2017-05-23 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
May 23, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approve April 25, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2017-05: Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Motor Fuel Service
Stations as a Place of Sale or Resale of New or Used Motor Vehicles (Sean
Hoffmann – Applicant)
b. Case No. 2017-06: Lot Line Adjustment for Dodge Nature Center Parcel,
generally located at 656 HWY. 110 (Thomas Irvine, Dodge Nature Center –
Applicant)
c. Case No. 2017-07: Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Allow Larger
Garage with Reduced Setbacks, located at 1023 Delaware Avenue (Jay &
Alicia Jacobs – Applicant)
d. Case No. 2017-8: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Re-Guide Future
Land Use from existing “B - Business” to proposed “HR - High Density
Residential” or “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development”
designation located at 2180 and 2160-64 HWY. 13 (Michael Swenson-Michael
Development – Applicant)
e. Case No. 2017-09: Variance to Allow Reduced Front (Corner) Yard Setbacks
for Garage and Dwelling addition, located at 1897 Wachtler Avenue (Ben &
Erika Christopherson – Applicant)
f. Case No. 2017-10: Code Amendment to Allow Pylon or Monument Type Signs
in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts (City of Mendota
Heights – Applicant)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
May 23, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
Page 2
6. General Planning Items
a. Resolution Supporting a Recommendation to Modify Municipal Development
District No. 1 and the Proposed Establishment of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 2 [for the properties generally located at 2180 and 2160-64 HWY.
13
7. Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
8. Staff and Commission Announcements
9. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make
every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
April 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
April 25, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April
25, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: Christine Costello
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of February 28, 2017 Minutes
Chair Field noted for the viewers that the Planning Commission did not meet in the month of
March.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-04
RANDY & BECKY PENTEL, 815 DEER TRAIL COURT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OVER-SIZED GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that the application is for a Conditional Use Permit by Randy
and Becky Pentel at 815 Deer Trail Court. This 0.67 acre parcel contains an existing two-story,
4,670 square foot single-family dwelling with 784 square foot three-car attached garage. The
Pentel’s also own the 0.53 acre parcel immediately to the east. Any attached garage more than
1,200 square feet and up to 1,500 square feet requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Pentel’s wish
to add 690 square feet of garage on the opposite side of the existing three stall garage.
The survey does not match-up to the garage layout plans, as the layout plan includes a 4-foot
additional bump-out to the rear of the existing and planned garage addition; however, this does not
take away from the overall intent or purpose under consideration. That will be corrected at time of
the building permit submission.
April 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2
Planner Benetti shared images of the proposed garage addition in relation to the existing building
and the site as it relates to the surrounding lots and streets. He also noted they plan to completely
excavate under the entire new garage and existing garage and complete that with a Span Crete or
concrete flooring system. One access point will be allowed from the basement into that lower level.
It is only to be allowed for personal storage – it would not be allowed for any type of vehicle or
recreational equipment storage. Otherwise, if they did that would constitute additional garage
space and would put them well over the maximum. Staff has indicated to them that this would not
be allowed.
Planner Benetti shared the standards for reviewing a Conditional Use Permit request and explained
how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this application based on
the Findings of Fact and with conditions as listed in the staff report.
Chair Field, noting that the Pentel’s own the adjacent lot, asked if they sold that lot sometime down
the road would this garage prohibit someone else from building on that lot. Planner Benetti replied
that the Pentel’s are well within the setback parameters of 10 feet from the lot line – being 28 to
31 feet from the outer corners of the new addition. Clarification was made that the vacant lot would
be unencumbered if this application were approved.
Randy and Becky Pentel were present and had no comments to add to the staff report and were
available for questions.
Mr. Pentel asked for confirmation that, as for as the overhead garage doors, 36 linear feet is the
maximum. Planner Benetti confirmed. Mr. Pentel asked if the garage doors could then be 18 feet
each or if they had to stay at the current 16 feet. Chair Field noted that these questions were better
suited and would be answered during the building permit process of the application.
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 HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-04 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST FOR OVER-SIZED ATTACHED GARAGE 815 DEER TRAIL COURT BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent
with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
April 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3
2. The planned development and use of the 689 sq. ft. of garage addition, resulting in a total
of 1,473 sq. ft. for garage use purposes, is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent
with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage addition easily meets the required setbacks and other standards
established under the R-1 One Family District.
4. The proposed garage use 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.
5. The proposed garage addition and structure is compliant with the conditions included in
the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The new garage addition, including new exterior building materials and overhead doors
must be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling and garage structure.
2. The planned lower level of the garage will only be accessed from the existing lower level
of the residence, and no part of this area may be used to store or park vehicles (cars, trucks,
recreational vehicles, etc.) ,and no access door(s) will be allowed from the lower levels to
the rear or side yards.
3. A building permit shall be required prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of
the new garage addition.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 2, 2017 meeting.
General Planning Items
A) 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP from Stantec explained that there are five phases to the
2040 Comprehensive Plan project:
Phase 1: Inventory & Analysis
Phase 2: Goals & Vision
Phase 3: Development of Alternatives
Phase 4: Implementation Process
Phase 5: Plan Preparation
The deadline for this project is the end of 2018; however, if it is impossible to meet that deadline
extensions can be granted. Stantec does not believe that the deadline would be impossible to meet.
Chair Field request a brief synopsis of what would happen after the Planning Commission ends
their work and the plan is submitted to the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil). Planner Carlson
replied that the next step, after the Planning Commission has completed their work, is to forward
the plan to the adjacent communities and the MetCouncil to review and comment if they would
April 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4
find anything about the plan that these neighboring communities would want to comment on [this
does not give them veto power, just input in the spirit of cooperation and discussion]. The
MetCouncil has a 10-page checklist they will use when reviewing the plan. The main item the
MetCouncil will be looking for – their charge is to analyze a few key systems in the metropolitan
area. Key among those is transportation; they use the population, households, and employment
data received from the communities in their transportation model to plan infrastructure needs in
the coming 10-20 years. Other areas they are concerned about is parks and trail systems, and waste
water.
When this plan is adopted by the City and approved by the MetCouncil, then it becomes a
guidebook for the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff in future decisions. It would be a
high level document with plans and policies, but by itself it does not have any teeth; it would guide
the decisions, most notably the zoning ordinances and zoning map used to make decisions.
Planner Benetti then made a brief presentation on the background report titled Background Report:
Market and Development Context that was prepared by Tangible Consulting, their subconsultant
on the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Project. The contents of this report included:
Introduction
Residential Market Context
Retail Market Context
Employment Context
Industrial Market Context
Office Market Context
The full report was made available to the Planning Commissioners as part of their meeting packet.
B) DISCUSSION OF ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FREESTANDING/PYLON TYPE
SIGNS IN THE B1 LIMITED BUSINESS AND B1-A BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS
Planner Benetti explained he was approached by a business owner of the 1200 Center Pointe Curve
multi-tenant offices requesting to be able to install a freestanding sign in the front-yard of the
commercial property. Upon reviewing the code, he discovered that these types of signs are not
permitted in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. He went back as far as
1980 and could not find any updates to this ordinance.
There are a number of B-1 and B-1A businesses that do have these types of pylon or freestanding
signs. He noted that a pylon is typically like a single-post sign with a face on it; whereas, a
monument-type sign looks similar to a headstone. They are both referred to as a ‘freestanding’ or
pylon sign. Planner Benetti shared images of pylon signs located in the B-1 and B-1A districts.
Staff requested that the Planning Commission review the recommended edits to the zoning
ordinance to allow freestanding signs in the B-1 and B-1A zoning districts, making any edits as
they deem necessary, and then staff would return to the next Planning Commission meeting with
a revised ordinance for consideration.
April 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5
Chair Field suggested that before the Planning Commission directs staff to proceed with
researching and preparing new language for the code that staff approach the City Council at their
May 2 meeting to find out if they would supportive of this. Then it would come to the commission
in a more typical fashion.
Commissioner Roston noted that this thoughts on this were 1) he expressed his appreciation to
Planner Benetti for bring this forward and 2) he believes it is something that needs to be done. He
personally had no problem supporting this action. He suggested that if staff believes this to be
important, and the commission historically has taken that very seriously, then they should bring
something back to the commission for consideration – assuming it is OK with the Council.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he believes this to be important given the fact that of the number
of freestanding signs currently in the B-1 district – a number of non-conforming uses – it’s bad
practice. Also, requests are coming forward for these types of signs which is creating a situation
of ‘the have and the have nots’.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if anyone knew of any specific reasons why it would not be
allowed in the B-1 and B-1A districts. Planner Benetti stated that in his research he was unable to
find any specific reasons or explanations of why it was not included in these districts.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
DIRECT APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF TO PROCEED WITH RESEARCHING AND
PREPARING NEW LANGUAGE AMENDING THE CITY CODE IN ALLOWING
FREESTANDING SIGN ALLOWANCES IN THE B-1 AND B1-A ZONES FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION
AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
City Planner Timothy Benetti provided an update on the 697 Wesley Lane lot split request brought
in by Mr. Mark Gergen. This application has already been extended on the waiver for the 60 day
to 180 days. That expiration date is coming up on May 3 and Mr. Gergen asked to be extended
indefinitely. The other realtor on this application, working for the homeowner, stopped in and
indicated that they are probably looking at withdrawing their application. However, it has not been
officially withdrawn.
PLANNING CASE #2017-03
Holy Family Maronite Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue
Conditional Use Permit
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2016-43
City of Mendota Heights
Domestic Chicken Ordinance
• Adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
April 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6
PLANNING CASE #2016-41
Mr. Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway
Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit
• Adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Staff and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Roston noted that Highway 110 is about to be shut down in one direction. He
encouraged the City to pay attention to Marie and Mendota, which may become the preferred
east/west route for drivers. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Mendota Heights Road
will be under construction as well. Staff and the City will stay on top of these situations.
Commissioner Roston stated that he has been living in Mendota Heights since 1988 and wanted to
make is known that he and his wife have decided to sell their home and move; most likely to
downtown Minneapolis. However, he does not have a timeline on that yet. He wanted to give
notice so staff can start thinking about a replacement on the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Noonan, in reference to something he saw on the City’s website regarding an
‘undeveloped parcel in The Village’ and it was noted that an action was coming to Council to deal
with a potential disposition of that parcel, asked for an update on that situation. Planner Benetti
replied that Trammel Crow was proposing to bring in a plan to develop on the three lots, and
closing off that section of the street. Basically, it was a 160 +/- unit apartments in a five-story
building. A Letter of Intent was approved a number of weeks ago by the Council; however, last
Tuesday [April 18, 2017], a Purchase Agreement was on the docket. A number of residents showed
up and voiced some opposition to that and the Council, by a 4-0 vote, denied the Purchase
Agreement. However, the developer has not gone away. They are working on a traffic study and
they are willing to talk about refining the design, possibly losing the height of the building, losing
a story here or there, but nothing is concrete at this time. They have also offered to hold a public
information meeting [scheduled for May 15 at St. Paul Methodist] and re-engage the citizens and
residents in that area.
Chair Field noted that the Annual City-wide Clean-up Day is Saturday, April 29 at Mendakota
Park from 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. This will be more of a contractor-driven event than it was in the
past; however, some city staff will be on hand assisting with coordination and ensuring it runs
smoothly. List of accepted and not accepted materials can be found on the City’s website and
Facebook, as well as the cost of disposal.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:18 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Planning Staff Report
DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-05
Proposed Zoning Code Amendment – Allow Motor Fuel Service Stations
as a Place of Sale or Resale of New or Used Motor Vehicles
APPLICANT: Sean Hoffmann
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1D-13-3 Motor Fuel Stations and
Convenience Stores, to allow service stations to be used as a place of display, sale and/or resale of new or
used motor vehicles. The applicant is Mr. Sean Hoffmann, manager of the BP/Mendota Heights Auto
Service station, located at 2030 Dodd Road.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hoffmann began the process of applying for a Minnesota Vehicle Dealer License from the Department
of Public Safety. However, all vehicle dealer licenses require city zoning approval, which was not possible
[at this location] due to certain zoning constraints.
Currently, there are three known service stations/convenience stores located in the City of Mendota Heights:
SuperAmerica at 1080 Hwy 110; SuperAmerica at 1200 Mendota Hts. Road; and the BP at 2030 Dodd
Road. Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores are allowed in the B-2 and B-3 Districts by means of
a conditional use permit. Mr. Hoffmann’s BP/Auto Service store and the SuperAmerica at 1200 Mendota
Hts. Road are located in the B-3 General Business District, while the SuperAmerica at 1080 Hwy 110 is
located in the B-2 Neighborhood Business Zone.
Under City Code Title 12-1D-13-3: Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores are subject to the
following standards:
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-05 Page 2
F. Storage and Sale of Vehicles and Products:
1. All rental campers, trailers, or motor vehicles shall be stored within the rear and/or side
yard not adjacent to the street.
2. Service station premises shall not be used as a place of storage for wrecked, abandoned or
junked automobiles. No motor vehicle in need of repair shall be stored on the premises of
a service station for a continuous period of more than seven (7) days, except when so
stored pursuant to a police directive.
3. Open storage of inoperable motor vehicles shall not be permitted for a period of more
than forty eight (48) hours.
4. Service station premises shall not be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for
display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers.
5. All goods for sale by the motor fuel station or convenience store shall be displayed within
the principal structure. There shall be no outside display or sales.
6. Tires for sale shall not be stored or displayed outside the service station structure, except:
a) in a display rack during business hours; or b) in a permanent outside display container
located in conformance with the setback requirements of this chapter and completely
enclosable. Such display container shall be closed when the station is not open for
business.
As highlighted above, these service stations are not allowed to display or have for sale/resale any vehicles
on the premises.
City Code is very strict and limited to an allowance of automobile sales within the city. Under Title 12-1F-
4, limited auto sales are permitted only in the B-3 District as follows:
“Automobile and other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within
a building.”
Mr. Hoffmann has indicated in his narrative that they are responding to a customer demand to help find or
broker a vehicle for personal use. Mr. Hoffmann further states: “With a dealer license [we] will be able
to gain access to the dealer auction vehicles and be able to pass significant savings on to customers, and
be able to buy wholesale, inspect the vehicle, and sell for a nominal fee over what we pay, saving
customers thousands over what they'd pay at a dealership .” Mr. Hoffmann also stated they have no
interest in maintaining an inventory or have “For Sale” signs on said vehicles.
