2017-04-25 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
April 25, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approve February 28, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2017-04: Randy & Becky Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court,
Conditional Use Permit for Over-Sized Garage in the R-1 Zone
6. General Planning Items
a. Discussion of 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (presented by Phil Carlson,
AICP, Stantec)
b. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Freestanding/Pylon
Type Signs in the B1 Limited Business and B1-A Business Park Districts
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.
Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 28, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
28, 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, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
Mary Magnuson.
The following city staff were present: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Phil
Carlson, Consultant Planner (Stantec); and Tim Benetti, Community Development Director.
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field proposed that the agenda be revised by moving Public Hearing Case No. 2017-03 from
being heard third to being heard first. The agenda was approved as amended.
Approval of January 24, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Administrative Items
This was not listed on the agenda; however, every February the Commission welcomes new
members. Chair Field was pleased to note that the commission this year is made up of the same
members as last year.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
NOMINATE LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2017.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
NOMINATE DOUG HENNES AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
2017.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Page 3
Hearings
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-03
HOLY FAMILY MARONITE CHURCH, 1960 LEXINGTON AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that Holy Family Maronite Church at 1960
Lexington Avenue wishes to make two small additions to their existing church facility. The
commission is being asked to consider the impact on the neighborhood that this conditional use,
as opposed to a permitted use, might have on the neighborhood.
The existing church occupies the western part of the lot, which is a relatively large lot considering
it is a single-family neighborhood. The parking lot occupies most of the lot. Mr. Carlson shared an
image of the site plan with the proposed additions. The two proposed additions would be relatively
small and one story. There would be no change to the sanctuary or the main assembly space.
Therefore, there would be no change to the required parking spaces.
Looking at the existing church and what is being proposed, Mr. Carlson stated that the additions
are relatively minor and small. It is of the opinion that they would not have a significant impact on
the site or on the surroundings.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Craig Rafferty of RRTL Architects located at 253 E. 7th Street, St. Paul came forward to
address any questions from the Commission. He noted that the church is, and wants to continue to
be, a very good neighbor. They have enjoyed their relationship with all of their neighbors in the
area. The summary provided by Mr. Carlson was spot-on in the sense that this is a relatively
innocent addition but it means an awful lot to the church. This would provide them the opportunity
to expand their counseling areas, their dining area, and coordinate their administrative space.
Mr. Bob Klepperich, 1092 Vale Drive, is the closest neighbor to the church, his property being
directly north of the church. He stated that the church has been a great neighbor; has been fortunate
to meet members of their congregation; and has had frequent visits with Father Emmanuel, the
pastor and on occasion, participated in the church’s liturgy. He has no problem endorsing the
project, which has become before the commission. Father Emmanuel reviewed the project with
him and he sees a definite need for this type of expansion. For the record, he has only one concern,
which he does not believe will be a problem. There is a definite water table problem in the area.
The plan does not call for any basement work or excavation work, as the Father has explained it
to him, so he does not feel that this would be a problem. He is hopeful that this project would not
negatively affect the water table.
Mr. Rafferty returned and noted that they were aware of, through the discussions with the planning
office, and modest provisions have been made within the reach of this project to adapt the drainage
Page 4
swell and to create a more absorbent series of surfaces as it contributes to a nearby catch basin.
Otherwise, the ponding areas within the parking area are all being directed to a more distant area
from the neighbor’s property within the limits of the project.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The use is existing and has been a good neighbor in this location in this zoning district for
many years.
2. The existing church use is on a busy corner and not in the middle of a quiet residential area.
3. The proposed additions are modest is size and will have minimal impact on activity, traffic,
noise, or other issues that might affect the neighborhood.
4. The proposed project will meet all zoning code standards for setbacks, building height and
number of parking stalls.
5. The proposed grading and drainage plan poses no concerns to the City Engineer.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant will submit grading plans, subject to review and approval of the Engineering
Department as part of any building permit application.
2. The applicant will submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning
Department, as part of any building permit application.
3. All new exterior lighting will be downcast cutoff type fixtures to be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 7, 2017 meeting.
A) PLANNING CASE #2016-41
JERRY TROOIEN, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP explained that the application was for a Critical Area
Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The critical area is that portion of the City that is on or near
the bluff of the Mississippi River Valley. The property at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway is a
Page 5
fairly large rectangular single-family residential parcel of approximately five acres. The property,
as noted in the packet and as some of the commissioners may remember, received an approval for
a lot split in 2014; so there is a second single-family lot that will be permitted to be built upon,
which will show up on the plans later.
