAVER DRIVEWAYS.Y. 622 $35.00 $21,770.00 $28.95 $18,006.90 $28.95 $18,006.90 $24.50 $15,239.0073 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOME PANELS.F. 48 $50.00 $2,400.00 $45.55 $2,186.40 $45.55 $2,186.40 $83.50 $4,008.0074 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROLL.S. 1.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $6,070.00 $6,070.00 $6,070.00 $6,070.00 $9,039.00 $9,039.0075 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN POSTEach 10.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $51.00 $510.00 $51.00 $510.00 $94.00 $940.0076 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN TYPE CEach 20.00 $125.00 $2,500.00 $102.00 $2,040.00 $102.00 $2,040.00 $94.00 $1,880.0077 2564.502 SIGN TYPE CS.F. 55.84$45.00$2,512.80$40.50 $2,261.52 $40.50 $2,261.52 $41.50 $2,317.36Page 2 of 3 Alcon Excavating Inc (Bid as Submitted)Alcon Excavating Inc (Bid as Corrected)Bituminous Roadways IncITEM NO. SPEC. NO. ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICEENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNTPROJECT TOTAL78 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXITL.S.1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,358.00 $6,358.0079 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTIONEach30 $200.00 $6,000.00 $150.00 $4,500.00 $150.00 $4,500.00 $159.00 $4,770.0080 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE COMPOSTL.F. 430 $3.00 $1,290.00 $5.00 $2,150.00 $5.00 $2,150.00 $5.00 $2,150.0081 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3Pound 10 $50.00 $500.00 $10.00 $100.00 $10.00 $100.00 $10.50 $105.0082 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWNS.Y. 4,144 $6.50 $26,936.00 $8.05 $33,359.20 $8.05 $33,359.20 $8.40 $34,809.6083 2575.505 SEED MIXTURE 25-151Pound 15 $50.00 $750.00 $36.15 $542.25 $36.15 $542.25 $38.00 $570.0084 2575.505 HYDRAULIC STABILIZED FIBER MATRIXPound 604 $2.00 $1,208.00 $3.30 $1,993.20 $3.30 $1,993.20 $3.40 $2,053.6085 2575.535 APPLICATION OF WATER FOR TURF, AFTER 30 DAYSMG 120 $30.00 $3,600.00 $36.20 $4,344.00 $36.20 $4,344.00 $38.00 $4,560.0086 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXYL.F. 140 $5.00 $700.00 $18.20 $2,548.00 $18.20 $2,548.00 $19.00 $2,660.00SUBTOTAL$1,811,548.30 $1,558,085.65 $1,560,477.72 $1,610,355.86SUMMARYSCHEDULE 'A' - STREET REHABILITATION & WATER MAIN$1,811,548.30 $1,558,085.65 $1,560,477.72 $1,610,355.86TOTAL$1,811,548.30 $1,558,085.65 $1,560,477.72 $1,610,355.86Page 3 of 3 City of Mendota Heights, MN IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Larry Poppler, PE Project Manager larry.poppler@tkda.com | 952.292.1098 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2140 www.tkda.com TKDA® | 444 Cedar Street Suite 1500 | Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.292.4400 • tkda.com An employee-owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity. May 26, 2021 Mr. Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 ryanr@mendota‐heights.com Re: Consulting Services Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements Dear Mr. Ruzek: We are excited for the possibility of working with you again on the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood improvement project. This project is exactly the type of project where our TKDA Municipal Engineering team excels. We understand the goals of this project will include: •Assure quality construction •Provide clear and respectful communication with residents •Assist in keeping construction costs within budget TKDA has delivered quality projects for the City of Mendota Heights over the last two years as well as for other communities. This same team would be honored to serve the City for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood improvement project. Larry Poppler will be the project manager and Steve Bunch will provide the day to day construction observation. We have teamed up with Braun Intertec for the materials testing for this project. A few of the benefits of hiring the TKDA Team are: •Familiarity with the City and City Standards •Strong experience with neighborhood street improvements •Proximity to project for key staff members and TKDA office We are proud of the work we have completed for the City of Mendota Heights over the last few years and are excited to work again with the City for construction services for the Ivy Falls East Neighbor- hood. If you have any questions regarding this proposal please contact Larry Poppler at 952.292.1098 or larry.poppler@tkda.com. Sincerely, Larry Poppler, PE Doug Fischer, PE Project Manager Vice President, Municipal, Utility, and Planning Division TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 2 Project Understanding and Approach PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Mendota Heights, as a part of its pavement management program, is planning to complete improvements in the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood. The project will entail pavement rehabilitation of Downing Street, London Road, Sutcliffe Circle, Winston Circle, and Winston Court. The project will include full depth reclamation, base preparation, paving, storm sewer repair, partial curb and gutter replacement, partial watermain replacement, trail paving, and associated work. The City assesses for its street improvements and follows MN Statutes 429 for its assessment process. Construction services are needed to deliver this project. The services would occur during the planned construction from July through October of 2021. Final punchlist work and corresponding construction services will be needed in the spring of 2022 to complete the project. TKDA has studied the plans provided for this project and will be able to hit the ground running when the project construction begins. APPROACH