ANALYSIS
The requested code amendment could be made as easy as the following text revisions:
4. Service station premises shall not can be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for
display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers.
Additional standards could be added underneath as follows:
4. Service station premises shall not can be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for
display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers, subject to the
following additional standards:
a. No vehicles shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale” or similar;
b. Vehicles for sale under this provision will be limited to no more than [ XX - number
determined by the Planning Commission) vehicles on the site;
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-05 Page 3
c. Vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front
yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the
property as approved by the Zoning Administrator;
As the Commission is probably well aware, the City of Mendota Heights does not have any auto dealerships
inside the city limits. There are a number of large-scale automobile dealerships nearby in West Saint
Paul/Inver Grove Heights near the Hwy 110/I-494 interchange; a number of small scale used car dealerships
in West St. Paul along the Robert Street corridor; and similar used car dealerships along Concord Street in
South St. Paul.
In researching other surrounding and various metro area communities’ ordinances, it does not appear other
cities generally permit or allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell
vehicles on these properties. In fact, almost no cities in the area allow such activity on these types of
properties. Some cities do allow car sales (both new and used) in certain zoning districts, which are mostly
commercial or in some cases industrial in nature.
There appears to be a small number of used car shops along Robert and Concord that may have been where
a former gas station once existed (as seen in images below); but they appear to have all remnants of the gas
station operations missing or removed, and now simply converted over to a display area for vehicles.
A & M Auto – 845 Robert St. Auto Latino – 745 Robert St. MFK Ent. – 830 Robert St.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 5XX as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 5XX with certain findings.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and
direction to city staff to make certain added revisions as needed before final consideration is given
by the Commission.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-05 Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This code amendment request by Mr. Hoffmann is somewhat personal and very much tailored to his own
special needs or individual business operations; and it appears to only benefit a very small segment of the
commercial business population inside the city, which at this time is only 3 motor fuel stations. It is
probably safe to state (and assumed) that the two other SuperAmerica stores would not allow or even want
to have vehicle displays or sales on their sites, since this activity is nowhere evident or known to staff on
any respective locations throughout the metro region or beyond; and would seem very much out of character
for these convenience type fuel stores.
The reality is that by allowing such vehicles sales at these locations, it may become an ongoing (and
frustrating) issue to police and monitor the numbers of vehicles on the site, or pose a constant generator of
complaints from residents when standards are not being met regarding auto sale display or activity.
With these concerns, and since the City of Mendota Heights already limits auto sale uses to only “inside a
building”, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request to amend City Code Title 12-
1D-13-3 to allow service stations to be used as a place of display, sale and/or resale of new or used motor
vehicles.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
Should the Planning Commission view some small amount of merit to the Applicant’s request to offer sales
of a limited nature at this single service station site only, an alternative not listed above is the Applicant
may ask to amend their original conditional use permit by means of a variance to this City Code provision.
If the Planning Commission was willing to accept this alternative, you can provide some initial comment
or feedback to the Applicant during the hearing, but should not render any final recommendation until a
separate variance application is presented for full review. If the Planning Commission does not support
any type of vehicle sales activity on this or other similar sites, then you should make that known to the
Applicant.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. DRAFT Ordinance 5XX
2. Planning application, including supporting materials
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2
3
ORDINANCE NO. 5XX 4
5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. 6
GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS 7
AS A PLACE OF SALE OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES 8
9
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 10
11
Section 1. 12
13
Title 12-1D-13-3 Motor Fuel Stations and Motor Fuel Station Convenience Stores is hereby amended as 14
follows: 15
16
F. Storage and Sale of Vehicles And Products: 17
18
4. Service station premises shall not can be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place 19
for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers, subject 20
to the following standards: 21
22
a. No vehicles shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale” or 23
similar; 24
25
b. Vehicles for sale under this provision will be limited to no more than XX number of 26
vehicles on the site; 27
28
c. Vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front 29
yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of 30
the property as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 31
32
Section 2. 33
34
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 35
36
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 20th day of June, 2017. 37
38
CITY COUNCIL 39
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 40
41
42
43
Neil Garlock, Mayor 44
ATTEST 45
46
47
___________________________ 48
Lorri Smith, City Clerk 49
;
1101 Victorici Cwv1;? I Mendot;; H9!9bts, MN 5511 8
6S1AS2.1$50 phone I G51.<152.3940 fa x
www.rni>.ndola-i·1i>.i9ht~ .. cc1)l
<.. ' -l}B1 c "v o> i~;-,, :·i ':: MENDDT A HEIGHTS
PLANNING APPLICATION
Office Use .Only: ·.
case #: -·· 2-airz ... 0 f) Fee Paid:_· ___.____;,,,,,,,,;____.___7_.'SV_-_o_o __ _
Application Date :_;,_: _,_L/ __ .~'l.._·,..._,_'!_/l.__-_• _· ______ ·_. Staff Initials: __________ _
Applica_ ble Ordinance#: It.., iD--l 3: 3 Section:.
' ... ·.: .. ----_,--,-_ ----------
' ExistingZqrii~9 :.,..:.,..":· .. .,..:.,..·' .;....,-.,...,.._,....-"---_·. ·-· ----~---·--··_· ..,.. __ ·._ .. proposed Zc:>ning:_.''·'---<--••: __ .. ----------------~~~~~
,. Exi~tirig ,q ~~:(_ .;,.;.__.;._.;,_;......._ __ ·_ ..... _ .. ,,_,:.:._ ...... '--"'--·:: """' ... ·_· .. '--.. ·--· _·'_'··· · Propos~~ Q~-~:< __ :_-.-.·---'---------------
Property Address/Street Location:2030 Dodd Rd Mendota Heights MN 55120
Applicant Name: Sean Hoffmann Phone:651-454-5622
Applicant E-Mail Address:2030service@gmail.com
Applicant Mailing Address: 711 Woodridge Dr Mendota Heights MN 55118
Property Owner Name: Jeffrey Wieland Phone: 612-790-8824
Property Owner Mailing Address: 2030 Dodd Rd Mendota Heights MN 55120
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
PT OF W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 COM ON CEN TH #49 275 FT SW OF INT TH #100 SE AT 900 143 FT SW AT 900
117 FT NW 149.29 FT TO CENT TH #49 NE ON CEN 159.9 FT TO BEG SUBJ TO TH #49 PIN 27-02500-50-020
Type of Request:
D Rezoning D Conditional Use Permit D Interim Use Permit
D Variance D Wetlands Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
D Lot Split/Adjustment D Critical Area Permit D Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Iii Code Amendment D Appeal D Other
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
I further authorize City Officials and age~n=e above property during daylight hourn.
~~ -.3./-:to/,7
Signatur of Applicant r I Date
~·~ -e os.fw)2Dl3-
~':~ --\ () ' Date
~~ ~ ~1~0/d-0\'-\
Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date
Planning Application (modified 61112016) Page 1of1
bp
April 4, 2017
City Of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights , MN 55118
To Whom It May Concern:
Wieland Inc.
2030 Dodd Rd
St. Paul, MN 55120
(651) 454-5622
Fax (651) 454-6230
We are looking into getting our automotive dealer license . Requests for help are brought to us on
average once or twice a month of a customer looking for a vehicle.
Our normal practice is to send them to a car dealership where they don't know anyone or trust
anyone. Most of the time people already know what they are looking for in a vehicle and even
more specific than that. With a dealer license will be able to gain access to the dealer auction
vehicles & be able to pass significant savings on to customers be able to buy wholesale, inspect
the vehicle, and sell for a nominal fee over what we pay, saving customers thousands over what
they'd pay at a dealership. Our business of vehicle repair has been in place for 50 years in the
same location. We find keeping the business local has been a great benefit.
I understand the hesitancy to approve a dealership code amendment for this idea, but we have
zero interest of maintaining any vehicle inventory hand nor will have any "for sale" signs on
vehicles on the property. We don't want to be a "car dealership". Sole interest is for availability
to source vehicles for customers. Having zero inventory or dealership building to pay for we can
keep costs to a minimum. We would like to be able to fill this need for our customers.
We look forward to working with the city on language for a code amendment that would have
provisions protecting the city and accomplish this request.
I will follow this letter up with a phone call.
Thank you for your consideration
Sean Hoffmann
Manager
Uses
Fee Owner
JEFF & DAWN WIELAND
Mailing Address
2030 DODD RD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120
Address
2030 DODD RD
Municipality
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
$0.00
COMMERCIAL-
PREFERRED ·Water Acres
Plat SECTION 25 TWN 28 RANGE 23
Lot and Block 25 28 23
PT OF W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 COM ON GEN
TH # 49 275 FT SW OF ITS INT WITH TH # 100 SE
Tax Description AT 90D 143 FT SW AT 90D 117 FT NW 149.29 FT
TO GEN TH # 49 NE ON GEN 159.9 FT TO BEG
SUBJ TO TH #49
,,,,,~.,,, .....
i . ···········································201t••~~fi~I~i~fi~r~:~~~i~~~i~~<ea,¥a,~I~~~1·~l~ ....
1 Building Type
! Building Style
Frame
SERVC STN !Year Built 1966 'Bedrooms
·Foundation Sq Ft NOT APPL 1 Bathrooms
Above Grade Sq Ft Garage Sq Ft
Homestead
197 LOWER MISSISSIPPI
0
0.00
............. ········· .......................... .
2017 Land Values (payable 2018)
;2017 Building Values (payable 2018)* . . .
2017 Total Values (payable 2018)*
2016 Total Values (payable 2017)*
Net Tax (payable 2017)
$13,384.38
$220,300.00i
$218,800.001
$439,100.00:
$431,800.00
... , ... ,,.,.,, .. ,.,,,,.,..,,.,.,.,.,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,, ... ,,,,.,,,.,.,,,,.,, .... , .. , . ., ... ,, .. ,,,,, .. ,,,., .. ,, ..• ,,..,.,,,., .. ,,.,.,,,,,. . .,.,.,,.,, .. ,._,, ... ,..,, ... ..,
t=>r~P~~Y!<t>C l~f<?r~<tti()n ...
Special Assessments (2017)
$0.00
* Manufactured Homes Payable the Same Year as Assessment.
Parcel data current as of 03/29/2017 Dakota County, MN
Estimated
$220,300.00
$218,800.00
$439, 100.00
$431,800.00
Total Tax & Assessments (2017)
$13,384.38
Page 1 of 2
~
DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-06
Lot Line Adjustment
APPLICANT: Jason Sanders/Thomas Irvine Dodge Nature Center
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 656 Highway 110
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1A One-Family Residential/RR-Rural Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: June 13, 2017 (60 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. Jason Sanders with the Thomas Irvine Dodge Nature Center request consideration of a simple lot line
adjustment to a parcel located inside the Dodge Nature Center area. Dodge Nature Center intends to
readjust the lot line along the westerly boundary area of the subject parcel, which would result in a separate
parcel to be acquired and sold to Dakota County for the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Regional Greenway.
Dakota County intends to provide this land as part of a trail connector leading to a newly proposed tunnel
system running underneath the soon to be reconstructed segments of Highway 110. The trail will tie into
the trail system on the north side of HWY 110.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel.
Staff responded to two adjacent owners inquiring of the lot line adjustment; both of whom did not indicate
or register any objection to this item.
BACKGROUND
The Dodge Nature Center, located in the heart of Mendota Heights and West St. Paul and, was one of the
first natural area protection efforts in Dakota County and one of the first nature centers in the state of
Minnesota. Dakota County acquired a 156-acre permanent conservation easement on the Rachel C. Lilly
Preserve property south of Highway 110 in Mendota Heights in May 2008.
Dodge Nature Center provides a diverse landscape to explore, including prairies, hardwood forests, a 30-
acre lake, wetlands, hiking trails, a working farm, an orchard and a bee apiary. The property is a key link
in the northern Dakota County Greenway that has the potential to tie Pine Bend Bluffs and Lebanon Hills
Regional Park together with the Mississippi River in Lilydale.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-06 Page 2
Dakota County has provided a certificate of survey map (attached hereto) that illustrates the 6.63 acre parcel
to be created under this lot line adjustment process. This tract of land will be separated from the original
52.02 acre parcel identified under Dakota County Property Records. The proposed sale and eventual
installation of the trail and tunnel system is not affected by this existing permanent conservation easement.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel, and virtually all areas of the Dodge Nature Center are guided RR-Rural Residential in
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The lot line adjustment and newly created acquisition parcel will be used
for trail and open space purposes, which is consistent with the overall intent of the underlying land use
designation in this preserved natural environment.
Lot Line Adjustment
Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided
the following standards are met:
Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to
permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not
cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance.
The 6.53 acre section of land to be separated and created under this lot line adjustment will not affect or
hinder the overall use and purpose of the remaining 45.5 acre parcel. The property to be acquired will be
used by Dakota County to complete a much needed public improvement, which will accommodate the
space to complete a new trail and underpass tunnel system. The trail/tunnel will provide for the overall
general welfare, enjoyment and safety of residents, visitors and users in this area.
For all intents and purposes, this lot line adjustment and creation of this new tract of land will have little, if
any impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, or the overall use, enjoyment and purpose
of the entire Dodge Nature Center area.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative
impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3. Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1),
with the condition that the appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site map/Site photos
2. Certificate of Survey/Acquisition Map
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-06 Page 3
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment
656 HIGHWAY 110
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and can be
considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of this request is to create a separate parcel to be sold by Dodge Nature Center to
Dakota County for the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Regional Greenway, which would help facilitate
the completion of a new trail link and tunnel underneath Highway 110.
3. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
4. Approval of this lot line adjustment and creation of this new tract of land will have little, if any
impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, or the overall use, enjoyment and
purpose of the entire Dodge Nature Center area.
5. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards.