Any significant development or disturbance of the critical area requires a critical area permit. Mr.
Trooien originally proposed last fall to clear buckthorn and some other trees that were diseased
and dying on the property. When staff went to look at that piece of property, they discovered that
there had been some work done on the property in the previous year. Mr. Carlson then shared an
image of the property with the proposed building site, the area in this request to be cleared, and
the area graded without a permit highlighted. In that fall, that application was continued until a
more sophisticated and complete plan could be prepared.
Mr. Trooien retained the services of a landscape architect, Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP
of Landscape Architecture, Inc., who was present at this meeting, and who worked with the
applicant and city staff to develop that plan. Because this was unfolding last fall, Mr. Mastey
approached city staff and requested permission to at least secure the site for the winter so that the
spring thaw would not contribute to erosion down the hill. He was given that permission and the
erosion control measures were installed. Therefore, the site was secured over the winter.
As part of this application, Mr. Trooien is asking for to do some work in grading, tree removal,
and reseeding and replanting of the property, mostly in the area of this new home lot. Most of the
Commissioners and city staff went out last Saturday morning (February 25th) and walked the site
with Mr. Trooien and Mr. Mastey so they could explain the kind of work that is being proposed
and the nature of the area.
The critical area has a special code on it because it is a unique environment with a unique feature
that needs to be preserved, protected, and enhanced. Mr. Mastey’s analysis revealed that there is a
lot of scrub material, buckthorn, invasive species of trees, and dead and dying trees located on the
property. Therefore, some kind of work on the property is appropriate and reasonable.
Mr. Carlson shared an image of the previously disturbed area and explained that it is to be re-
graded with the native seed mix so that when it comes up it would be native and appropriate for
this area, as well as adding in native species of trees.
In tandem with this plan they are looking forward to when this second lot could be built on. Again,
it is an approved lot split, a home will go there; however, disturbance in the critical area requires
review and city approval. Mr. Carlson then explained the intended location of the driveway and
building pad and, in the process of that, create a depression that would be a drainage area, filtration
pond, which would overflow into another depression and infiltration area inside the driveway
turnaround, that would in turn flow to a lower part of the site. It is a plan that would enhance and
protect the drainage on the site and at the same time create this new home site.
Also included in this plan is a proposal to move the proposed building pad for a new house well
away from the neighboring property to the east. In the original approval, in 2014 for the lot split,
this building pad was approved within 20 feet of the lot line. It is now being placed about 60 feet
Page 6
away from that lot line. This is a significant improvement to the overall site planning and
relationships to the area and will improve the drainage on the site.
A key component of this is to try to preserve the character of the area and the river valley. Right
now, most of that area is comprised of invasive species and so the plan is to remove buckthorn and
to selectively remove some of the dead and dying elm and other trees that are non-native to the
area and replacing them with native trees.
Staff recommended approval of this application. To that tend, Mr. Carlson read the first condition
of approval as, “Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional.
Removal of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos
accompanying the application.” He then continued by stating that there would be new drawings
prepared because there is recommendation for an added area to be able to remove buckthorn.
Therefore, Mr. Carlson would be adding a phrase here that would be ‘drawings prepared by whom
and on specific dates’ so everyone knows exactly what drawings are being referred to. It is the
intent of all involved to have these preparers and dates included by the time this application would
reach the City Council, if approval were recommended by the commission.
As further definition, Mr. Carlson explained that the applicant was proposing is that they be
allowed to remove buckthorn on the entire property, not just on the confined area around the new
building pad; and remove invasive non-native trees that are smaller than 3” in diameter. The larger
trees would not be removed, except for those that are in the building pad area.
The next five conditions would remain the same; however, based on this additional work, staff
would add two new conditions seven and eight:
6. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the
grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be determined
by the City Engineer.
8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of three years from the date of
installation.
Chair Field noted that this is a public hearing that was held open from a prior meeting and is a
continuation. He also noted that under the extension that was authorized by the applicant, the City
has until June to act on this request.