We have been working on similar projects in many communities and while each project is unique and different, many of the same basics apply: ☐Develop Mindful Rapport with Residents ☐ Clear and Concise Communication ☐Responsive Follow-up ☐Quality Reports ☐ Attention to Detail These virtues have been the focus of the TKDA Municipal Engineering Group, and we strive to assure each and every project is approached with these virtues in mind. Ultimately, neighborhood street improvement projects are judged by the residents on the following measures: ☐Communication During Construction ☐ Access to Driveway and Home ☐ Impacts to Yards and Driveways ☐Assessment Amount ☐ Approachability of Resident Project Representative While the resident project representative cannot control all these measures, they can work with the contractor to minimize impact and, more importantly, communicate to property owners. For example, if a property owner knows in advance that they may have limited access to their driveway during a certain time period, they can plan accordingly. TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 3 Project Team Firm Overview TKDA® is committed to providing our clients with exceptional service while managing time and budget expectations. Our expert team of engineers, architects, and planners work collaboratively on designs and deliverables that are comprehensive, effective, efficient, and stand the test of time. As a 100 percent employee-owned S Corporation founded in 1910, TKDA has a local and national reputation for excellence built on over 111 years of industry experience. Our 300-plus employee owners bring the same attention to detail and high standards to every project, no matter the scope or size. Local community projects, public agencies, and private industries are all served well by our multidisciplinary teams ready to implement the vision of our clients and stakeholders, while upholding rigorous safety standards and industry guidelines. Headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota, with offices across the country, our employee owners build our brand by investing their talents to help our communities where we work and live. Key Personnel Larry Poppler, PE Project Manager/Civil Engineer Larry Poppler has served as city engineer, project manager, inspections director, and project engineer on street, water supply systems, and civil site design projects for over 24 years, with 15 of those years at the City of Prior Lake. He has developed and implemented capital improvements for communities; established policies and standards; and provided MnDOT State Aid administration and asset management. He has managed multiple consultants and staff members to assist with project design, inspection, surveying, studies, and infrastructure management. He is a skillful communicator with extensive experience in city council and neighborhood meetings. Similar Experience: ☐ SE Area Reconstruction, White Bear Township ☐ Marie Avenue Street Improvements (State Aid), Mendota Heights ☐2019 Street Improvements (State Aid), Rosemount ☐2018 Street Improvements, Rosemount ☐ 2019 Street Improvements, White Bear Township ☐Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements (State Aid), Mendota Heights ☐ TH 10 Watermain and Frontage Road Improvements, Arden Hills TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 4 Steve Bunch, EIT Graduate Engineer Steve Bunch has experience with feasibility report preparation, roadway design, and construction observation for local roadways, state aid roads, and county roadway projects. He is versed in AutoCAD Civil 3D. By having experience in both design and construction observation, Steve brings a “contractor’s perspective” to the preparation of reports, plans, and specifications. Steve seeks to understand property owner perspectives and works with the contractor to address access concerns, mail delivery, driveway or yard restoration, or any other resident concerns on neighborhood reconstruction project. Similar Experience: ☐ Marie Avenue Street Improvements (State Aid), Mendota Heights ☐Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements (State Aid), Mendota Heights ☐Lexington Parkway Realignment, Ramsey County ☐ Three Oaks Development, White Bear Township Project Team Wesley Lane Neighborhood Improvements, Mendota Heights, MN Marie Avenue Street Improvements, Mendota Heights, MN TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 5 Similar Projects Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements Mendota Heights, MN The City of Mendota Heights retained TKDA for feasibility study, design development, bidding services, construction administration, construction observation, and construction staking for street improvements for the Wesley Lane Neighborhood and Marie Avenue between Lexington Avenue and Dodd Road. Both projects followed Minnesota Statutes 429 and involved assessments. State Aid funding was used on both projects and therefore needed to meet State Aid standards. Pavement reclamation included placement of 1” rock over the existing pavement that was mixed during the pavement reclamation. This process produced a quality aggregate base for the new roadway. Excess material was used for trail and sidewalk base. Project Included: ☐ Reclamation of pavement and spot curb replacement ☐Traffic calming (bumpouts, digital speed sign) ☐Watermain replacement ☐ Land bridge repair ☐ Pond cleanout ☐Trail rehabilitation ☐ Dakota County regional trail extension ☐ Dakota County regional trail tunnel rehabilitation ☐Updated signage and striping ☐ Valley Park parking lot paving SE Area Reconstruction White Bear Township, MN TKDA completed a pavement condition review of the entire White Bear Township pavement system and