1101 Victoria Curve | Mendota Heights, MN 55)18
651,'152.1850 phone I 651.452,80'IQ fax
www.iTieridota-hel(]ht!>-coni
mj CITY OFMENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING APPLICATION
Office Use Only:
Case #:_
Application Date:
Applicable Ordinance #:_
Existing Zoning:_
Existing Use:
Fee Paid:
Staff Initials:
Section:
Proposed Zoning:
_Proposed Use:_
Property Address/Street Location:365 Marie Avenue West, Mendota Heights, MN
Applicant Name:Jasc)nsanders _Phone:651-455-4531
Applicant E-Mail Address: Jsanders@dodgenaturecenter.org
Applicant Mailing Address:356 Marie Avenue, West St. Paul, MN 55118
Property Owner Name:Thomas lrvine DodQe Foundation phone: 651-789-5235
Property Owner Mailing Address:356 Marie Avenue, West St. Paul, MN 55118
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
270250075011- See attached legal for new parcel request- Exhibit A
Type of Request:
a Rezoning
a Variance
H Lot Split/Adjustment
a Code Amendment
Q Conditional Use Permit 1-1 Interim Use Permit
a Wetlands Permit Q Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
a Other
a Critical Area Permit
a Appeal
hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
I further authorize City Officials and agents to in^p^ct tpeTa^ove property during dayJight hours.
^,.7
Date
Signature ofOwner
'^-7
Date
Signature of Owner (if more than one)Date
Planning Application (modified 6/1/2016)Page 1 of 1
^^^^-^
DODGE
NATURE CENTER
1967-2017
Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
CityofMendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
April 14, 2017
Dear Mr. Benetti,
Thomas Irvine Dodge Foundation would like to submit this letter of request to split the 6.53 acre parcel
identified as ID270250075011 and highlighted in the enclosed documents. Our intention is to then sell
the above mentioned parcel to Dakota County for the Mendota Lebanon Hills Greenway.
Please see attached application and Exhibit A, which outlines the legal description.
Providing Exceptional Experiences in Nature through Environmental Education
Thomas Irvine Dodge Nature Center 365 Marie Ave. W, West St. Paul, MN 55118
651.455.4531 DodgeNatureCenter.org
Please consider Dodge Nature Center in your will.
Nourish Your Need
FOR NATURE
DAKOTA COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
.NORTHWEST CORNER/~NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4
S89*47'23"W
NORTH UNE OF.NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 ~\
STATE TRUNK HiGi-1'vVAY ?',!0, 110
UTILITY EASEMENTy' PER DOC. NO. 3186929
^.^ - l. '.
c/'. ~i'"' ~-<-
1,'--^..^'^^ ^ /y ,^^<f^ /' /'la / /DAKOTA COUNTTCONSERVATION EASEMENT-PER DOC.NO 258B911
CIT/ of M.H. 30 FT.SEWER EASEMENTPER DOC. NO. 398253
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
•Pg. 503, Bk. 83 MR.
PdjB 412
J
CAREA=6.53 ACRES')
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25,
Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 25; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 48 seconds East
assumed bearing along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of -the Southwest
Quarter a distance of 1181.00 feet; thence North 25 degrees 13 minutes 21
seconds East a distance of 432.39 feet; thence North 06 degrees 02 minutes
'^fiS°f°°ad8 37. s,econds E:aat c; distance of 576.24 feet; thence North 50 degrees 28
a ' minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 154.42 feet; thence South 85 degrees
07 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 366.80 feet to the west line of Lot
1, Block 1, MENDOTA HEIGHTS CHURCH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat
thereof; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 47 seconds West along said west
line of Lot 1 a distance of 152.33 feet to the north line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25; thence South 89 degrees 47
minutes 23 seconds West along said north line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 25 a distance of 733.43 feet to point of
beginning.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WA;PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER UE^
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
A^ .;%t^'
TODD B. TOLLEFSOjMINNESOTA LIC£
DATED THIS
LEGEND
0 SET MONUMENT
2017
COORDINATES AND BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO THE
DAKOTA COUNTl' COORDINATE SYSTEM (N.A.D. 1983 1986 ADJ).
1QO_
SCALE IN FEET
0
LOCATION
SEC
NW
sw
25 T28N
1/4
SITE
|l/4
NE
SE
NO SCALE
MAP
R23W
1/4
1/4
CS 415
Dodge Nature Center - 656 HWY 110
BasemapProperty Information
May 3, 2017
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
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.
FRIENDLY HILLS
REARRANGEMENT
JEFFERSON
HEIGHTS
MENDOTA
HEIGHTS CHURCH
ADDITION
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
SENIOR HOUSING
ADDITION
MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
TOWN CENTER
MENDOTA
PLAZA
EXPANSION
MORTENSENS
ADDITION
®A110LINDEN STOAK STAZTEC LNMAIN STSO UT H P L A ZAD RM A RK E T S T
HIGHWAY 110
FRONTAGE RDHIGHWAY 110
DODGE NATURE CENTER
Dodge Nature Center Acquisition Project 97-151
Acquisition Area (6.53 ac.)
MnDOT ROW (6.27 ac.)
Additional Property (0.26 ac.)
County Conservation Easement
Parcels
Exhibit A-1
1
o
o
o
o
3
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-07
Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Allow Larger Garage with
Reduced Setbacks
APPLICANT: Jason (Jay) and Alicia Jacobs
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1023 Delaware Avenue
ACTION DEADLINE: June 18, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the replacement of a dilapidated detached
garage with a new 25’ x 36’ (footprint) detached garage structure. The applicants also request a variance
to a side-yard setback from 10 feet to 3 feet.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the subject property.
The Applicant has submitted for review three letters of support from adjacent neighboring residents. As of
preparation and completion of this report, there have been no other comments or objections received from
neighboring residents.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
Existing Zoning R-1 One-Family Residential
Lot Area 12,501 square feet (.29 acres)
Designated Future Land Use Low Density Residential
The subject site contains two structures, a single family home and a detached, one-car garage. The residence
is a 1-1/2 story dwelling, with 2,352 of finished square footage. The existing detached garage is an
approximate 18’ x 22’ (396 sf) structure. The site is an interior lot, and is bordered to the east by Delaware
Avenue. The property consists of a single-wide entrance off Delaware, with a driveway leading to the
garage in the rear yard. The lot is rectangular in shape; with frontage along Delaware at 100.27 feet and an
approximate depth of 125+ feet.
The subject (existing) garage is setback 12.5 feet from the rear lot line, and 9.4 to 9.7 feet from the northerly
side yard line. An approximate 7-ft. x 12-ft. hard-surfaced pad exists between the garage and north lot line,
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-07 Page 2
and sits approx. 3 feet from the adjacent side lot line. A large sandbox is identified and located next to the
garage on the south side. An Xcel Energy overhead wire runs along the back lot line, but is not contained
within any dedicated or recorded utility easement.
PICTOMETRY IMAGE (LOOKING WEST FROM DELAWARE) CURRENT SITE LAYOUT
All properties adjacent to the site and in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The lots in this
neighborhood vary in width and shape, but remain consistent as a typical older single-family neighborhood.
Most of the neighboring residence appear to have detached garages, similar to the applicants.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to remove the existing 18’ x 22’ single-car garage and reconstruct a larger, two-car
garage near the same location. As indicated earlier, the existing garage is set back 9.4 – 9.7 feet from the
northerly side lot line, and 12.5 feet from the rear lot line. The existing garage is separated from the dwelling
by approximately 30 feet.
The new garage will provide the homeowners a much larger structure to park and store their large SUV and
passenger vehicles, and provide additional space along the side and upper attic section for storage or
personal use. The garage will contain two single-wide overhead doors, with a front-side door entry, and an
upper (attic) space with window opening (see image below).
The proposed garage is dimensioned as a 25.33 ft. wide and 36 ft. long, with an approximate 10’ x 7’ inset
at the corner, resulting in an overall area of 812 sq. ft. The driveway surfacing may also be replaced as
needed, but retains most of its width of 14.4 feet coming off Delaware and leading to the back yard area.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-07 Page 3
ANALYSIS
1) This new garage requires a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowed size of a detached
garage in the R-1 District.
• Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2: “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.”
The garage under this consideration is 812 square feet.
NEW GARAGE SITE PLAN LAYOUT
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request,
with the following principles to be taken into consideration:
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.
In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met:
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-07 Page 4
• City staff has personally inspected the existing garage, and agrees it is in rough shape and should
be removed and replaced with a new garage structure. The new garage proposed by the Applicants
appears to be a nice design, and should easily accommodate the needs of parking larger personal
vehicles and storage desired by the homeowners.
• City staff believes the larger garage contemplated herein will not be detrimental to the health, safety
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community; and will not cause any serious traffic
congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate surrounding property values. For all intents and
purposes, this proposed garage use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
2) The applicants also seek a variance to reduce the required side-yard setback from 10 feet to 3-feet.
• Pursuant to Title 12-1D-3-B-1-B-2, all accessory structures over 144 sq. ft. in area must maintain
a 10-ft. setback from any rear or side lot line. For the northerly side yard, a variance to encroach
up to 7 feet into the required 10-ft. side yard setback is being presented.
• Staff believes that specific and practical difficulties may exist that restrict the applicants from
conforming to setback requirements in this residential zoning district. The applicant meets the tests
identified in Section 12-1L-5 to establish the existence of practical difficulties:
a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
o A garage structure of 812 sq. ft. and designed to enclose two vehicles can be considered
and viewed as a reasonable use of a suburban residential property.
b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
o Although this property is fairly regular (rectangular) in shape and area, the rear yard space
is somewhat reduced and compressed due to the location of the existing single-family
residence. The layout of the existing driveway is shown with a reduced setback of 2 to 3
feet all the way along this northerly side-yard lot line. Staff confirmed with the
applicant/owner that this layout of the driveway was created by others and not the current
landowner, thereby making this cased somewhat unique.
o As noted previously, the existing garage is separated from the dwelling by approximately
30-feet, and the new garage, even though slightly larger, will retain the same 30-foot
separation between both structures. The applicants intend to re-use or replace the
bituminous driveway surfacing and match in exactly what they have today.
City Code normally requires all driveways to maintain a 5-foot setback form property lines.
To reduce or shift this driveway even further (closer to the home) or swing it out to match
up with a 10-foot structure setback in the rear yard may cause some geometrics that would
not work effectively, and probably create some tricky or unpleasant vehicle movements in
this rear yard area.
To leave the driveway in its current layout, and have the new garage match-up or line-up
equally with the driveway makes logical sense and provides a better means of maneuvering
vehicles into the garage stalls. Therefore, the circumstances of the existing driveway layout
and need for the reduced side-yard setback are somewhat unique and makes sense to allow
a reduced setback for the garage.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-07 Page 5
o Although the Applicants/Owner may appear to have enough space/area to adequately fit a
new garage and driveway on the southwest and south areas of their property, even without
the need for any variance (including reduced driveway setback), this would seem
impractical and too much of an expanse, and would necessitate the removal of two large
basswood trees and restoration of the northerly segments of the lot.
c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
o A detached, two-car garage is consistent with the character of a low-density residential
neighborhood. The proposed garage would not abut a neighboring residential structure
(either dwelling or garage). The nearest structure to the proposed garage is a detached
garage on the 992 Chippewa Ave. property, which will be approximately 15 feet from the
new garage structure.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and variance based on the attached findings of
fact.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and variance, either whole or separately based on
findings of fact.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others; and direct staff to extend the
application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission must determine the effect of the proposed conditional use permit and variance
upon the comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its
recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends that both the conditional use permit and variance
be recommended for approval, with the following conditions:
1. No part of the upper storage section of the garage shall be used for livable or habitable space.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the
new garage addition.
3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
4. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with the applicable City Code
performance standards noted in Section 12-1I.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial site map
2. Planning application, including supporting materials
3. Surveys and Garage Elevation Plans
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-07 Page 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit and Variance for New Detached Garage at
1023 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 812 sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable
request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use 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.
4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code
that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The variance requested under this application and layout plan meets the tests in the code for
practical difficulties and appears to be a reasonable request per City Coe and State Statute that
prescribe the authority of municipalities to grant such variances.
6. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
7. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
8. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
Conditional Use Permit Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 1 of 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website
or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete
applications will not be put on the agenda.
Office Use Only:
Case #:_____________________
Applicant:____________________
Address:_____________________
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
• Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the
current application submittal schedule.
• Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights).
NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required to complete the project.
Completed Application Form(s).
Letter of Intent.
Required Plans.
APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL
Site Development Plan:
Location of all buildings, including existing and proposed.
Location of all adjacent buildings located within 350’ of the exterior boundaries of the
property in question.
Floor area ratio.
Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces.
Vehicular circulation.
Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces).
Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed.
Location and candle power of all luminaries.
Location of all existing easements.
Conditional Use Permit Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 2 of 2
Dimension Plan:
Lot dimensions and area.
Dimensions of proposed and existing structures.
“Typical” floor plan and “typical” room plan.
Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question.
Proposed setbacks.
Grading Plan:
Existing contour.
Proposed grading elevations.
Drainage configuration.
Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations.
Spot elevations.
Proposed road profile.
Landscape Plan:
Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed.
Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings.
Location and material used of all screening devices.
NOTES:
Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 1 of 3
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website
or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete
applications will not be put on the agenda.
Office Use Only:
Case #:_____________________
Applicant:____________________
Address:_____________________
The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City
Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there
are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical
difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please
consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
• Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the
current application submittal schedule.
• Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights).
NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required to complete the project.
Completed Application Form(s).
Letter of Intent.
Required Plans.
APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL
Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary):
Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and
proposed structures.
Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request.
Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners
of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the
Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 2 of 3
variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in
question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such
consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet
(100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested.
If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic
contours shall be submitted.
If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the
applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction.
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 3 of 3
Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request.
You may fill-in this form or create your own.
1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
YES NO
Why or why not?
2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you).
3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the
neighborhood?
YES NO
Why or why not?
The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in
order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show
that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 1
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner - Stantec
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-08
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Re-Guide Future Land Use
from existing “B - Business” to proposed “HR - High Density Residential”
or “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development”
APPLICANT: Michael Swenson, Michael Development, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2180 and 2160-2164 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Hwy.)