Commissioner Roston asked for clarification that the lot split has already been approved and
completed. Mr. Carlson replied that this is correct. The only item under consideration is the Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Petschel requested Mr. Carlson to review the constraints with respect to the removal
of vegetation. Mr. Carlson replied that the Landscape Plan is only in the previously disturbed area.
The removal of trees would be in the other area that was originally defined; to remove buckthorn
and the large trees because the grading and such for the new home pad would remove those and
many those, as noted, are invasive species.
Page 7
They are now asking to try to take a larger view of the whole property and remove buckthorn on
the entire property and if there are invasive trees that are no larger than 3” in diameter, to remove
those too. Invasive trees larger than 3” in diameter would remain so there would be no removal of
the high canopy.
Commissioner Noonan noted that in the added phrase to Condition #1, those plans that are being
prepared would define what is being removed. He then asked if it would also define what is being
replaced. Mr. Carlson replied that what is being replaced are already outlined in the plans. The
plans will also define the extent of the removal. The plans would be agreed upon between the City
Engineer, the City Planner, and the applicant. The plans also would not come before the City
Council until approved by all.
Chair Field noted for the record that staff did properly advertise a site visit last Saturday (February
25, 2017) and all but one commissioner was present. It was merely a fact-finding visit to the
property since it is somewhat restricted access so they could get a complete appreciation of the
site.
Mr. Stephen Mastey, ASLA, LEED AP of Landscape Architecture, Inc. came forward and
reiterated that the summary provided by Mr. Carlson clearly stated the intent. The additional fact-
finding exercise was held so the commission could actually get to the site, see what is there, and
understand the highly degraded woodland that is there. The intent of trying to flip that over and
work toward something 50 to 100 years from now more closely resembles a pre-European
settlement with native forest, whether that is thick woods or oak savannahs.
He provided a couple of clarifications by sharing an image and pointing out on that image the
grading limits. There are three parts to this request; re-vegetation, request to remove and re-grade
to start to set the stage, and to look at the entire property that is overrun with buckthorn. They are
not only requesting permission to address the invasive that are in the area that has been disturbed
and where the new house pad is proposed to be, but to work out from that point and remove any
buckthorn and other invasive that are less than 3” in diameter. They desire is to create more healthy
woodland.
Chair Field asked for Mr. Mastey’s professional opinion on whether or not Mr. Trooien would
need to make special precautions during the removal of the buckthorn and other invasive species
so as to not degradate the slope and create some potential erosion problems. Mr. Mastey replied
that they would be taking a two-phase approach; cut the trees down at grade leaving the entire root
system intact and using Minnesota Department of Agriculture approved chemicals that would kill
the buckthorn. They do not wish to disturb the soil at all. Then as these plants start to die back, the
vegetation that is still there would take up the extra air and sunlight and fill in. Hopefully, they
will start to see some of those species, even some of those things as simple as Ash trees start to
reseed now that there is some light. This is a cautious approach by not disturbing the understory
and leaving the root system in place.
Commissioner Petschel noted that the final grading as demonstrated in the staff report does not
seem to be reflected in the landscape plan. Mr. Mastey replied that there were three ways they
Page 8
could entertain what they are requesting. Firstly, look at what needs to be done to restore the area
that has been disturbed. He wanted to clearly delineate, at the very least, that this needed to be
addressed. So it was left as is. Secondly, moving into the larger area, they are assuming that as this
is developed and they put final construction documents together there will need to be native
seeding that is similar in character to what was being suggested in the disturbed area except to
move more towards woodland species that do a better job in lower sunlight situations. There may
also be some additional trees that are planted but right now they just wanted to get over this hump
and then they could work with the City and what their requirements might be for single-family lots
for landscape requirements, etc.
Ms. Maxine Bergh, 996 Caren Court, explained that her property backs onto Mr. Trooien’s
property. At the present time, there are two stakes visible from her kitchen: one on her lot line and
the second where the building pad was originally intended to be. She asked if the movement of the
building pad farther away from the lot line has been carved in stone. According to the drawing she
saw, it appears that the impervious driveway surface will be very close to her property. She wanted
to ensure that the Commission is cognizant of this because they have lived in this neighborhood
for more than 40 years and love it. She understands that nothing is guaranteed but is understandably
concerned about what happens behind them.
Mr. Carlson returned and stated that the original building pad during the lot split was shown to be
about 20 feet from the lot line. That is what is staked on the site. All of the split lot is below Ms.