prepared a “Pavement Management Booklet.” The SE Area Reconstruction project includes four miles of neighborhood streets and was defined for improvements over a period of three years starting in 2020. TKDA has completed the following steps for the first phase of this project: Feasibility Report, Topographic Survey, Public Engagement, Resident Questionnaire, Public Hearings, Design Drawings, Bidding Services, Construction Administration, Construction Inspection, and Construction Staking. All streets within the first phase of the 1.4-mile project area were originally constructed in 1962. The width of each street varied between 14 feet and 30 feet and were constructed with bituminous curb. The narrow streets were widened as much as possible, but were restricted by the narrow existing right-of-way. The new bituminous street for Phase I was reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter to improve drainage and functioning of the roadway. Additional storm sewer pipe was added to address existing drainage problems, including an underground stormwater treatment structure to treat stormwater before it discharged into White Bear Lake. In addition, TKDA worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District and its cost share program to add in Rain Gardens at individual properties. TKDA held multiple neighborhood meetings, sent out residential flyers, and worked with individual residents to meet the community’s and residents’ expectations. The next phase has been ordered and construction will start in the spring of 2021. TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 6 Similar Projects 2019 Street Improvements Rosemount, MN As part of the City of Rosemount’s pavement management program, TKDA was hired to provide feasibility study, design, and construction services for the 2019 Street Improvements which were constructed in 2019 and 2020. All eight of the roadways were Municipal State Aid streets totaling over two miles. The street improvements consisted of removal and replacement of any damaged curb, mill and overlay of the bituminous pavement, full depth pavement replacement in areas, over 100 ADA pedestrian ramps, sidewalk improvements, signing and striping, and restoration. Digital signage was installed at a critical intersection. The project was funded with a mix of State Aid Funding and assessments. The assessments were complicated due to the mix of single family residential, multi-family, and commercial property. Public engagement was an important part of the project to communicate assessment information and project details. Individual meetings with business owners was necessary to communicate and coordinate business access restrictions during construction. TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 7 Construction Staking – TKDA will provide construction staking for the project. It is assumed that TKDA will be given the design data in AutoCAD format. Staking will include offsets for all utility work, curb stakes as necessary, trail staking, blue tops, etc. Deliverables: Construction Stakes Cut Sheets Contractor Submittals – TKDA will review all Contractor submittals for the project including shop drawings or other project documentation. TKDA will turn around shop drawings in a prompt manner back to the contractor and copy the City on this correspondence. Deliverables: Review of Contractor Submittals Construction Observation – TKDA will provide resident construction observation for the project. TKDA understands the importance of having sufficient coverage during construction of this project. Street and utility work is incredibly expensive and resident inspection is crucial to assure quality work is occurring. The resident inspector is also the first point of contact with residents. In fact, the resident inspector really gets to know the people within a neighborhood street project. Our proposed inspector, Steve Bunch, knows how to communicate with residents and contractors. He takes ownership of his construction assignments and treats each project as if it were in front of his home. This approach has been well received by our clients. While understanding the big picture, Steve sees that the little details can be the most impactful to residents within neighborhoods. Steve keeps the City and residents informed, sometimes relaying bad news such as a power outage or sprinkler damage. Steve looks ahead and works with contractors to avoid pitfalls or delays. He also provides quality reports that detail the work for each day. He provides notices to property owners as well as face to face discussions. Based on the RFP timelines, we are assuming 50 Hours per week from July through October. It is very possible that this amount of hours is not needed every week for this type of project, but other weeks may be a little higher depending on the contractor’s schedule. Without knowing the forces which the contractor may dedicate to this project, it is difficult to predict these hours. If Saint Paul Regional Water performs part of the watermain inspection, some of the hours could be reduced. TKDA will work with the City of Mendota Heights on the number of hours needed for this project, and TKDA will obviously not charge the City if the hours per week are less than proposed. Since the TKDA office is nearby, TKDA can perform spot visits during less critical work if desired by the City. Since the City completed the design for this project, it is assumed that any questions about the design or field judgements would be answered directly by the City. Deliverables: Construction Observation (Assumes 50 Hours per week) Work Plan Field Report Project: Marie Ave Street Improvements Date: May 21, 2021 Weather: AM: sun PM: sun Lo: 70 Hi: 88 Proj. No.: 16948.000 Report