ACTION DEADLINE: June 23, 2017
INTRODUCTION
Michael Development proposes the development of two 69-unit apartment buildings at 2180 and 2160
Highway 13 in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The project proposes to unify two commercial zoned sites,
which are currently occupied by the Mendota Motel and the now closed Larsen Garden Center. The
structures on both sites will be removed or relocated; site clean-up (as necessary); and cleared to make room
for the proposed multi-family development.
In November 2015, Michael Development sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70-unit
apartment building, and began the entitlement process for redeveloping the site by applying for a similar
comprehensive plan amendment. The application was later withdrawn and no official action was taken.
In early 2017, city staff was informed by Michael Development that he had secured the development rights
on the Mendota Motel site, and shortly thereafter stated they also secured the rights on the Larson site.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 1,320 ft. (1/4 mile) from the subject properties.
SITE CONTEXT
Existing Zoning B-3 General Business
Lot Area
5.50 acres (total combined area)
Larson Garden: 107,158 sf (2.5 ac.)
Mendota Motel: 104,863 sf. (2.4 ac.)
Excess ROW Parcel: 0.6 ac.
Current Land Use (20130 Comp. Plan) Business
Proposed Land Use HR- High Density Residential
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 2
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The combined subject site is 5.5 acres in size. The site is bounded by Highways 13 and 55 to the west,
Acacia Boulevard to the north, forested shoreline along Lemay Lake to the east, and Victoria Avenue
immediately south. The former Larson Garden Center has been shuttered for a number of years, while the
one-story, Mendota Motel site continues to operate. The proposed redevelopment site is generally flat along
its western border, with slopes increasing steeply moving east toward Lemay Lake. The site is visually
screened from the lake and from homes north of Lemay Lake Road by thick tree cover.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject site is surrounded by predominantly residential land uses. The Augusta Shores development
northeast of the site is guided as Low Density Residential and comprises 23 duplexes (46 units) zoned R-1
One Family Residential. South of the motel site is the Furlong Addition, which is guided Low Density
Residential and zoned R-1 One Family Residential. All other land uses are separated from the site by a
physical roadway (highway) or Lemay Lake Road.
West of Highways 55 and 13, land use is primarily guided Industrial, with the exception being land guided
Nature Preserve or Cemetery. An industrial park, the Acacia Park Cemetery, and the Pilot Knob
Preservation Site are the dominant land uses that operate immediately west of the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to change the City’s 2030 Land Use Plan
guidance from “Business” to a residential category that would allow construction of multi-family housing
on the site at a density of 25 units per acre.
The applicant proposes to develop 69 market-rate apartments housed in one three-story building with a
proposed 25,500 sq. ft. ground floor footprint. In total, approximately 2.3 acres would be developed
(building and hard surfaced areas), while the remaining 3.2 acres will be left in green space. The applicant
proposes that the apartment buildings would employ 3-4 full time employees as management and
maintenance staff, and possibly limited part time employees as needed.
The development would be built in two phases, with the south parcel being built first. Construction of the
first phase would begin fall 2017, and completed by fall 2018 (depending on the timing of entitlements).
Phase II of the development would begin in Mid-Summer to fall 2018 and complete in the fall 2019.
Each Apartment building would have a footprint that is approximately 25,500 sf., for 51,000 total square
footage of physical building footprint space total over the 5.5 acres. Each apartment building will have an
additional 25,500 sf. of below grade parking garage with 76,500 sf. of apartment housing above. The
Development is pushed to the west to avoid as much of this area as possible. Approximately 48,000 sf. of
paved surface will be on the site for drive aisle, parking, and sidewalks.
ANALYSIS
Staff has analyzed this application to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s designation from Business to High
Density Residential according to the information required in Section 12-1L-9.D.2.d of the Code:
1. An explanation of the character of the proposed use of the property.
The garden center is currently in a state of disrepair and could not be easily repurposed for a similar
facility. The site has been marketed as a potential commercial/business redevelopment site since the
garden center closed, but so far no viable business plans have come to fruition on this site. The initial
assessment of the garden center site indicates the site may need extensive environmental clean-up and
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 3
demolition in order to make it useable for any future purpose, be it housing or any other allowed B-3
General Business type use.
The Mendota Motel site consists of a 19 room, short-term transient/temporary housing operation.
Although this motel is zoned and considered a business use, it functions in many ways like a multi-
family residential use. The initial assessment of this commercial site indicates that it is becoming or
has become functionally obsolete due to the use not being able to meet many general and acceptable
building code standards, such as ventilation, ADA accessibility standards or other fire safety standards
and measures, such as escape windows and fire sprinklers.
Potential for future redevelopment of both site as a business use is questionable, given the poor access
to and from the major highways fronting the sites. Although the overall site is visible from both
Highways 55 and 13, it can only be accessed from Highway 13, which is very limited in access.
Acacia Boulevard, which intersects with Highway 13 at the site’s northwest corner, dead ends at Acacia
Park Cemetery and is unlikely to receive any through-traffic other than from residents of Augusta
Shores as they access Highway 13.
Industrial land uses west of the site across Highways 13 and 55 limit the potential for business uses that
thrive on proximity to heavy through traffic or proximity to other businesses.
Residential land use is in character with other surrounding properties, all of which are residential. As
noted, surrounding properties are low-density residential. Surrounding trees, woodland and Lake
LeMay provide a natural environment and a physical and visual buffer between the proposed high-
density housing and nearby low-density residential housing to the east. The low density, R-1 zoned
areas to the south, especially those along the south side of Victory Avenue are however, exposed to the
full south elevation of the proposed multi-family structure. City staff is ensuring that these areas
between the single family and multi-family uses will be adequately screened and separated by means
of fencing, berms, landscaping or a combination of such features.
2. A statement of proposed financing for development of the property.
The applicant states that the project would be privately appraised and financed through a local bank.
As part of a cooperative effort between the developer and the City of Mendota Heights, and due to the
general sense of support by the City to help facilitate the successful redevelopment of these two
commercial sites with new housing resources, the city is currently undergoing plans of creating a new
Tax Increment Financing District (No. 2), which will assist the developer in certain site development
costs and improvements that he will incur, such as site/environmental clean-up costs; demolition and
removal costs; new utilizes; and underground parking areas.
3. A statement of the present ownership of all the property in question.
The applicant states that Michael Swenson has a purchase agreement to buy the Larson Garden Center,
owned by the late Robert C. Larson and which land is being handled through an estate case at this time.
Mr. Swenson also has a separate purchase agreement with the motel owners Jaykar C and Jayshari
Bhakta. Mr. Swenson has tacit approval from both owners to seek full entitlement [development] rights
on both properties, including the city –owned right-of-way segments that are included in the
redevelopment district.
4. A general indication of the expected schedule of development including progressive phasing and
time schedules, if applicable.
The development would be built in two phases, with the south parcel being built first. Construction of
the first phase would begin fall 2017, and completed by fall 2018 (depending on the timing of
entitlements). Phase II of the development would begin in Mid-Summer to fall 2018 and complete in
the fall 2019.
5. The character and density of the dwelling units.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 4
The applicant proposes a “modern apartment living environment” that includes units ranging from
studios to 2+ bedrooms as well as tenant amenities in communal space and underground parking. The
proposed density is approximately 25 unit per acre.
6. Estimated industrial acreage and projected employment.
No acreage would be industrial. The site would employ 4-5 on-site management and maintenance staff
and possibly part-time staff as needed.
7. Estimated square footage of commercial development.
No commercial development is proposed.
8. Estimated amount of developed open space.
Green space on site would account for approximately 139,392 sq. ft. or 3.2 acres. Impervious surface
equates to 2.27 acres total, with up to 51,000 sq. ft. of building footprints (25,500 sf. x 2) or 1.17 acres,
along with approximately 48,000 sf. or 1.10 acres of paved surface will be on the site for drive aisle,
parking, and sidewalks. Each apartment building is planned to have a lower level underground parking
with space for 74 vehicles.
Although not clearly shown or indicated on the proposed development plan, Staff assumes considerable
grading and retaining walls to work with the slopes on the east side of the site toward Lemay Lake.
These details would be reviewed in the specific project application at a later date and are not part of
this request, but ultimate design and engineering of the site may alter the number of units that can be
placed on the site.
FISCAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
In 2015, the developer initiated a process to revise the underlying land use from “B-Business” to “HR-High
Density Residential.” Since this application was later withdrawn, there was no official action taken by the
city to change the land use at that time. Since the newly proposed development plan is essentially the same
as originally proposed in 2015, the developer once again seeks to change the underlying land use on both
commercial sites from “B-Business” to “HR-High Density Residential” or “HR-PUD High Density
Residential-PUD.” Should the land use be approved, the developer will follow-through with an official
rezoning request and conditional use permit.
One of the changes that would occur with a change in land use and density would be the fiscal impact for
the City and other taxing authorities. A very rough estimate of these impacts is summarized below. The
current value is taken from County Assessor records; the value of the proposed use is estimated very
conservatively using the same assessed value per unit as the Lexington Heights apartments.
The tables show that the proposed residential use is taxed at a lower rate than commercial (1.25% vs. 2%),
but the value of high density residential would still be almost ten times the value of the garden center use.
The city’s tax share would be reduced further due to fiscal disparities.
Current Commercial Use – Larson Garden Value (est.)
2017 Estimated Market Value $493,300
Total Taxes Generated $14,400
City share of taxes = 37.5% $1,938
Current Commercial Use – Mendota Motel Value (est.)
2017 Estimated Market Value $345,000
Total Taxes Generated $10,466
City share of taxes = 37.5% $1,443
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 5
The Total Taxable Market Value rate on both sites (currently)) is $838,700. From this valuation, the City
currently receives $3,381 in taxes from both properties.
Proposed Multifamily Residential Use (69 Unit Apt.)
Estimated Market Value $9,660,000 ea. bldg.
$19,320,000
Tax Capacity (at 1.25% multifamily
residential tax rate
$120,750
Local Property Taxes Generated $129,016 ea. bldg.
$258,032
Future City Taxes from Development $45,256 ea. bldg.
$90,531
Projected Annual Gross TIF Value
(Total Prop. Tax – Market Value Tax – Base
Value Tax)
$96,314
The new value of $19,320,000 represents a 2,203% increase in property valuations.
DENSITY
A key question in the applicant’s request is the density of the residential use. Currently, High Density
residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan only allows a maximum density of 8.5 units per
acre. This designation is very low compared to many other suburban cities in the region. The following
table depicts guided densities in peer communities’ highest density land use designations:
Eagan 12+ units/acre
Richfield 24 units/acre
Edina 12-30 units/acre
Roseville 12+ units/acre
New Brighton 12+ units/acre
Burnsville 9-14 units/acre
Woodbury 10-15 units/acre
Maplewood 10.1-25 units/acre
The trend in this metro area and most other cities in the U.S. is towards higher density in appropriate
locations. Such sites would include good access and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The subject
site meets those criteria. The maximum densities in the table above – 25-30 units/acre – are typical of
suburban maximum and can readily be achieved with three- or four-story construction. These densities do
not approach what the central cities see in high density projects – 100 units/acre or more.
Furthermore, the existing commercial use is struggling at this location and replacing it with a multi-family
residential use would not need the same level of access and visibility that a commercial use needs. Multi-
family uses typically need to be buffered from lower intensity residential uses and this site makes that
relatively easy.
In 2016, the City approved a PUD Amendment for the At Homes Apartment development inside the
Mendota Mall properties near Hwy. 110 and Dodd Road. This development consisted of 149 market rate
rental units on a 2.2 acre site. The density for this site was approved at almost 68 units/acre.
The City is also considering and in discussions with a separate developer on the city-owned Village Center
lots, located near Dodd Road/Maple Street/Linden Street. This development is proposing 150 active senior
living units on approximately 2.5 acres, which equates to a density near 60 units/acre.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 6
Under Title 12-1K-3: Specific Planned Unit Development Districts, the City possesses the right to create
certain planned unit development districts for specific developments. The PUD Ordinance is meant to
provide greater flexibility to the developer with certain aspects of the development, including site design,
reduced setbacks, reduced parking spaces, and even higher (housing) density allotments. The PUD also
provides a wide range of autonomy and latitude to the City to allow these reduced standards and/or approve
higher density numbers, if it so chooses.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code, the “number of Dwelling Units” is allowed under the
following standard:
“In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire
site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning
district(s) in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3
zoning district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide.
If the residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of
allowable dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit
development that is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of
dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in
the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council
shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of
the planned unit development. Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the
standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council.”
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3 of the City Code, the Planning Commission may determine the approved
density under the following provision:
The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed
within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required
lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which
the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less
the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for
public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the
city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density.
The applicable standard residential district for the proposed use is the R-3 High Density Residential District.
The corresponding future land use designation for the R-3 District is HR-High Density Residential, which
has a maximum allowed density of 8.5 units/acre. Based on analysis of other high-density residential uses
developed as a PUD or under the R-3 District standards, most existing developments in the city far exceed
the maximum allowable density in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Code provision above does
allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the
standard zoning district.
CONCLUSIONS
If designating the site for at least the requested 25 units/acre is appropriate, the question then is how this
should be accomplished. There are two approaches:
1. Amend the High Density Residential land use category in the 2030 Land Use Plan from a
maximum density of 8.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre, then amend the 2030 Land Use Plan
to re-guide the subject site as “High Density Residential.”
Impacts: Three other sites in the City are currently guided as “High Density Residential” in the
2030 Land Use Plan. The sites with this land use category lie between 1-35E and Lexington
Ave (Lexington Heights and Hillside Gables); at the corner of Marie Avenue and I-35E (Eagle
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 7
Ridge); and north of I-494 and south of Mendota Heights Road (Kensington), which is actually
an “HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development.” These properties are
fully built-out and unlikely to redevelop in the near future. Should redevelopment occur,
property owners may request rezoning to allow residential construction that is compatible with
the higher densities guided by the amended 2030 Land Use Plan.
2. Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan for this site to “HR-PUD High Density Residential - Planned
Unit Development,” whereby allowing a higher density to be determined by the City.
Impacts: According to the City’s current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the City has a wide range
of residential neighborhoods in both age and style, and has taken great care in the design of its
residential areas. The land use pattern works to strengthen existing neighborhoods and
encourage new residential development to be complementary to adjacent land uses. The Land
Use Map identifies these areas as “HR – High Density Residential” or “HR-PUD.”