Bergh’s property. With this approval and plan then the new home would be placed about 60 feet
from her lot instead of 20 feet. Then what is next to her lot would be partly a driveway but it would
be below her view, down the slope, and flat to the ground at that point.
Commissioner Noonan stated that once a formal proposal is made for a home, it would be brought
before the Commission for consideration and a second critical area application.
Commissioner Roston stated that it appears that most of the homes in her neighborhood are roughly
the same distance apart from each other as she would be from the new lot. This proposal does not
appear to be changing that. Ms. Bergh agreed; however, they are used to woods and love it. When
she looks at this proposal and sees the location of the proposed driveway she sees quite a change
in her view. She just wants everyone to know that she is paying attention.
Mr. George Bergh, 996 Caren Court, said that he appreciates the effort that the 60-foot setback
from their lot line and it appears that it is documented. Obviously there is some flexibility in
development; however, he was unclear on just how close to his lot line the driveway would be. He
understands that it would be below their profile because of the berm.
Mr. Carlson replied that the driveway would be approximately 20 feet from the lot line. Just about
the same place as the previous location of the building pad.
Mr. Bergh asked for clarification, as it appears that, on the plans in the staff report, the dotted line
extends over onto his property. The response was that the line Mr. Bergh was referring to were
contour lines of the existing grading and was not boundary lines in any of the plans.
Page 9
Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, stated that he liked the changes that were proposed both in
terms of moving of the building pad but also the vegetation plans. He asked about the grading
limits and how far does that have to be from the property line. The response was that there are not
setback requirements for a grading permit.
He then noted that this property has had somewhat of a checkered past and part of the resolution
was to have a complete plan before moving forward on approving the permit. It does appear to be
very good and complete, except for this Prepared By X on Date X. Given the history of this
property this leaves him very uncomfortable. He believes this should be completed before any
approval is provided, as a ‘complete plan’ was what was agreed upon.
Chair Field noted that one of the clarifications received from Mr. Carlson was that this would be
completed before it goes before the City Council for final review and possible approval. In effect,
the commission is granting staff some latitude to come up with a plan to go to the City Council
and still move this along.
Commissioner Noonan replied that the commission is only making a recommendation; the City
Council ultimately makes the decision that all the “i’s” are dotted and “t’s” crossed.
Ms. Alice Chapman, 1011 James Court, noted that her concern was the plan to clean out the total
property of buckthorn and trees that may be like 20 feet or less in height. She just purchased her
property a year ago and one of the selling points was the privacy behind her property. If they
remove all of those trees there will be no privacy.
Commissioner Noonan requested clarification from staff that any of the work that is being
proposed is not on the Trooien lot – the existing Trooien lot where the house is – but rather on the
lot on the north side of the Trooien house and therefore would not affect Ms. Chapman’s view.
Before staff could answer Ms. Chapman noted that she just heard was that they wanted to have
permission to do the entire property.
Chair Field replied that the request if not to remove every tree 20 feet or less in height; it is only
certain invasive species that are not natural that have evolved there over time.
Commissioner Petschel further clarified that the trees would be 3” or less in diameter, not less than
20 feet in height.
Mr. Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, came forward and asked for a quick education
on the added condition #7; “A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on
site to ensure the grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be
determined by the City Engineer.”
Mr. Carlson replied that this condition was added since there is a significant amount of work to be
done on this property and there is going to be material removed and then material replaced,
including the native seed mix and including a number of new trees. Worst-case scenario, he gets
halfway through the project and disappears. The City needs to know, and the neighbors need to
Page 10
know, that work will be completed. It is like any other project where there is a guarantee and
assurance necessary.
Mr. Trooien stated that no one is required to provide letters of credit to get their work done – that
is between them and their contractor. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the applicant
is requesting to disturb up to five acres for invasive species removal. In development situation, the
City typically requires a Letter of Credit for the landscaping portion of that project, which is
usually 125% to 150% of the value of the landscaping work. Mr. Trooien asked if an infrastructure
being built is asked to provide a Letter of Credit for their landscaping work.
Chair Field replied that five acres is typically for more than one home; although in this case it is
for one home; it is a five-acre site in the critical area and that was staff’s recommendation. The
commission saw this for the first time this evening and they will have a discussion about it now
that Mr. Trooien has voiced his concern. Mr. Trooien stated that he feels like this is singling him
out and is onerous and unusual.