By: Steven Bunch, TKDA Contractor: S.M. Hentges (SMH) Report To: Larry Poppler, TKDA Hours: 7:00 am – 6:00 pm Ryan Ruzek, Mendota Heights Sub(s): Steve Engstrom, SMH OBSERVATIONS: At 7am paving crews just arriving to begin work on paving from Sutton Lane to Dodd Road. The crew worked to compact the base material between the driveways with plate compactors just prior to paving. The edges of concrete were tacked prior to paving the trail. Dave with element was on site from 7am to 9:45am to test density, take bituminous samples and set up rolling patterns. Paving began at approximately 7:45am starting at Dodd Road working west towards Sutton Lane. The crew paved trails and driveways in one 3” lift due to the large amount of concrete driveway aprons. Densities tested well for the most part and surface smoothness appeared to be good. In front of 717 Marie Ave the shuttle buggy appeared to deform the bituminous street section approximately ½” and chip a curb panel. The shuttle buggy is estimated to weigh approximately 38.5 tons unloaded and is considerably heavier when loaded with bituminous. The operator was asked to move as far from the curb line as possible and stop if any more deformation occurred. The area deformed was approximately 60’x5’ on the curb line. The crew completed paving Dodd to Sutton Lane by approximately 10:30am. The crew then paved the trail on the west half of the bridge to Trail road. In this section, the crew paved the full 8’ width to Trail road and will saw cut back the trail to meet acceptable grading into the existing landscaping. The crew then moved to the trail at Trail Road working west towards the tunnel bumpouts paving in one 3” lift. Densities and smoothness remained adequate. The crew worked to complete the trail complex around the tunnel by about 2:30pm. The crew was asked to barricade the trail to prevent pedestrians from leaving bike tire marks. The crew finished the day by paving the stretch from Victoria to Lilac on the north side. The trail was paved in one 3” lift starting at Victoria working west. With the remaining bituminous in the shuttle buggy the crew paved the match lift (areas from new ped ramps to the overlay sections) leaving the ped ramp abutment 1.5” down and matching into the existing bit trail in prep for the overlay. During the paving operation, the grading crew worked on top soiling, site clean up, pumping on the Sutton pond, pumping on the Lexington pond and overlay prep. The crew used a sweeping machine and back pack blower to prep the overlay surface. The crew finished rolling and clean up by about 5:30pm, the paving superintendent will decide if they are paving tomorrow morning depending on the weather. 2020 Marie Avenue Street Improvements Page 2 May 21, 2021 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/ACTION REQUIRED: Crew: Foreman: Tom (grading); Laborers: 3; Operators: 3 Foreman: Curly (paving); Laborers: 4; Operators: 5 Other: Coordination with Xcel power supply and Egan  work planned for 9/2 and 9/3, Egan to install needed items for Coordination with Husky  called and left message 8/25 Coordination with Comcast for line in front of Victoria Walls  SMH to coordinate Maintain inlet protection  some inlets have no inlet protection Equipment: Skid Steer (2) Volvo Loader Smooth drum roller Plate compactor Roadtec SB2500D shuttle buggy P385 paver Double drum mini roller 3 ton roller Water truck UPCOMING SCHEDULE: Friday 8/28 – Dewatering, trail grading, trail paving, trail leveling course Saturday 8/29 – No work planned Monday 8/30 – Pond cleanout, restoration, dewatering Tuesday 8/31 – Pond cleanout, restoration, Egan to install flasher signs and cabinet, dewatering Wednesday 9/1 – Pond cleanout, restoration, dewatering 2020 Marie Avenue Street Improvements Page 3 May 21, 2021 Photo No. 1 Date: 5/21/2021 Direction Photo Taken: South Photo Taken by: STEVE BUNCH Description: Paving operation near tunnel Photo No. 2 Date: 5/21/2021 Direction Photo Taken: South Photo Taken by: STEVE BUNCH Description: Paving on Lilac to Victoria trail. Steve Bunch on a job site TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 8 Materials Testing – TKDA is teaming with Braun Intertec for materials testing for this project. Materials testing will include soil testing, concrete testing, and pavement testing. They assume the basis for testing will follow MnDOT’s Schedule of Materials Control. Deliverables: Soil Testing (7 trips) One Topsoil Test Concrete Testing (8 trips) Asphalt Testing (4 mix samples and 24 core tests) Contract Administration – TKDA will set up payment applications, track quantities, and prepare payment vouchers for approval by the City. We assume payment would occur once per month. Deliverables: Payment Vouchers (Once per month) Contract Change Administration – TKDA will review possible contract changes with the City. The resident inspector will handle much of this activity as a part of their regular work day and will work with the City on approval. If change orders are necessary, TKDA will prepare background documentation and change order vouchers. Deliverables: Change Order Voucher Background Documentation Project Walkthrough and Punchlist – After substantial completion, TKDA will perform a walkthrough with the City and contractor. We will document any corrective work and prepare a punchlist for the project. Deliverables: Walkthrough with City and Contractor Punchlist Final Project Documentation – When the project is complete, TKDA will prepare the certificates of completion and final payment voucher. TKDA will coordinate with the contractor to gather all necessary documentation. Deliverables: Walkthrough with City and Contractor Punchlist Work Plan POST CONSTRUCTION As-built Drawings – When the project