There are two other areas in the city guided and zoned HR-PUD. The first of these areas is the
Summit of Mendota Heights condo/apartments off Riverside Lane/Aspen Way; and the second
area is the Kensington Carriage Homes Condo Association off Concord Way.
The allowance of this HR-PUD could reasonably allow a density of 25 units [or more] per acre,
depending on the specific development plan submitted for consideration. The added benefit of
allowing a site to be guided (and zoned) HR-PUD is it provides more local control on the
development, but may offer more flexibility to the developer in terms of reduced building
setbacks, reduced parking numbers, increased height standards, and others.
3. Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan to add a new land use category with a maximum allowable
density of 25 units per acre. This could be called “Urban Residential”, then amend the 2030
Land Use Plan to re-guide the subject site “Urban Residential.”
Impacts: Since this is a new land use category, this will not have direct impact on any other
sites in the City. Future applicants seeking to redevelop parcels at densities allowed in this
category must seek amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to re-guide specific sites before
seeking rezoning to allow development at this density.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission re-guide the Larson Garden Center/Mendota Motel main sites
to allow multiple-family residential uses up to 25 units/acre, following one of the three options discussed
above, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
2. The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the proposed
concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval from the Metropolitan
Council.
3. If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation for the subject parcels may
remain in place.
NEXT STEPS
Should the Planning Commission approve this request and it is also approved by the City Council and
Metropolitan Council, there are still several steps in the process before development of an apartment project
could proceed:
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 8
1. Creation of a zoning district to match the density approved in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. This could be done similar to the two options for the Plan amendment:
a. Set a new density of 25 units/acre in the existing R-3 District, or
b. Create a new zoning district corresponding to the new designation, with a
maximum 25 units/acre.
2. If accomplished under option “a” above, the site would be zoned for 25 units/acre.
3. If accomplished under option “b” above, then the subject site would need to be rezoned to this
new district. The presumption is that the city would zone in accordance with its Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Site plan and building permit approval would still be needed to actually build the project.
Details of building materials, landscaping, parking and other issues would be discussed and
decided at this stage.
Attachments
1. Site map
2. Site photos
3. Planning Application, including supporting materials
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-08 Page 9
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2160 – 2180 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. Commercial development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan, may not be viable due to access and visibility constraints.
2. Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the existing
vegetation and adjacent commercial use can provide a physical and visual buffer between the
proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing.
3. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would
allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
4. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and
would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
, ~ ~ENooTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING APPLICATION
Office Use Only:
Case #: Fee Paid:
1101 Victorin Curve I Mendota Heights. MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendotu~hel~1hb.co11i
-----------------------------
App Ji cation Date: Staff lnitiaJs:. __________ _
Applicable Ordinance#: Section: _____________ _
Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning:._-.._,__ _________ _
Existing Use: Proposed Use: ____________ _
Property Address/Street Location: 2180 and 2160Highway13, Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Applicant Name: Michael Swenson Phone:._6_1_2-_2_1_0-_9_7_66 ______ _
Applicant E-Mail Address: swenson@michaeldevelopment.com
Applicant Mailing Address: 971 Sibley Memorial Hwy# 300, St Paul, MN 55118
Property Owner Name: Jaykar & Jayshru Bhakta, Robert Larson Phone: __________ _
Property Owner Mailing Address: 2180 and 2160Highway13, Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
27-28400-01-080, 27-75200-05-380, 27-75200-05-160, 27-75200-05-110, 27-75200-05-420
27-75200-05-421, 27-75200-05-070, 27-75200-05-050, 27-75200-05-020
Type of Request:
D Rezoning D Conditional Use Permit D Interim Use Permit
0 Variance 0 Wetlands Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
0 Lot Split/Adjustment D Critical Area Permit ii Comprehensive Plan Amendment
D Code Amendment D Appeal D Other
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours.
~~
Signature of Owner Date
Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date
Planning Application (modified 61112016) Page 1of1
Page 1 of 2
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd. East, Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
Written Statement
Date: Date: Date: Date:
April 24, 2017
Reference: Reference: Reference: Reference:
Mendota Heights Apartments
Attention: Attention: Attention: Attention:
Tim Benetti, Mark McNeill
Project SummaryProject SummaryProject SummaryProject Summary::::
Michael Development proposes the development of two 70-Unit apartment buildings at 2180 and
2160 Highway 13 in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The project proposes to unify two sites which are
currently occupied by the Mendota Heights motel and abandoned Larsen Garden Center. Both of the
existing structures would be demolished in order to make room for the new development. The
development would be built in two phases, with the south parcel being built first.
FinancingFinancingFinancingFinancing::::
Borrower will be an LLC, a single purpose entity.
Loan will be 80% of the cost of the development, the balance will be paid by the applicant.
Type of Loan will be a construction mini-perm
Interest Rate and Term will be at market.
Collateral will be a 1st Mortgage on the subject property.
Site ID and Ownership:Site ID and Ownership:Site ID and Ownership:Site ID and Ownership:
The Existing Mendota Heights Motel is owned by Jaykar C and Jayshru J Bhakta. The Larsen Garden
Center is currently owned by Robert C Larson. Michael Development would purchase the two
properties then develop and manage the new apartment buildings.
The Property ID numbers for the two properties included in the proposed development are:
Mendota Heights Motel Property:
27-28400-01-080
Larson Garden Center Property:
27-75200-05-380, 27-75200-05-160, 27-75200-05-110, 27-75200-05-420, 27-75200-05-421,
27-75200-05-070, 27-75200-05-050, 27-75200-05-020
The project also proposes to vacate the easement between the two properties and include that parcel
as part of the project.
Page 2 of 2
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd. East, Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
Expected Schedule for Development:Expected Schedule for Development:Expected Schedule for Development:Expected Schedule for Development:
The development would be built in two phases, with the south parcel being built first. Construction of
the first phase would be Fall of 2017 - Fall of 2018 depending on the timing of entitlements. Phase II
of the development would begin in Fall of 2018 and be complete in the Fall of 2019.
Character and density of the dwelling unitsCharacter and density of the dwelling unitsCharacter and density of the dwelling unitsCharacter and density of the dwelling units::::
The Project would consist of a total of 140 apartment units on approximately 5.49 Acres. The
buildings would each be 3 stories of apartments and amenity spaces above a below grade parking
structure. Michael Development has a number of properties in the area and for this project plans to
provide a high end apartment building similar to the Lyndale Plaza property at 6401 Lyndale Avenue
South in Richfield, MN.
Estimated Industrial Acreage and Projected Employment:Estimated Industrial Acreage and Projected Employment:Estimated Industrial Acreage and Projected Employment:Estimated Industrial Acreage and Projected Employment:
Each Apartment building would have approximately 3-4 Full time employees working in the leasing
office and building maintenance.
The sites combined are Approximately 5.49 Acres.
Estimated Square Footage of the Commercial Development:Estimated Square Footage of the Commercial Development:Estimated Square Footage of the Commercial Development:Estimated Square Footage of the Commercial Development:
Each Apartment building would have a footprint that is approximately 25,500 SF. 51,000 SF total
over the 5.49 Acres.
Each Apartment building will have a 25,500, SF of below grade parking garage with 76,500 of
Apartment Housing above.
Estimated Amount of Developed Open Space:Estimated Amount of Developed Open Space:Estimated Amount of Developed Open Space:Estimated Amount of Developed Open Space:
The Buildings will take up 51,000 SF total over the 5.49 Acres. Therefore, there will be approximately
188,000 SF of open space including parking and drive aisles, landscaped areas, storm water
retention, and existing wooded area, The East part of the site is wooded and drops dramatically in
elevation. The Development is pushed to the west to avoid as much of this area as possible.
Approximately 48,000 SF of paved surface will be on the site for drive aisle, parking, and sidewalks.
Mendota Heights, MN
Michael Development Site Location Map
A000
LEMAY
LAKE
AUGUSTA
LAKE
55
110
13
5
35E
ACACIA BLVD
ST. PETER’S
CHURCH
APOSTLIC
CHURCH
MENDOTA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
AXEL’S
RESTAURANT
PILOT KNOB RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYLEXINGTON AVE SWAGON WHEEL TRAIL
ACACIA PARK
CEMETARY RESURRECTION
CEMETARY
MSP INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
FORT SNELLING
STATE PARK
FORT SNELLING
GOLF COURSE
ROGERS
LAKE
SNELLING
LAKE MINNESOTA RIVERSITE
Proposed Site
kaas
wilson
architects Michael Development
Mendota Heights Apartments A001
Existing Topography
1" = 200'-0"1 Site Topo
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-09
Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks from Front (Corner) Yard Setbacks
APPLICANT: Ben & Erika Christopherson
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1897 Wachtler Avenue
ACTION DEADLINE: June 24, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are seeking to build an addition to an existing dwelling and expand the attached garage,
which would require a variance to a side-yard setback from 30 feet down to 16.9-feet.
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. As of preparation and completion of
this report, there have been no comments or objections received from neighboring residents.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
Existing Zoning R-1 One-Family Residential
Setbacks (yards) 30-ft. Front; 30-ft. Rear; 10-ft. Side
Lot Area 45,086 sq. ft. (1.04 acres)
Designated Future Land Use Low Density Residential
The subject site contains a 1,546 sq. ft., one-story, single family rambler dwelling, and a 440 sq. ft. attached
two car garage, which was originally built in 1957. The subject site has primary frontage on Wachtler
Avenue to the east and secondary frontage on Hilltop Road to the north. The property has a double-wide
driveway entrance from Wachtler Avenue, with a two-vehicle parking tab/turn-around located just beyond
the front lot line. The 1.04 acre lot is rectangular in shape; with 150.12 ft. in width and depth of 300+ feet.
The subject dwelling is setback 30.5 feet from the northerly side lot line, over 66 feet from the front lot
line; and 30.2 feet from the southerly side lot line.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-09 Page 2
GOOGLE STREET MAP IMAGE (LOOKING WEST FROM WACHTLER)
SURVEY / SITE PLAN
The subject property abuts a small, 1,888 sq. ft. tear-dropped shaped parcel located at the corner of Wachtler
and Hilltop road, which is identified on the survey and original plat map records for this area as a “park”.
The applicants have expressed an interest in acquiring this parcel from the city, but the ownership and
record of title may be difficult to ascertain, due to its unknown origin or purpose [as a park]. For now, this
park parcel is recognized as part of Hilltop Road right-of-way, and may play a part into the consideration
of allowing a reduced setback along this property line (which will be described later under the analysis
section).
All properties adjacent to the site and in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The lots in this
neighborhood vary in width and shape, but remain consistent as a typical older single-family neighborhood.
For any property situated on a corner, front yard setbacks of 30-feet must be maintained along each road
frontage. The applicants have questioned the location of their personal property as a corner lot, due in part
to the adjacent park parcel, and their belief they do not technically, or fully front onto Hilltop, and requested
an allowance to proceed with their addition under the 10-foot side yard setback standard. Staff however,
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-09 Page 3
interpreted and determined the lot does have some means of frontage along both Wachtler and Hilltop, and
therefore the lot is a corner parcel and the 30-foot setback standard from each street line must be considered.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants propose to add approximately 1,450 sq. ft. of new building space to the existing 1,546 sq.
ft. dwelling. The existing 440 sq. ft. two-car garage will be expanded to a 998 sq. ft. three car garage, which
will be much wider and deeper than the exiting two-car space. The other areas shown on the survey will
be converted into livable hosing space.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-09 Page 4
The home currently meets the required 30-ft. setback from Hilltop Road. The applicants have noted on
their survey/site plan that the new garage addition will be setback 16.9 feet (green circle) from the
established north lot line, which equates to a variance of 13.1 feet. The survey also highlights two separate
setbacks of 22.2 ft. and 30.9 ft. (blue clouds), which represents the closest setback points if one would
consider the park parcel as additional [private] property.
ANALYSIS
• Variance
According to Title 12-1E-3-D of the City Code, the following minimum requirements in the R-1 One
Family Residence District shall be observed:
1. Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty five feet (25') in height,
whichever is the lesser in height, except as provided in article D of this chapter.
2. Side Yards Abutting A Street: A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than thirty feet (30') in width.
3. Minimum Requirements
Height
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Front
Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
1 and 2
stories
15,000
sq. ft.
100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 of the height of
the structure contiguous to the side
yard, whichever is greater, to a
maximum of 15'
30' or 20% of the
average lot depth,
whichever is greater
As noted in the Code section above and earlier in this report, the front and any side yard abutting streets
must maintain a 30-foot setback.
When considering the variance request for the proposed addition in this case, the City is required to find
that:
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-09 Page 5
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The Applicants indicated they feel the proposed garage addition and home renovation plans will put
the property to use in a reasonable manner. They also indicated “…we are unable to completely place
two vehicles into our garage; the variance would allow us additional space to place both vehicles in
the garage, while still allowing passage into our home; additionally, it would improve the outward
appearance of our lot as to keeping the driveway vacant of vehicles.”
Hilltop Road appears to be approximately 50-feet from the closest corner of the existing dwelling (NW
corner of garage). The closest point (approx. measure) from the new NW corner of the dwelling/garage
addition, will be about 34 feet from the physical roadway.
The applicant’s desire to reconstruct an addition onto the existing single-family dwelling can be
considered a reasonable request and use of the property, and will remain consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The encroachment along this more than average (wider) right-of-way along
Hilltop, due in large part to the “park” parcel nearby, lends much support to allowing the encroachment,
as this should help lessen impacts, in both proximity wise and visually from this roadway.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
The Applicants provided the following statements: “Our newly purchased property happens to
border a parcel of land that does not have a defined owner at this time. This land lies between our
property and Hilltop Road, on the north side of our home. During multiple conversations with city
personnel, we have been informed that the city has no record of owning the land, and it is unclear
exactly who might have rights to that property, creating a unique situation. If granted approval of
our plans, there would still be approximately 30 plus feet between our improved structure and the
curb on Hilltop Road.”