Mr. Carlson indicated that it is an unusual situation; however, this is in an unusual location. Mr.
Trooien is probably right that a homeowner in another part of Mendota Heights no one would care
because if someone were to take down a tree and not replant it – that is just part of being in a
suburban environment. Here in the critical area the commission, City Council, and the neighbors
want to know that this work will be completed and when it is completed then that Letter of Credit
or bond is relinquished.
Mr. Trooien then asked is everyone who lives between the river and Highway 110 going to be
asked to submit a Letter of Credit if they are doing work in their yard. Chair Field replied that it in
part due to the size of the lot. However, it can be debated all evening. The commission will make
the decision and they appreciated his comments.
Commissioner Noonan noted that he believes that it also has to bear the fact that it is an after-the-
fact approval that is being asked. They are looking to restore something that was removed without
the necessary approvals. He recalled a similar situation in the critical area where the commission
came forward and it was done without the necessary approvals and a letter of credit was also asked
at that time as well.
Mr. Mastey returned and noted that they are aware that it is five acres they are requesting to remove
buckthorn from. This gives Mr. Trooien the ability to sit in his backyard and think about at what
point do you pull it out or not; that is why they did not specify it in the plan because part of it is
standing on the site and making sense of it. To that point, one of the overlying things to be thought
about is if they do not remove the buckthorn then all they will have is buckthorn at some point in
time in the future. They are trying to come in and have a balance where they start to set the stage
where they have some larger trees starting to regenerate so that 50 or 100 years from now they
actually have something on this property other than buckthorn.
His second point was that in developing Parcel B, where would the best spot be for the house.
They looked at the lot real close and thought about a couple of layouts; and thought about the
details of the house. Commissioner Roston pointed out that this is not the venue for discussing the
Page 11
house detail, as the commission is not making a decision today on that issue. The point was that
he and Mr. Trooien made a thoughtful analysis of where the best place for the house would be.
This is why they pushed the house further away from the lot line because 20 feet away did not
make sense.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Because staff made some changes in terms of the recommendations and the commission did not
have that in their packet, Chair Field requested Mr. Carlson to put the revised recommendation on
the overhead. Mr. Carlson complied.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-41, AFTER-THE-FACT CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The property is within the Critical Area and subject to code requirements of the Critical
Area Overlay District.
2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical
Area, if done carefully and professionally.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Removal of trees and underbrush will be performed by a qualified professional. Removal
of vegetation is confined to the area and the vegetation defined on drawings and photos
accompanying the application. These [specific] drawings were prepared by [whom] on
[specific date(s)].
2. Erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place during grading and construction
activities.
3. Grading and landscape work will be performed by a qualified professional.
4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
5. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work
will require a new Critical Area Permit.
6. If and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, utility plans will be required for review
and approval by the City Engineer.
7. A bond or letter of credit will be required for all work performed on site to ensure the
grading, planting, and landscaping is completed as approved in an amount to be
determined by the City Engineer.
8. All plant materials to be warranted for a minimum of two years from the date of
installation.
Page 12
In his motion, Commissioner Noonan also requested an amendment of Condition #6 that reads, “If
and when a new home is proposed on Parcel B, all building, grading and landscape work will
require a new Critical Area Permit.” He requested that “all grading, stormwater management, and
utility plans” be added as this would add an additional level of detail to alleviate the concerns of
the neighbors.
Commissioner Petschel asked about the bond requirement. The only way it made sense to him is
if the grading would somehow undermine the integrity of the hill and staff would want to ensure
that it was secured to prevent any sort of catastrophic erosion if it wasn’t completed. Chair Field
did not agree completely with this observation. Staff would want to have it completed as a
condition of the plan. A lot of times with landscaping, particularly in the critical area, it does not
take and there needs to be some way to remedy it not taking and have the ability to enforce someone
coming in to complete it. That is not to say that Mr. Trooien wouldn’t; it is just a common practice
to address the concern by, in this case the City, to make sure there is a remedy there.
Commissioner Roston noted that there is a process in place that Mr. Mastey has outlined very well.
They are removing old material, grading the site, reseeding with a native mix, planting new trees
and it is a process that will happen over the course of some time. Staff and the city want to ensure
all of that is done. If there is an interruption for whatever reason in the middle of that no wants to
be left with a hillside that is half done and the city needs to make sure that it can be completed.