is complete, TKDA collects survey shots for new manhole and catch basin structures and prepares as-built drawings. If the watermain or storm sewer were shifted during construction, we will prepare the as- builts to reflect the final location. It is assumed that the AutoCAD drawings will be provided to TKDA for this activity. Deliverables: As-built Drawings Warranty Review and Claims – After final acceptance and during the warranty period, TKDA will coordinate any corrective work with the contractor. It is assumed that warranty walkthrough could occur in the late summer of 2022, with enough time in 2022 for the contractor to complete any necessary corrections. Deliverables: As-built Drawings TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | 9 Proposed Fee TKDA proposes to complete the work described in the work plan for a not-to-exceed fee of $130,000. This fee is based on an assumption of 50 hours per week for inspection during the course of 16 weeks from July through October. If the City feels that this level of coverage is not needed for this project and that 40 hours per week is more appropriate, our fee would be $115,400. We will work with the City during the course of the project to provide the appropriate level of service the City desires. Project Fee Estimate City of Mendota Heights Date: 5/25/2021 Ivy Falls East Construction Services By:LPP Sr Reg Eng Const. Observer Survey Tech Survey Tech III Task 1 Construction Services 1 124 80 205 20,357$ Review Contractor Submittals 2 16 18 1,858$ Construction Observation (July - October assume 50 hrs/wk)800 800 72,800$ Materials Testing (See Expenses)- -$ Contract Administration 8 8 1,608$ Contract Change Evaluation 10 10 2,010$ 8 8 728$ 4 8 12 1,532$ Task 2 2 24 16 42 4,650$ 4 16 20 2,260$ SUBTOTAL HOURS 31 872 140 80 1,123 Expenses: Travel & Subsistence (TS)644$ Materials Testing ( Braun Intertec)17,326$ Markup (10%)1,733$ Equipment Rental 2,400$ TOTAL (ROUNDED)130,000$ Warranty Review and Claims Post Construction Client: Task Task Description Construction Staking Final Payment and Documentation Project walkthrough and punchlist Total DollarsEstimated Person Hours Required Total Hours Project: As-built Drawings Appendix TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | Appendix 1 LARRY P. POPPLER, JR., PE GROUP MANAGER, MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING Civil Engineer Larry Poppler has served as city engineer, project manager, inspections director, and project engineer on street, water supply systems, and civil site design projects for over 24 years, with 15 of those years at the City of Prior Lake. He has developed and implemented capital improvements for communities; established policies and standards; and provided MnDOT State Aid administration and asset management. He has managed multiple consultants and staff members to assist with project design, inspection, surveying, studies, and infrastructure management. He is a skillful communicator with extensive experience in city council and neighborhood meetings. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE ☐ Project Manager | Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements; City of Mendota Heights, Mendota Heights, MN. Street reclamation of Marie Avenue (State Aid) and Wesley Neighborhood which also included new trail along Dodd Road (Trunk Highway), rehabilitation of a land bridge, watermain replacement, storm sewer extension, trail rehabilitation, pond cleanouts, bumpouts, regional trail crossing, and ADA pedestrian improvements. TKDA prepared a feasibility report, completed design drawings, and performed construction inspection and administration. ☐ Project Manager | Lexington Parkway Realignment; Ramsey County, Saint Paul, MN. TKDA facilitated the realignment of Lexington Parkway with West 7th Street, removing Lexington Parkway from the five-way intersection of West 7th Street and Montreal Avenue. The project also reconstructed Elway Street from West 7th Street to one block south. A new one-way roadway was built between Elway Street and Albion Avenue. The project included storm sewer, tree trenches, watermain, sanitary sewer, lighting, signage, pavement markings, trail and sidewalks, signal interconnect, and signal systems. ☐ Project Engineer | SE Area Street Improvements, Phase 1; White Bear Township, MN. Using the pavement management plan, the SE Area Streets Phase 1 were reconstructed to include concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer extension. TKDA completed the feasibility report, conducted neighborhood meetings, prepared engineering drawings, and provided construction inspection and administration. ☐ Project Manager | 2019 Street Improvements; City of Rosemount, Rosemount, MN. Municipal State Aid street mill and overlay and reclamation with many pedestrian ramp up- grades. Work involved feasibility report, neighborhood meetings, design, bidding, and construction administration. ☐ Project Manager | 2018 Street Improvements; City of Rosemount, Rosemount, MN. The City of Rosemount has developed a program to address aging pavement within the City. In 2017, TKDA was hired to provide engineering services for 2018 Street Improvements. The City assesses property owners for street improvements, so the engineering services had to follow Minnesota Statutes 429. TKDA’s work included the preparation of the feasibility report and project design including ADA improvements with three new dedicated crosswalks. ☐ Project Manager | TH 10 Watermain Relocation and Frontage Road Reconstruction; City of Arden Hills, Arden Hills, MN. TH 10 noise wall construction by MNDOT was in conflict with the existing watermain system along the frontage road. TKDA reviewed options, prepared drawings for watermain and