The Applicants were initially unaware of the added 30-foot setback along Hilltop and were under the
impression they only needed to maintain a 10-foot setback. When made aware of these standards, the
owners also inquired of purchasing the park parcel from the city, but ownership or unforeseen title
issues could pose a problem. In order to facilitate the immediate needs of their family, they pressed
ahead with the variance from the established northerly lot line.
As with most homes built in the 1950’s, most if not all homes were built with 2- car garages, which
were somewhat small and cramped compared to the new home garages being developed today.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-09 Page 6
Families have two or more vehicles; these vehicles tend to be larger; and families have a desire to store
miscellaneous equipment and (bikes, toys, recreational vehicles) inside these preferred larger garages.
The ability to provide this larger and more convenient garage space along this area of the home would
not be possible without the variance. Alternatives exists to enlarge the garage straight back or behind
the existing 2-car garage, but this may hamper vehicle movements or make the expansion feel out of
character with the new living space addition.
Staff feels the Applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty in meeting the required corner side
yard setback in order to construct the existing addition in compliance with applicable codes.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The Applicants provided the following statements: “We do believe the improvements we are making
to our home will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Our renovations will not affect views
from either Hilltop Road or Wachtler Avenue. As a family of five, the variance would allow us to better
keep a clean and orderly exterior appearance of our home, by allowing motor vehicles to be stored in
an enclosed area.”
The new garage and living space additions represent a considerable investment by the Applicants to
bring the existing 1950’s style rambler into a much nicer, modern up-to-date layout. The larger living
space addition should effectively accommodate their family’s own living spaces needs, and provide
more than adequate garage and storage space. The new addition will be made to match the existing
home, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
OR
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 approval of the variance request based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1),
with the following conditions:
1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than shown on the survey
included in the application submittal.
2. The new addition will match the overall architecture and design of the existing dwelling.
3. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building permit for
construction of the proposed addition.
Attachments
1. Aerial site map
2. Planning applications, including Applicant’s Narrative
3. Survey/Site Plan/Floor Plans
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-09 Page 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Variance Request
1897 Wachtler Avenue
(Christopherson)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the variance request in this case:
1. Construction of the proposed dwelling and garage additions onto the existing single-family
dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The existing conditions were not created by the applicant and demonstrate a practical difficulty in
meeting the required setback in order to reconstruct the existing addition in compliance with
applicable codes.
3. The addition onto the existing single-family dwelling can be considered a reasonable request and
use of the property.
4. The encroachment along this wider segment Hilltop Road ROW, due in part to the presence of the
nearby “park” parcel, lends additional support to allowing the encroachment as this should lessen
proximity and visual impacts from this roadway.
5. Due to the subject parcel’s existing condition and location to the abutting Hilltop Road right-of-
way and road surface, a practical difficulty may be evident and was demonstrated in order to
construct said addition to the home.
6. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
7. Granting of the variance sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City Code.
04-24-2017
SHEET
SCALE
DRAWN
REFERENCE
JOB NO.
BOOK/PAGE
DATE
BENCHMARK
Woodrow A. Brown, R.L.S. MN REG 15230
Dated:
REVISIONS
REMARKS
SITE ADDRESS
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Fax: (952) 854-4268B
EMAIL: WBLANDSURVEY@AOL.COM
8030 Cedar Avenue So., Suite 228.
W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Bus: (952) 854-4055
Bloomington, MN 55425
N
SCALE IN FEET
W
Benjamin and Erica Christopherson
SURVEY FOR:
Legend
A2.01 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLAN
A3.013/16"=1'-0"PROPOSED FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.023/16"=1'-0"PROPOSED REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A3.113/16"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.123/16"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-10
Code Amendment to Allow Pylon or Monument Type Signs in the B-1
Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
INTRODUCTION
City staff is requesting the Planning Commission consider amending City Code Title 12-1B-2:
DEFINITIONS by creating two new definitions of signs; and amending Title 12-1D-15: SIGNS by
establishing new allowances and standards for certain freestanding type signs in the in the B-1 Limited
Business and B-1A Business Park Districts.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper.
BACKGROUND
At the April 25, 2017 meeting, Planning Staff presented a request for Planning Commission action (or
direction) to staff to initiate a process of amending certain sections of City Zoning Code, regarding signs in
the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts.
Staff indicated a local business owner located inside a B-1 zoned area asked to install a new freestanding
sign, but was denied due to Zoning Code does not allow such signs in this or the B-1A zones. Staff also
stated that although this preclusion has been in effect for quite some time; it appears other businesses located
inside similar B-1 and B-1A zones already have signs, yet staff was unable to determine if they were granted
by variance or simply administratively approved by the city.
Upon receiving a favorable (verbal) recommendation to proceed on this matter, the Commission directed
staff to present this proposed sign code changes to the City Council for direction as needed.
At the May 2nd meeting, staff presented the initial recommendation from the Commission; generally
supported the request to change the ordinance; and directed planning staff to prepare an ordinance for future
consideration.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-10 Page 2
DISCUSSION
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a code amendment request and has
broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way
related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Staff has now prepared a draft ordinance No. 510 – included herein) for review. The new language now
includes an added amendment to Title 12-1B-2 Definitions by adding new definitions for “Pylon Sign” and
“Monument Sign”, noted as follows:
SIGN, MONUMENT: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure
that is mounted on the ground or mounted on a foundation base structure at least as wide as
the sign. A monument sign is typically solid from grade to the top of the structure.
SIGN, PYLON: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure that has
its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and a sign face elevated above ground by a
pole(s), post(s) or beam(s) with an open area below the face of the sign.
Staff added these due to the questions generated at the April 25th meeting, and also felt it was important to
differentiate these two signs from each other in future sign permit reviews.
The ordinance also amends Title 12-1D-15: Signs - with the following text or language change (note new
language is underlined text while deleted text is shown as strikethrough text):
I. Signs In B And I Districts:
2. Pylon Or Freestanding Monument Sign: The erection of one pylon or monument type
sign for any single lot in the B-1, B-1A, B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts is permitted under the
following provisions:
a. A pylon or freestanding monument sign in the B-1 and B-1A districts shall not be higher
than twenty feet (20’); and those in the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts shall not be higher
than twenty-five feet (25') above the average grade level at the base of the sign.
b. No part of the pylon or freestanding monument sign in any B or I district shall be less
than ten feet (10') from lot lines nor less than five feet (5') from any driveway or parking
area.
c. No part or projection from a pylon or freestanding monument sign shall be less than
fourteen feet (14') vertical distance above the grade level at the base of the sign.
d. The gross area of any surface of a pylon or freestanding monument sign in the B-1 and
B-1A districts shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet; and those in the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I
districts shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet.
The Commission should note that staff is recommending slightly different height and size standards for the
B-1 and B-1A zoned signs. The reason for this reduced standard is the in-field observations that appear to
show the existing signs are at or around these sizes. The Commission may elect to revise these standards,
or allow the B-1 and B-1A to have the same standards as the B-2, B-3 and B-4 districts.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2017-10 Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 510, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 510.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment as presented in the draft
ordinance document. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this meeting and a
recommendation and final draft version will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration.
Staff would propose to bring back any substantial revisions for review and further discussion at a future
meeting prior to making any final recommendation to the City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. DRAFT Ordinance 510
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2
3
ORDINANCE NO. 510 4
5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE B. RULES AND 6
DEFINITIONS CONCERNING NEW SIGN DEFINITIONS 7
AND 8
TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS 9
CONCERNING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS 10
11
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 12
13
Section 1. 14
15
Title 12-1B-2: DEFINITIONS is hereby amended as follows: 16
17
SIGN, MONUMENT: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure 18
that is mounted on the ground or mounted on a foundation base structure at least as wide as the 19
sign. A monument sign is typically solid from grade to the top of the structure. 20
21
SIGN, PYLON: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure that 22
has its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and a sign face elevated above ground by 23
a pole(s), post(s) or beam(s) with an open area below the face of the sign. 24
25
26
Section 2. 27
28
Title 12-1D-15: SIGNS: I is hereby amended as follows: 29
30
I. Signs In B And I Districts: 31
32
2. Pylon Or Freestanding Monument Sign: The erection of one pylon or monument type sign 33
for any single lot in the B-1, B-1A, B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts is permitted under the 34
following provisions: 35
36
a. A pylon or freestanding monument sign in the B-1 and B-1A districts shall not be 37
higher than twenty feet (20’); and those in the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts shall not be 38
higher than twenty-five feet (25') above the average grade level at the base of the sign. 39
40
b. No part of the pylon or freestanding monument sign in any B or I district shall be less 41
than ten feet (10') from lot lines nor less than five feet (5') from any driveway or 42
parking area. 43
44
c. No part or projection from a pylon or freestanding monument sign shall be less than 45
fourteen feet (14') vertical distance above the grade level at the base of the sign. 46
47
Ord. 491 Page 2 of 2
d. The gross area of any surface of a pylon or freestanding monument sign in the B-1 and 48
B-1A districts shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet; and those in the B-2, B-3, B-4 49
and I districts shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. 50
51
Section 3. 52
53
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 54
55
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 20th day of June, 2017. 56
57
CITY COUNCIL 58
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 59
60
61
62
Neil Garlock, Mayor 63
ATTEST 64
65
66
___________________________ 67
Lorri Smith, City Clerk 68
69
70
71
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter) 72
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting a Recommendation to Modify Municipal
Development District No. 1 and the Proposed Establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 2
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2180 and 2160-2164 Highway 13 (a/k/a Sibley Memorial Highway)
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt a resolution and make a recommendation of modifying Municipal
Development District No. 1 and the proposed establishment of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 2.
The creation of this new TIF District will provide limited financial assistance to a developer, and help facilitate
the successful redevelopment of the Mendota Motel and former Larson Garden Center properties.
BACKGROUND
In 1981, the City created its first (and only) TIF District No. 1 for the purpose of the assisting the new and
Village Center development plans. This was a 26 year district, which was decertified (or closed) on December
31, 2007.
The City is now considering the creation of this new redevelopment TIF district on the properties generally
located off Highway 13, between Acacia Drive and Victoria Avenue. The subject properties are addressed as
2160-2164 Highway 13 (Larson) and 2180 Highway 13 (Mendota Motel).
The motel site contains a 19-room, short-term transient housing facility that was built in 1949 and has
continually operated as a motel since that time. The Larson Garden Center site was originally built in 1925,
and consists of a complex mix of eight separate parcels combined years ago by the late owner Robert C. Larson
to form the layout of the old garden center business, which has been closed for approximately 10 years. Both
sites are located in the B-3 General Business District, and the underlying land use is currently “B-Business.
Both sites are subject to a separate request to amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s land use plan.
Mike Swenson of Michael Development has submitted a multi-family development plan consisting of a new
69 market rate apartment complex on the motel site, which will be followed-up by a similar 69-unit apartment
on the Larson property. The developer has requested tax increment to assist in offsetting the high costs of land
acquisition, demolition, environmental and soil remediation and overall site improvements.
PREVIOUS CITY CONSIDERATIONS
On February 9, 2017 and March 21, 2017, the City Council met under Workshop Sessions, and were provided
updates by city staff that Michael Development appeared to have secured the rights to acquire and redevelop
the Mendota Motel and Larson Garden Center sites. It was also communicated that the developer was asking
the city to explore and investigate possible financial assistance to help him replace and redevelop these two
functionally obsolete commercial property sites.
On May 2nd, the City Council was requested to set a public hearing for June 20, 2017, whereby the Council
would give official consideration in the establishing this new TIF District No. 2. This action was subject to
the understanding that a follow-up Council Workshop session would be held on May 16th, whereby an informal
presentation and initial analysis of this TIF No. 2 would be presented. If after that presentation the Council
was not in favor of the project and/or assistance, the public hearing would not be held or pulled from the
agenda. The intent is to have this district created by June 30, 2017, so that current property valuations can be
used in planning the TIF District financial impacts.
On May 11, 2017, the developer conducted a public information/neighborhood meeting at City Hall, and
presented his new housing plans to the neighbors. Notice letters were mailed to all owners within one-quarter
(1/4) mile of the subject site. Most of the comments from neighbors were positive and supportive of the
proposed redevelopment plans. Minor site and environmental issues will be investigated and addressed later
during full site plan (conditional use permit) review, which is tentatively scheduled to take place later this
summer, possibly July or August 2017.
On May 16, 2017, the City Council held the follow-up Work Session, whereby city staff and consultants
presented the developer’s proposed redevelopment plan; provided a very thorough presentation on the
background and initial analysis and discussed the steps to creating a new TIF District on these properties; and
addressed and answered a number of questions. The City Council too expressed general support of this new
housing redevelopment plan, and directed staff to continue working with our legal and financial consultants in
establishing this new TIF District.
City Staff and our consultants have been working together and with the developer in reviewing his request,
and have determined that the creation of a redevelopment TIF district in this area would be an appropriate use
and redevelopment to this commercial area, and appears the initial tests and qualifiers to create this new TIF
District have been met.
The final amount and terms of financial assistance have yet to be finalized, but initial analysis appears to show
the developer would qualify for approximately $635,000 in assistance, spread out over a 9-year term. This
would be what is called a “Pay-as-You-Go” TIF note. With this method of funding, it shifts the financial risk
from the City, when compared to the concept of General Obligation-backed TIF bonds.
REQUESTED ACTION
As a requirement to establishing any new Tax Increment Financing district, the Planning Commission is tasked
with determining if the development plan associated with the new TIF district are compliant or consistent with
the general goals and objectives of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plans of the city, and even with proposed
plan to modify or change the land use in this area.
Should the Planning Commission determine the proposed TIF No. 2 is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
the Planning Commission should provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the Plans are
consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mendota Heights,
Prior to consideration of this particular item, the Planning Commission will have already considered and
recommended certain action on the proposed Comprehensive Land Use Amendment. This amendment
requests the change of the underlying land use from “B-Business” to either an “HR-High Density Residential”
or “HR-PUD High Density Residential - Planned Unit Development”. The proposed and requested
redevelopment of this site with multi-family housing is contingent on the successful change of this land use,
followed by a rezoning approval, conditional use permit, subdivision plat, and/or other land use applications
deemed appropriate.
Attached to the end of this memo are selected goals and policy statements from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
These sections contain relevant statements, goals and objectives, which may be considered in the Planning
Commission's official determination of this item and support the establishment of this new TIF No. 2 District.