This is why a bond or letter of credit is required on many kinds of projects.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application after the work has been done
with staff to prepare the necessary documentations.
B) PLANNING CASE #2016-43
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DOMESTIC CHICKEN ORDINANCE
Chair Litton Field explained that the item under consideration is a revised draft ordinance for
domestic chickens. He asked for confirmation that the commission closed the public hearing at the
last meeting and directed staff to work towards a proposed ordinance for the commission to review.
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP replied that he recalled the direction from staff but did not
recollect the closing of the public hearing. There were people in attendance interested in this topic
if the commission wished to hear from them.
Chair Field read the minutes of the last meeting and confirmed that the public hearing was closed.
At this time, Mr. Carlson quickly reviewed the edits made to the draft ordinance per the requests
made by the commission at their last meeting. Those changes being:
Page 13
• Section 5-3-10: Add some enforcement capacity to the warden to be the same or similar
to the zoning enforcement officer
• Section 12-1B-2: no changes were proposed
• Section 12-1D-3C
o The run should have a ‘minimum’ of five square feet per chicken
o The height should be the typical standard rise and run if the eave height is seven feet
o The lot setbacks should be 10 feet from the side yard lot line and 10 feet from the rear
o Construction of and materials used must be adequate to prevent access by rodents
[substitute a different term to encompass other animals and rodents]
o Remove the reference to screening
o Under Fecal Waste or Litter: remove “or composted provided the method used and
the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue”
o Add language that any accessory structure erected after the issuance of this bylaw
shall not be used for the purposes of a chicken coops
o Add language allowing for the revocation of the permit
Commissioner Hennes asked if the Council had discussed this at all since the commissions last
meeting. Mr. Carlson replied in the negative and noted that Council had discussed this at their
January 3, 2017 meeting and directed the commission to prepare an ordinance for them to review.
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-43, DOMESTIC CHICKEN
ORDINANCE
AYES: 4 (Hennes, Costello, Petschel, Field)
NAYS: 2 (Roston, Noonan)
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Verbal Review
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2017-01
DBG, LLC, 1919 HUNTER LANE
LOT SPLIT & CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2017-02
MARK GERGEN, 697 WESLEY LANE
LOT SPLIT
• Twice requested to be continued by the applicant
Staff and Commission Announcements
Chair Field noted that he was remiss at the start of the meeting to welcome Mr. Timothy Benetti
as the new Community Development Director.
Page 14
Mr. Benetti noted that it has been a steep learning curve this last week. He was born and raised in
a small farming community in north-central Iowa, went to school there and went to grad school in
Nebraska. His wife is from the New Brighton area; they are currently living in Woodbury and have
four kids. He just came from the City of Brooklyn Center as their City Planner for approximately
six years, prior to that he worked in other communities in Iowa and in the metro. He also had the
pleasure to work with City Administrator Mark McNeill approximately 20 years ago. He has
worked with Mr. Carlson, who was his mentor in 2002 when he took over for the City Director
position in the City of Vadnais Heights. He is looking forward to working with everyone on the
Comprehensive Plan coming up.
Chair Field also expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Planning Commission to Mr. Carlson
for pitch hitting since October 2016 and being the city’s contract planner. He has done a fine job
of stepping in.
Chair Field asked if a work plan has been created in or is taking form for the work coming up on
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carlson replied that his organization, Stantec, did put together a
proposal that Mr. Nolan Wall, previous City Planner, brought to the commission and got approved
in the weeks before he left. A background report has been created and they will be picking that
back up and the commission will hear about it soon.
Chair Field noted that this is an important initiative and he encouraged residents to be engaged and
participate in this process, as it will set a pattern for many issues in the coming decade.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:22 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson)
Page 15
Request for Planning Commission Action
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-04
Conditional Use Permit – 815 Deer Trail Court
Applicant – Randy & Becky Pentel
Introduction
The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to a conditional use permit to allow the construction of
a 20-foot wide garage addition to an existing three-car attached garage. The subject property is located at
815 Deer Trail Court.
Background
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, a conditional use permit is required for the
construction of an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, with a maximum square footage of 1,500
square feet. The proposed garage addition would bring the total garage space on the property to
approximately 1,500 square feet. The submitted application includes the attached garage addition and
survey of the property. The proposed use complies with the standard of review for conditional use permits
and should be compatible with the overall intent of the Single Family Residential Zoning District.