street reconstruction, and performed construction administration. ☐ Project Engineer | 2019 Street Improvements; White Bear Township, MN. Using the pavement management plan, mill and overlay of four neighborhoods was performed. TKDA completed the feasibility report, conducted neighborhood meetings, prepared engineering drawings, and provided construction inspection and administration. ☐ Project Manager | Marylane Drainage Improvements; Stillwater, MN. Development within a 64-acre watershed put additional demand on the stormwater network. Resumes TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | Appendix 2 The City commissioned TKDA to study the watershed, model a solution, conduct a neighborhood meeting, prepare design drawings, and provide construction inspection and administration. ☐ Project Engineer | 61st Street West Reconstruction; Minneapolis, MN. The City of Minneapolis commissioned TKDA to design the reconstruction of 61st Street from Lyndale Avenue to Nicollet Avenue. The street is a Municipal State Aid MSA street with a variety of uses from single-family and multifamily residential to commercial and industrial. The street was narrowed and bumpouts added, ADA improvements at six intersections and two rail crossings, sidewalk added in segments where lacking, the Nicollet signal replaced and the Lyndale signal modified. A concrete street alternate bid was prepared and ultimately chosen for construction. ☐ Project Engineer | Hornsby Street North Realignment; Anoka County, Columbus, MN. Working with the City of Columbus and Anoka County, funding was secured to realign Hornsby Street away from Interstate 35 at Trunk Highway 97. A new signalized intersection at Hornsby and TH 97 was approved. TKDA provided preliminary and final design for the work and performed construction inspection and administration. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE ☐City Engineer | 2002-2005, 2008-2009, and 2011-2016 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects; averaging $2.0M designed by in-house staff under Larry’s direction. Prior Lake, MN. ☐City Engineer, Mushtown Road, Sunset Ave, CSAH 12, and Ida Circle Improvements; (100% Assessed) Prior Lake, MN. ☐City Engineer | Downtown Prior Lake (Ridgemont/ Main Avenue/Trunk Highway 13) Construction Project; Prior Lake, MN. ☐City Engineer | Downtown Prior Lake (Arcadia and County Road 21) Construction Project; Prior Lake, MN. ☐City Engineer | 150th Street and TH 13 Construction Project; Prior Lake, MN. ☐City Engineer | County Road 21 Extension Project; Prior Lake, MN. Project won 2011 County Project of the Year Award. ☐City Engineer | County Road 12 Project; Prior Lake, MN. Project won 2014 MPWA Environmental Stewardship Award. ☐City Engineer | County Road 82; Prior Lake, MN. Provided construction administration of the City infrastructure. ☐Project Engineer | TH 120; MnDOT Metro Division, MN. Prepared the staff approved layouts for preliminary and final roadway design. Developed the MnDOT Project Memorandum. ☐ Project Engineer | CSAH 19; Crow Wing County, MN. Prepared the staff-approved layouts for preliminary and final roadway design. Developed the MnDOT Project Memorandum. PREVIOUS EMPLOYERS ☐ Staff Engineer | Maxim Technologies - Twin City Testing; MN. 1995-1997 ☐ Project Engineer | Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc.; Brooklyn Center, MN. 1997-2002 Designed and managed projects spanning multiple civil engineering disciplines for communities throughout Minnesota. ☐Assistant City Engineer/City Engineer/Inspections Engineer | City of Prior Lake; Prior Lake, MN. 2002-2017. Led a team in the engineering department, building department, and code enforcement for a community of 25,000. Designed and managed yearly reconstruction of 1-2 miles of streets and utilities. Guided community growth including a yearly average of 120 new single family homes, commercial development, industrial development, and apartment dwelling construction. Education Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering University of Minnesota Registrations Engineer – MN #41005 Affiliations City Engineers Association of Minnesota MPWA TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | Appendix 3 STEVEN P. BUNCH, EIT GRADUATE ENGINEER Graduate Engineer Steven Bunch has experience with the full cycle of 429 street improvements from feasibility report preparation, roadway design, and construction observation. His experience includes street improvements for local roadways, state aid roads, and county roadway projects. He is versed in AutoCAD Civil 3D. In addition to street improvements, Steven has designed and inspected watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, trail, sidewalk, ADA improvements, erosion control, and drainage plans. Steven has a strong understanding of construction and can anticipate and prepare for next steps with the contractor. He works with the contractor to address resident concerns and expectations. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE ☐Civil Engineer and Construction Observer | Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements; Mendota Heights, MN. The rehabilitation of Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road and the rehabilitation of Mager Court, Spring Creek Circle, Wesley Court, Wesley Lane, and South Lane. ☐ Construction Observer | Three Oaks Development; White Bear Township, MN. Twenty-eight lot residential subdivision including water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, stormwater improvements, curb and gutter, and bituminous pavement. ☐ Construction Observer (part time) | Lexington Parkway Realignment; Ramsey County, Saint Paul, MN. TKDA facilitated the realignment of Lexington Parkway with West 7th Street, removing Lexington Parkway from the five-way intersection of West 7th Street and Montreal Avenue. The project also reconstructed Elway Street from West 7th Street to one block south. A new one-way roadway was built between Elway Street and Albion Avenue. The project included storm sewer, tree trenches, watermain, sanitary sewer, lighting, sign-age, pavement markings, trail and sidewalks, signal interconnect, and signal systems. ☐Civil Engineer | Street Improvements; Rosemount, MN. The City of Rosemount has developed a program to address aging pavement within the City. In 2017, TKDA was hired to provide engineering services for 2018 Street Improvements. TKDA was again hired for 2019 Street Improvements. The City assesses property owners for street improvements, so the engineering services had to follow Minnesota Statutes 429. TKDA’s work included the preparation of the feasibility report, project design including ADA improvements, and construction inspection. ☐Civil Engineer | West St. Paul Forcemain Replacement; West St. Paul, MN. The City of West St. Paul hired TKDA to provide engineering services for replacement of forcemain in conjunction with lift station upgrades. ☐Civil Engineer | River Falls North Interceptor Kinnickinnic River Lift Station Elimination; River Falls, WI. Installation of large diameter sanitary sewer to eliminate the Kinnickinnic River lift station. PREVIOUS EMPLOYER EXPERIENCE ☐ Civil Engineering Intern (Erosion Control and Stormwater) | City of Burnsville Civil Engineering Department; Burnsville, MN. 05/2017 – 08/2017. Provided survey and construction inspection services on several projects and many other tasks including: • Inspected over 350 municipal stormwater structures including in-falls, out-falls, environmental manholes, grit chambers, FES sections, and other structures on over 90 ponds in the central region of Burnsville. • Inspected sediment and erosion control at over 30 jobsites simultaneously, including several $10 million construction projects. Utilized permit tracking software (TRAKiT) and ArcGIS. • Investigated slope failures and major sediment wash-outs. Designed and implemented erosion control and drainage plans for residential construction projects. • Performed miscellaneous surveying tasks including setting control points, traversing Resumes TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | Appendix 4 control networks, GPS locating public assets, and construction staking. • Performed various engineering tasks including preparing preliminary reports, taking preconstruction pictures, organizing retention pond work orders, creating new organization structures for pond inspection attributes, and inspecting multi-modal crosswalk signs. ☐Civil Engineering Intern (Surveying and Construction Inspection) | City of Burnsville Civil Engineering Department; Burnsville, MN. 05/2016 – 08/2016. Provided survey and construction inspection services on several projects and many other tasks including: • Operated Trimble S6 robotic total station and Trimble GPS units to conduct topographic surveys, set control points, traverse control networks, stake for road construction, stake for watermain and stormwater pipe installation, stake grades for super-elevated roads, and stake vault corners. • Inspected watermain, concrete curb and storm sewer installation to local and state specifications. • Calculated quantity takeoffs for future road reconstruction projects. • Answered questions for Burnsville residents and contractors while working in the field and office. Education Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering South Dakota State University MnDOT Certifications Bituminous Streets (Levels I and II) Concrete Field (Levels I and II) Grading and Base (Levels I and II) Construction Site Management Aggregate Production (Level I) ADA Construction Certification Railroad Safety Certifications SMS UPRR Safety TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | Appendix 5 CRAIG V. RYLANDER ENGINEERING SPECIALIST I Engineering Specialist Craig Rylander has been supporting civil engineering projects for over 30 years, serving as Crew Chief and Instrument Operator for TKDA’s field crews. His duties include the staking of utilities, new street developments, roads, wastewater disposal sites, water storage tanks, railroad trackage, and bridges throughout Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska. He also is experienced in topographic surveys, benchmark loops, photo control, point layouts, and retaining walls. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE ☐Engineering Specialist | Marie Avenue and Wesley Neighborhood Improvements; City of Mendota Heights, Mendota Heights, MN. Street reclamation of Marie Avenue (State Aid) and Wesley Neighborhood which also included new trail along Dodd Road (Trunk Highway), rehabilitation of a land bridge, watermain replacement, storm sewer extension, trail rehabilitation, pond cleanouts, bumpouts, regional trail crossing, and ADA pedestrian improvements. TKDA prepared a feasibility report, completed design drawings, and performed construction inspection and administration. ☐Engineering Specialist | Lexington Parkway Realignment; Ramsey County, Saint Paul, MN. TKDA facilitated the realignment of Lexington Parkway with West 7th Street, removing Lexington Parkway from the five-way intersection of West 7th Street and Montreal Avenue. The project also reconstructed Elway Street from West 7th Street to one block south. A new one-way roadway was built between Elway Street and Albion Avenue. The project included storm sewer, tree trenches, watermain, sanitary sewer, lighting, signage, pavement markings, trail and sidewalks, signal interconnect, and signal systems. ☐Engineering Specialist | SE Area Street