At the May 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, staff will provide an abbreviated version of the TIF No.
2 presentation (prepared and presented by city’s financial consultants Ehlers); and respond to any questions or
concerns the Commission may have on this proposed housing plan, and creation of this new TIF District. At
the conclusion of this presentation and discussion of this item, the Commission is asked to adopt its own
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-01 supporting the creation of this new TIF district.
The Commission should be aware that the recommendation on this item does not authorize or approve the
overall redevelopment plans submitted by Michael Development. The final development site plans, including
building designs and layout, grading, utilities, lighting, landscaping, access, parking, etc. will be presented at
a later PC Meeting date.
Should the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation on this land use changes, this
recommendation, along with a separate “Comprehensive Plan Amendment Submittal Form” – to be completed
by the City will be sent to the Metropolitan Council for review. All new comprehensive plan amendments and
land use changes are subject to Met Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-01, which
supports and provides a favorable recommendation to the City Council to establish a new Tax Increment
Financing District No. 2; and further finds that modification to the Development Program for Municipal
Development District No. 1 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 2 conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of Mendota
Heights.
Attachments
1) PC Resolution No. 2017-01
2) Handout- Modification to the Development Program and Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF No. 2
(Ehlers)
a. TIF No. 2 Map
b. Preliminary Financial Analysis
2030 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
Supporting the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2
High Density Residential (HR), (HR-PUD)
This land use provides for multi-family and apartment development at densities of up to 8.54 units per acre.
The majority of land with this land use category lies between I-35E and Lexington Avenue; at the corner of
Marie Avenue and I-35E; and north of I-494 and south of Mendota Heights Road. The corresponding zoning
district classifications are: R-3 (High Density Residential District) and HR-PUD (High Density Residential
Planned Unit Development).
The City has a wide range of residential neighborhoods in both age and style, and has taken great care in
the design of its residential areas. The land use pattern works to strengthen existing neighborhoods and
encourage new residential development to be complementary to adjacent land uses.
Land Use Goals
1. Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the
community.
2. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment.
Land Use Policies
1. Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, housing, transportation, parks
and other community facilities.
2. Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure consistent development policy
in current and future development decisions.
3. Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible land uses.
4. Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community
development and building.
5. Encourage development and planning of land that provides for reasonable access to surrounding
properties.
Future Land Use: B, Business and LR, Low Density Residential
Infill Sites: For the purposes of this section “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights
that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. Because these properties tend
to be smaller and surrounded by established neighborhoods, development would have the potential to
dramatically change the environment of the areas in which they are located. Neighbors often raise concerns
over increased traffic, loss of open space, potential drainage issues, and other problems that may result from
development of these areas.
The City recently inventoried the remaining developable land within the community, with the objective of
understanding the capacity for new development, and creating policies for consideration of development in
these sensitive areas. These policies include the following:
• Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations.
• Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties.
• Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing
environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors.
• Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing.
• Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a
“spot-zoning” pattern.
HOUSING - GOALS AND POLICIES
Goals, policies, and programs shall be identified to assist the City of Mendota Heights in decision-making
regarding the preservation of its current housing stock and the development of new units. Goals and
policies typically address development and redevelopment expectations, housing maintenance and
preservation, and density and diversity of housing type.
Fiscal Devices
Fiscal devices, such as revenue bonds, tax increment, financing or tax abatement can be used to help
ease the construction and availability of affordable housing in the City of Mendota Heights.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING
COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 1 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 CONFORMS TO THE
GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights (the "City") has proposed to adopt a
Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 (the
"Development Program Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 2 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Development Program Modification and
the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Program and Plan") and has submitted the
Program and Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Program and Plan to determine their
conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described
in the comprehensive plan for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Program and Plan
conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Adopted by the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights on this 23rd day of May, 2017.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
____________________________________
Litton Field, Jr., Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Tim Benetti, Secretary
As of May 17, 2017
Draft for Planning Commission
Modification to the Development Program
for Municipal Development District No. 1
and the
Tax Increment Financing Plan
for the establishment of
Tax Increment Financing District No. 2
(a redevelopment district)
within
Municipal Development District No. 1
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County
State of Minnesota
Public Hearing: June 20, 2017
Adopted:
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
Table of Contents
(for reference purposes only)
Section 1 - Modification to the Development Program
for Municipal Development District No. 1 ..................................... 1-1
Foreword ............................................................. 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 .................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Development Program Overview ............................ 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District........... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ...................... 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-6
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-10
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-12
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-13
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-14
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-14
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment . ................ 2-14
Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-15
Appendix A
Project Description ...................................................... A-1
Appendix B
Map of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the District . . ................... B-1
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form ....................................... E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District .................................. F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications..................................... G-1
Section 1 - Modification to the Development Program
for Municipal Development District No. 1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development
District No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the
Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include
the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2.
For further information, a review of the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 is
recommended. It is available from the City Administrator at the City of Mendota Heights. Other relevant
information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts
located within Municipal Development District No. 1.
City of Mendota Heights Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1 1-1
Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan
for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The City of Mendota Heights (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to
expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 (the "District"), a redevelopment tax
increment financing district, located in Municipal Development District No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City has certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
("M.S."), Sections 469.124 to 469.133, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794,
inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs
related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modification to the Development Program for Municipal Development
District No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of nine parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the construction of approximately 138 apartment units in the City. Please see
Appendix A for further District information. The City has not entered into an agreement but anticipates
entering into an agreement with Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC. Development is anticipated to
occur in two phases. The first phase of approximately 69 apartments is anticipated to begin in mid-2017 and
be complete in 2018. The second phase of approximately 69 apartments is anticipated to begin in mid-2018
and be complete in 2019. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the
Development Program for Municipal Development District No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Development Program and the TIF Plan do not
preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are
anticipated to occur over the life of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Development Program Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the City and is further described in this TIF Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire
within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction,
relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District.
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information
on the location of the District.
The City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any
properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City only in order to accomplish one or more of
the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry
out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives
set forth in this plan. The City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase
from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken
only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S.,
Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, finds that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of-way;
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined
in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility:
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-2
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) or by the improvement described in paragraph (e) if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building or met the requirements of paragraph
(e), as the case may be, within three years of the filing of the request for certification of the
parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building or the improvements described in paragraph (e) were demolished
or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was financed by the authority or
was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building or met the requirement of paragraph (e) and
that after demolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a
district; and
(4) upon filing the request for certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (f).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
(f) For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a
redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of
the district must satisfy paragraph (a).
In meeting the statutory criteria the City relies on the following facts and findings:
• The District is a redevelopment district consisting of nine parcels.
• An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are
occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
• An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F).
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes
payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-3
Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax
increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b.,
the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the City (a total of 26 years
of tax increment). The City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2019, which is no later than four years
following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2044, or when
the TIF Plan is satisfied. The City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2016 for taxes payable 2017.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2019) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2017, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2017. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Municipal Development District No. 1, upon
completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown
in the table below. The City requests 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of
its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2019. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed on the following page is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are
completed.
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-4
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $483,770
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $10,321
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $473,449
Original Local Tax Rate 0.92244 Pay 2017
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $436,728
Percent Retained by the City 100%
Tax capacity includes a 3% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 25. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $60,375.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the City shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and found no parcels for which building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the
City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued
The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments. The City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As
presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note and interfund
loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This
provision does not obligate the City to incur debt. The City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon
the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City.
The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below:
SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL
Tax Increment $7,731,493
Interest $773,149
TOTAL $8,504,642
The City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from
the District in a maximum principal amount of $5,417,585. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-you-go
notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded
indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval.
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of approximately 69
apartment units. The City has determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for
certain District costs, as described. The City has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment
of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of
the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible
expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the
following table.
USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL
Land/Building Acquisition $2,000,000
Site Improvements/Preparation $1,000,000
Utilities $700,000
Other Qualifying Improvements $944,436
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$773,149
PROJECT COST TOTAL $5,417,585
Interest $3,087,057
PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $8,504,642
The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total
projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant
to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Municipal Development District No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are
considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal
disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are
followed, the following method of computation shall apply:
(1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity
provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal
disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the
current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section
276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax
capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity
and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax
capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-6
is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has
designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the
retained captured net tax capacity of the authority.
(2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the
net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The
local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity
of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by
the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate
to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority.
The City will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. It is not anticipated that the District will
contain commercial/industrial property. As a result, there should be no impact due to the fiscal
disparities provision on the District.
According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3:
(c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may
elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in
paragraph (b).
Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to
provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-7
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature;
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less;
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration; and
(23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to
valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100.
The City will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the City to pay for all or part of
the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in
the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road
improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years
under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City within forty-five days
of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the City and consultants, the proposed development outlined
in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to
the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The City is aware that the county could claim that tax
increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
2016/Pay 2017
Total Net
Tax Capacity
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
Dakota County 420,417,621 473,449 0.1126%
City of Mendota Heights 19,837,907 473,449 2.3866%
ISD No. 197 57,669,437 473,449 0.8210%
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-8
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Pay 2017
Extension Rates
Percent
of Total CTC
Potential
Taxes
Dakota County 0.280040 30.36% 473,449 132,585
City of Mendota Heights 0.374870 40.64% 473,449 177,482
ISD No. 197 0.222950 24.17% 473,449 105,555
Other 0.044580 4.83%473,449 21,106
Total 0.922440 100.00%436,728
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual Pay 2017 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on actual Pay 2017 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2017 rates, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2017.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b):
(1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be
generated over the life of the District is $7,731,493;
(2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the
District on police protection is not expected. The City does track all calls for service including
property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for
service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall
demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself,
will necessitate new capital investment or require that the City expand its Police Department.
The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new
buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The existing buildings, which
will be eliminated by the new development, have public safety concerns.
The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is
not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from
the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated
with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District
is expected to contribute sanitary sewer (SAC) fees and $200/unit for water (WAC) connection fees.
The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue
debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any
general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the
City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit.
(3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the
amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district
levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions
remained the same, is $1,868,702;
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-9
(4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of
tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the
county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $22,347,281;
(5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any
standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and
impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional
information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax
increment financing plan.
No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed
development for the District have been received.
Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and
description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd.
3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of
reports and studies on file at the City that support the City's findings:
• Dakota County Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment September 2013 (Maxfield Research).
• Summary of Findings - Mendota Heights Housing Needs and Recommendations from the Dakota
County Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment March 2014 (Maxfield Research).
Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the
requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-10
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county
auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that
the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, must be documented in
writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is
elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2)(A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated
from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax
capacity or (B) the City agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax
capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the
District.
The City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District
in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
District;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
District;
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond
counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section
469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative
expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures
authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause
(1), from the District, whichever is less.
For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay
any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment
expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.
25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits
of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-11
year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to
the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated
to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of
examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually
by the Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation
or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a
street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water
systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing
plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax
capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax
increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently
commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel
including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the
tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity
has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity
of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this
subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required
activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be
submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified
as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a
street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street,
and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street.
The City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June 2021 and report
such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment
The City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property
located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of Municipal Development District
No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.124 to 469.133;
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-12
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
City or for the benefit of Municipal Development District No. 1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Dakota County to the City for the Tax Increment
Fund of said District. The City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as
specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements,
demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for
City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District.
Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end
of the year. In addition, the City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF
Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Municipal Development District No. 1 or the District.
Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Development Program and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate the conformance of the development
with City plans and ordinances. The City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the
development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the City as a result of
acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from
property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the City
concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides
recourse for the City should the development or redevelopment not be completed.
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the City may enter into a written assessment agreement in
recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value
of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be
presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be
constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be
constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the
judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum
market value agreement.
Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the City Administrator.
Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the City must undertake financial reporting for all tax
increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or
before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected
to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax
increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination,
reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon City
staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis
of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments
has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and
indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of
Municipal Development District No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.124 to 469.133. Tax increments
may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition,
construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for
conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government
or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-14
increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S., Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses of the City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response
plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-28. Summary
The City of Mendota Heights is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop
substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was
prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone
(651) 697-8500.
City of Mendota Heights Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 2-15
Appendix A
Project Description
Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC intends to acquire nine parcels and redevelop the parcels in the
District with two market rate apartment buildings totaling approximately 138 apartments. The project will
be completed in two (2) phases, with the phase I commencing in 2017 and consisting of approximately 69
market rate apartments. Phase II is expected to commence in 2019 and consist of approximately 69 market
rate apartments. The City intends to issue a PAYGO TIF Note for each phase to offset qualified costs related
to the development of the site.