Improvements, Phase 1; White Bear Township, MN. Using the pavement management plan, the SE Area Streets Phase 1 were reconstructed to include concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer extension. TKDA completed the feasibility report, conducted neighborhood meetings, prepared engineering drawings, and provided construction inspection and administration. ☐ Construction Observer | 2018 Street Improvements; City of Rosemount, Rosemount, MN. The City of Rosemount has developed a program to address aging pavement within the City. In 2017, TKDA was hired to provide engineering services for 2018 Street Improvements. The City assesses property owners for street improvements, so the engineering services had to follow Minnesota Statutes 429. TKDA’s work included the preparation of the feasibility report and project design including ADA improvements with three new dedicated crosswalks. ☐Engineering Specialist | Marylane Drainage Improvements; Stillwater, MN. Development within a 64-acre watershed that put additional demand on the stormwater network. The City commissioned TKDA to study the watershed, model a solution, conduct a neighborhood meeting, prepare design drawings, and provide construction inspection and administration. ☐Engineering Specialist | Hornsby Street North Realignment; Anoka County, Columbus, MN. Working with the City of Columbus and Anoka County, funding was secured to realign Hornsby Street away from Interstate 35 at Trunk Highway 97. A new signalized intersection at Hornsby and TH 97 was approved. TKDA provided preliminary and final design for the work and performed construction inspection and administration. Resumes Education Civil Engineering Technology Program, Saint Paul Technical Vocational Institute Railroad Safety Certifications eRailSafe TKDA | City of Mendota Heights Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements | Appendix 6 DOUGLAS W. FISCHER, PE VICE PRESIDENT - MUNICIPAL, UTILITY, AND PLANNING SERVICES Doug Fischer is Vice President of TKDA’s Municipal, Utility, and Planning Division. He has been involved with highway, bridge, street, drainage, and utility projects for 35 years. From planning, preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, funding, construction, and construction administration, Doug’s vast experience and knowledge are invaluable in assisting clients with the delivery of projects. Doug’s previous work in the public sector brings an in-depth understanding of clients’ needs and pressures that accompany many projects and provides real-world working solutions navigating through complex legal, regulatory, and political situations to accomplish project goals. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE ☐ Transportation Division Manager | Anoka County, MN; Andover, MN (9/2013 - 10/2019). Appointed by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners to lead the Transportation Division which comprised of five departments/units: Highway Department, Transit Unit, Fleet Services Department, County Surveyor’s Office, and the Geographic Information Services (GIS) Unit. Other areas of responsibility included highway facilities, county ditch system, railroads, airports, pipelines, and transmission lines. Also served as the Anoka County representative on the Metropolitan Council TAB Technical Advisory Committee and various other taskforces and coalitions. ☐County Engineer | Anoka County, MN; Andover, MN (10/2001 - 10/2019). Appointed/reappointed by the Anoka County Board of Commissioners to serve as County Engineer responsible for 413 miles of county highways, 62 bridges, 259 traffic signals and school zone radar/flasher systems, and 22,000+ traffic signs. Innovative “firsts” for Anoka County during Doug’s tenure include developing the County’s first pavement rating/management system, white-topping as a pavement rehabilitation technique, building the County’s first roundabout, converting traffic signals to “flashing yellow arrow,” and the development of a traffic management system, including a high-tech control room/center and fiber optic network to connect and coordinate the traffic signal network. Doug was instrumental in getting key legislation to allow local units of government to obtain legislative authority to use the design-build procurement method for road and bridge projects and used that to do the first and only locally-lead design-build project in the state of Minnesota with a $43 M CSAH 14 reconstruction project. Another unique project that Doug saw to fruition was the $42 M interchange at U.S. 10/CSAH 83 that also included a railroad grade separation with the BNSF Railway, made possible through a fusion of funding from nine different sources including a $10 M TIGER grant. With regard to facilities, Doug was instrumental in a $12 M public works facility expansion and renovation that included a new state-of-the-art fleet maintenance facility. ☐ Deputy Director | Transportation and Physical Development, Washington County, MN; Stillwater, MN (08/1998 - 10/2001). Administered the Technical Support Services Division within the Department of Transportation and Physical Development which included highways, parks, facilities, and planning and zoning. ☐Assistant County Engineer | Anoka County, MN; Andover, MN (1991 - 1998). Responsible for program delivery of capital improvement program, and the operations and management of the engineering section of the Highway Department. Resumes Education Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering Iowa State University Registrations Engineer - MN #20235, OH, MI Affiliations American Public Works Association American Society of Civil Engineers National Association of County Engineers (Life Member) Minnesota Surveyors and Engineers Society