Appendix A-1
Appendix B
Map of Municipal Development District No. 1 and the District
Appendix B-1
I-494
HWY 55
I-35EHWY 110
DODD RDH W Y 13SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL494 RAMPI -4 9 4 R A M P
I-35E RAMP
I-94 RAMP
DODD RD RAMP
M E N D O T A R D R A M P
I-4 94 L O OP
C E N T R E P O IN T E C U R
NORTHLAND DRANNAPOLIS ST W
4 9 4 L O O P
D O D D R D L O O PCONDON CTI-35E494 LOOPI-35E RAMPHWY 110
I-4 9 4 L O O P I-494
HWY 110
I-35E RAMPDODD RDI-3
5
E
I-494
I-494 DODD RDHWY 55
H W Y 1 3 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYSIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYHWY 55
I-35
E R
A
M
P
I-3
5
E
I-494
HWY 110 DODD RD49 4 R A M P DELAWARE AVELEXINGTON AVEWENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEPILOT KNOB RDLEXINGTON AVEMay 2, 2017
Legend
Municipal Boundary selection
TIF No. 2 Properties
County Roads
State Highways
272840001080
277520005110277520005160
277520005420
277520005050
277520005070
277520005020277520005421
277520005380
HWY 55HWY 13HWY 55HWY 132180
2164
2160
2160
2160
2160 2160
2160 2146
Dakota County GIS
Larson Properties: 2160 HWY 13PID Nos: 27-75200-05-380 27-75200-05-160 27-75200-05-421 27-75200-05-420 27-75200-05-110 27-75200-05-020 27-75200-05-050 27-75200-05-070
Mendota Hts. Motel: 2180 HWY 13PID No. 27-28400-01-080
0 1 20.5 Miles
Tax Increment Financing District No. 2
City ofMendotaHeights
Municipal Development District No. 1 *City of Mendota HeightsDakota County, Minnesota
* The boundaries of Municipal Development District No. 1 are coterminous with the corporate boundaries of the City of Mendota Heights
Appendix C
Description of Property to be Included in the District
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Address Owner
27-28400-01-080 2180 Highway 13 Bhakta
27-75200-05-020 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-050 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-070 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-110 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-160 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-380 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-420 2160 Highway 13 Larson
27-75200-05-421 2160 Highway 13 Larson
Appendix C-1
Appendix D
Estimated Cash Flow for the District
Appendix D-1
5/16/2017Base Value Assumptions - Page 1Tax Increment Financing District No. 2City of Mendota Heights138 Market Rate ApartmentsASSUMPTIONS AND RATESDistrictType: RedevelopmentDistrict Name/Number:County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt) 0.00%First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2017Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.)Existing District - Specify No. Years RemainingFirst $150,000 1.50%Inflation Rate - Every Year:3.00%Over $150,000 2.00%Interest Rate:4.00%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I) 2.00%Present Value Date:1-Aug-18Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental) 1.25%First Period Ending 1-Feb-19Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental)Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2017First $115,000 0.75%Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development: 2019 Over $115,000 0.25%Years of Tax Increment 26 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit)Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2044 First $500,000 1.00%Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,000 1.25%Incremental or Total Fiscal DisparitiesIncrementalHomestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.)Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio 37.5002% Pay 2017 First $500,000 1.00%Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate 150.0490% Pay 2017 Over $500,000 1.25%Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 92.244% Pay 2017 Agricultural Non-Homestead 1.00%Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.) 92.244% Pay 2017 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes) 45.8020% Pay 2017 Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes) 0.18252% Pay 2017 Building Total Percentage Tax Year Property Current Class AfterLand Market Market Of Value Used Original Original Tax Original After ConversionMap # PID Owner Address Market Value Value Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap.1272840001080Jaykar Bhakta 2180 Hwy 13314,600 24,300 338,900 100% 338,900 Pay 2017 C/I Pref. 6,028 Rental 4,236 12277520005380Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1348,500 100 48,600 100% 48,600 Pay 2017 C/I 972 Rental 608 23277520005160Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1363,400 100 63,500 100% 63,500 Pay 2017 C/I Pref. 953 Rental 794 24277520005421Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1333,600 100 33,700 100% 33,700 Pay 2017 C/I 674 Rental 421 25277520005420Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1353,600 1,000 54,600 100% 54,600 Pay 2017 C/I Pref. 819 Rental 683 26277520005110Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1360,100 108,400 168,500 100% 168,500 Pay 2017 Hmstd. Res. 1,685 Rental 2,106 27277520005020Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1333,600 100 33,700 100% 33,700 Pay 2017 C/I 674 Rental 421 28277520005050Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1350,400 100 50,500 100% 50,500 Pay 2017 C/I Pref. 758 Rental 631 29277520005070Robert C. Larson 2160 Highway 1333,600 100 33,700 100% 33,700 Pay 2017 C/I 674 Rental 421 2691,400 134,300 825,700825,700 13,236 10,321Note:1. Base values are for Pay 2017 based upon review of County website on 5-4-17. 2. Property is located in SD #196, UTA # 2701Area/ PhaseTax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity)Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Mendota Heights\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\TIF No. 2\TIF Runs\TIF Plan Run 5-4-17 - Final
5/16/2017Base Value Assumptions - Page 2Tax Increment Financing District No. 2City of Mendota Heights138 Market Rate ApartmentsEstimated Taxable Total Taxable PropertyPercentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First YearMarket Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full TaxesArea/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./UnitsValue Class Tax CapacityCapacity/Unit 2017 2018 2019 2020 Payable1Apartments 140,000 140,000 69 9,660,000 Rental 120,750 1,750 50% 100% 100% 100% 20202Apartments 140,000 140,000 69 9,660,000 Rental 120,750 1,750 0% 50% 100% 100% 2021TOTAL19,320,000 241,500 Subtotal Residential 138 19,320,000 241,500 Subtotal Commercial/Ind. 0 0 0 Note:1. Market values are based upon estimates from discussions with County Assessor (March 2017).Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide MarketTax Disparities Tax PropertyDisparities PropertyValue Total Taxes PerNew UseCapacityTax CapacityCapacityTaxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Sq. Ft./UnitApartments 120,750 0 120,750 111,385 0 0 17,631 129,016 1,869.80Apartments 120,750 0 120,750 111,385 0 0 17,631 129,016 1,869.80TOTAL 241,500 0 241,500 222,769 0 0 35,263 258,032Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted.Total Property Taxes 258,032Current Market Value - Est. 825,700less State-wide Taxes 0New Market Value - Est. 19,320,000less Fiscal Disp. Adj. 0 Difference 18,494,300less Market Value Taxes (35,263)Present Value of Tax Increment 4,316,971less Base Value Taxes (9,521) Difference 14,177,329Annual Gross TIF 213,249Value likely to occur without Tax Increment is less than:14,177,329MARKET VALUE BUT / FOR ANALYSISTAX CALCULATIONSPROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity) WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF?Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Mendota Heights\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\TIF No. 2\TIF Runs\TIF Plan Run 5-4-17 - Final
5/16/2017Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3Tax Increment Financing District No. 2City of Mendota Heights138 Market Rate ApartmentsTAX INCREMENT CASH FLOWProject Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi-Annual State Admin.Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD% of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present ENDING Tax PaymentOTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 0.36% 10% Increment Value Yrs. Year Date- - - - 02/01/19100% 60,375 (10,321) - 50,054 92.244% 46,172 23,086 (83) (2,300) 20,702 19,899 0.52019 08/01/19100% 60,375 (10,321) - 50,054 92.244% 46,172 23,086 (83) (2,300) 20,702 39,407 12019 02/01/20100% 181,125 (10,321) - 170,804 92.244% 157,556 78,778 (284) (7,849) 70,645 104,672 1.52020 08/01/20100% 181,125 (10,321) - 170,804 92.244% 157,556 78,778 (284) (7,849) 70,645 168,657 22020 02/01/21100% 245,123 (10,321) - 234,801 92.244% 216,590 108,295 (390) (10,791) 97,115 254,892 2.52021 08/01/21100% 245,123 (10,321) - 234,801 92.244% 216,590 108,295 (390) (10,791) 97,115 339,437 32021 02/01/22100% 252,476 (10,321) - 242,155 92.244% 223,373 111,687 (402) (11,128) 100,156 424,919 3.52022 08/01/22100% 252,476 (10,321) - 242,155 92.244% 223,373 111,687 (402) (11,128) 100,156 508,725 42022 02/01/23100% 260,050 (10,321) - 249,729 92.244% 230,360 115,180 (415) (11,477) 103,289 593,458 4.52023 08/01/23100% 260,050 (10,321) - 249,729 92.244% 230,360 115,180 (415) (11,477) 103,289 676,529 52023 02/01/24100% 267,852 (10,321) - 257,531 92.244% 237,557 118,778 (428) (11,835) 106,516 760,516 5.52024 08/01/24100% 267,852 (10,321) - 257,531 92.244% 237,557 118,778 (428) (11,835) 106,516 842,856 62024 02/01/25100% 275,888 (10,321) - 265,566 92.244% 244,969 122,484 (441) (12,204) 109,839 926,101 6.52025 08/01/25100% 275,888 (10,321) - 265,566 92.244% 244,969 122,484 (441) (12,204) 109,839 1,007,713 72025 02/01/26100% 284,164 (10,321) - 273,843 92.244% 252,604 126,302 (455) (12,585) 113,262 1,090,218 7.52026 08/01/26100% 284,164 (10,321) - 273,843 92.244% 252,604 126,302 (455) (12,585) 113,262 1,171,106 82026 02/01/27100% 292,689 (10,321) - 282,368 92.244% 260,467 130,234 (469) (12,976) 116,788 1,252,877 8.52027 08/01/27100% 292,689 (10,321) - 282,368 92.244% 260,467 130,234 (469) (12,976) 116,788 1,333,044 92027 02/01/28100% 301,470 (10,321) - 291,149 92.244% 268,567 134,284 (483) (13,380) 120,420 1,414,083 9.52028 08/01/28100% 301,470 (10,321) - 291,149 92.244% 268,567 134,284 (483) (13,380) 120,420 1,493,533 102028 02/01/29100% 310,514 (10,321) - 300,193 92.244% 276,910 138,455 (498) (13,796) 124,161 1,573,845 10.52029 08/01/29100% 310,514 (10,321) - 300,193 92.244% 276,910 138,455 (498) (13,796) 124,161 1,652,583 112029 02/01/30100% 319,829 (10,321) - 309,508 92.244% 285,503 142,751 (514) (14,224) 128,014 1,732,171 11.52030 08/01/30100% 319,829 (10,321) - 309,508 92.244% 285,503 142,751 (514) (14,224) 128,014 1,810,200 122030 02/01/31100% 329,424 (10,321) - 319,103 92.244% 294,353 147,177 (530) (14,665) 131,982 1,889,069 12.52031 08/01/31100% 329,424 (10,321) - 319,103 92.244% 294,353 147,177 (530) (14,665) 131,982 1,966,393 132031 02/01/32100% 339,307 (10,321) - 328,986 92.244% 303,469 151,735 (546) (15,119) 136,070 2,044,548 13.52032 08/01/32100% 339,307 (10,321) - 328,986 92.244% 303,469 151,735 (546) (15,119) 136,070 2,121,170 142032 02/01/33100% 349,486 (10,321) - 339,165 92.244% 312,859 156,430 (563) (15,587) 140,280 2,198,615 14.52033 08/01/33100% 349,486 (10,321) - 339,165 92.244% 312,859 156,430 (563) (15,587) 140,280 2,274,540 152033 02/01/34100% 359,971 (10,321) - 349,649 92.244% 322,531 161,265 (581) (16,068) 144,616 2,351,279 15.52034 08/01/34100% 359,971 (10,321) - 349,649 92.244% 322,531 161,265 (581) (16,068) 144,616 2,426,512 162034 02/01/35100% 370,770 (10,321) - 360,449 92.244% 332,492 166,246 (598) (16,565) 149,083 2,502,549 16.52035 08/01/35100% 370,770 (10,321) - 360,449 92.244% 332,492 166,246 (598) (16,565) 149,083 2,577,094 172035 02/01/36100% 381,893 (10,321) - 371,572 92.244% 342,753 171,376 (617) (17,076) 153,683 2,652,433 17.52036 08/01/36100% 381,893 (10,321) - 371,572 92.244% 342,753 171,376 (617) (17,076) 153,683 2,726,295 182036 02/01/37100% 393,350 (10,321) - 383,028 92.244% 353,321 176,660 (636) (17,602) 158,422 2,800,942 18.52037 08/01/37100% 393,350 (10,321) - 383,028 92.244% 353,321 176,660 (636) (17,602) 158,422 2,874,124 192037 02/01/38100% 405,150 (10,321) - 394,829 92.244% 364,206 182,103 (656) (18,145) 163,303 2,948,083 19.52038 08/01/38100% 405,150 (10,321) - 394,829 92.244% 364,206 182,103 (656) (18,145) 163,303 3,020,591 202038 02/01/39100% 417,305 (10,321) - 406,983 92.244% 375,418 187,709 (676) (18,703) 168,330 3,093,865 20.52039 08/01/39100% 417,305 (10,321) - 406,983 92.244% 375,418 187,709 (676) (18,703) 168,330 3,165,703 212039 02/01/40100% 429,824 (10,321) - 419,503 92.244% 386,966 193,483 (697) (19,279) 173,508 3,238,299 21.52040 08/01/40100% 429,824 (10,321) - 419,503 92.244% 386,966 193,483 (697) (19,279) 173,508 3,309,471 222040 02/01/41100% 442,719 (10,321) - 432,397 92.244% 398,861 199,430 (718) (19,871) 178,841 3,381,393 22.52041 08/01/41100% 442,719 (10,321) - 432,397 92.244% 398,861 199,430 (718) (19,871) 178,841 3,451,904 232041 02/01/42100% 456,000 (10,321) - 445,679 92.244% 411,112 205,556 (740) (20,482) 184,334 3,523,157 23.52042 08/01/42100% 456,000 (10,321) - 445,679 92.244% 411,112 205,556 (740) (20,482) 184,334 3,593,012 242042 02/01/43100% 469,680 (10,321) - 459,359 92.244% 423,731 211,865 (763) (21,110) 189,992 3,663,599 24.52043 08/01/43100% 469,680 (10,321) - 459,359 92.244% 423,731 211,865 (763) (21,110) 189,992 3,732,803 252043 02/01/44100% 483,770 (10,321) - 473,449 92.244% 436,728 218,364 (786) (21,758) 195,820 3,802,730 25.52044 08/01/44100% 483,770 (10,321) - 473,449 92.244% 436,728 218,364 (786) (21,758) 195,820 3,871,287 262044 02/01/45 Total7,759,427 (27,934) (773,149) 6,958,344 Present Value From 08/01/2018 Present Value Rate 4.00% 4,316,971 (15,541) (430,143) 3,871,287 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates OnlyN:\Minnsota\Mendota Heights\Housing - Economic - Redevelopment\TIF\TIF Districts\TIF No. 2\TIF Runs\TIF Plan Run 5-4-17 - Final
Appendix E
Minnesota Business Assistance Form
(Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development)
A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's
activity by April 1 of the following year.
Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms.
Appendix E-1
Appendix F
Redevelopment Qualifications for the District
To be added to prior to the public hearing
Appendix F-1
Appendix G
Findings Including But/For Qualifications
To be added to prior to the public hearing
But-For Analysis
Current Market Value 838,700
New Market Value - Estimate 19,320,000
Difference 18,481,300
Present Value of Tax Increment 4,314,609
Difference 14,166,691
Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 14,166,691
Appendix G-1