Discussion
The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests
and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code
standards is required.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation
to the City Council.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
Page 17
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-04
Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Randy and Becky Pentel
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 815 Deer Trail Court
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: June 2, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 20-foot wide garage
addition to an existing three-car attached garage. The subject property is located at 815 Deer Trail Court.
Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C. provides for attached garages “more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up
to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet” to be allowed via a conditional use permit.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were
mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The Pentel’s residence is located at the end of Deer Trail Court, immediately off Wachtler Avenue. The
property consists of 0.67 acres and contains a two-story, 4,670 sq. ft. dwelling, with a 784 sq. ft. three-car
attached garage. The Pentel’s also own the vacant 0.53 acre parcel to the east. (See aerial images below)
Page 18
The Pentel’s are seeking to provide additional garage and storage space for their personal vehicles and
equipment. They stated the current garage is somewhat limited in depth for parking personal cars inside
their garage, and the added garage will help provide the space they desire. The existing 784 sf. attached
garage is shown by the blue-outline in the image below.
The proposed garage addition will take place along the east side of the garage (see survey image below).
The setbacks from the easterly wall edges are indicated with a 23.9 ft. setback from the front structure
corner and a 30.1-ft. setback from the northeasterly most structure corner.
The Pentel’s intend to add 689 sq. ft. of garage, for a total of 1,473 sq. ft., which is illustrated by the light-
yellow shaded region in the image below:
Page 19
The plans submitted by the applicant also included a reference to excavate the entire footprint area
underneath the garage and install concrete panels (often called “Span Crete”) to serve as the new garage
floor. Plans call for owner to provide a new access-way from the lower level of the home into this new
lower level garage/storage space.
It appears the garage layout plans do not quite match-up to the submitted survey, as the layout plan includes
a 4 foot additional bump-out to the rear of the existing and planned garage addition. Although this
additional space is not shown on the survey, it does not detract from the overall intent of the application,
affects the analysis contained herein, or negates the continued processing of this conditional use permit.
Page 20
ANALYSIS
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request; the
following are 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, the following standards 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.
• Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed garage addition qualifies as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district and would remain
compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to city approvals.
• Conditional Use Permit
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C., any attached garage “more than one thousand two hundred (1,200)
up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet” can be allowed only by means of a conditional use
permit. Because of the requested 689 sq. ft. addition to the existing 784 sq. ft. attached garage structure,
the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for its construction.
The current garage contains a 16-foot wide (double) overhead door, along with a 9-foot, single-wide
overhead door for the “third stall.”
Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C. contains the added standard regulating the size and number of garage doors:
“No more than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door per structure, measured horizontally, may
be installed to provide access to any private garage or other accessory building space on a single-
or two-family residential property. More than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door may be
provided by conditional use permit when such additional garage door exposure is not visible from
a public street or from surrounding residential property.”
The applicant’s plans indicate they intend to remove the smaller 9 foot (3rd stall) door, and replace with two
16-ft. wide by 8-ft. high overhead doors in the existing opening and a new opening to the expanded garage
area, with an approximate 10-foot separation between both doors.
As mentioned earlier, plans call for the full excavation of the lower level underneath the garage and plans
also calling for the construction of an upper addition to the home, which ties into the upper level of the
existing dwelling. Staff assumes this upper area will be used for additional living or storage space by the
homeowners, while the lower level (underneath the garage space) will be used for miscellaneous use or
household storage only. No part of this excavated or lower space can be used for storage of vehicles or
recreational equipment. No outside doors will be allowed to the rear or side yard areas.
The plans indicate the exterior materials of the proposed garage will be consistent with the existing dwelling
materials, including new brick veneer and stucco exterior materials.
Page 21
• Conclusions
For all intents and purposes, this expanded garage structure should make a nice addition to the existing
dwelling, and will offer adequate means to providing additional storage of vehicles, equipment and personal
livable space for the homeowners. The fact the owners possess the wooded adjacent lot to the east helps
diminish any perceived negative impacts to neighboring properties and helps lessen the views from adjacent
roadways.
City staff believes the proposed 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 the proposed use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
In preparation of this report, there have been no inquiries, concerns or complaints raised by neighbors
related to this request. Staff found no reasons to preclude the homeowners from developing this new garage
addition as planned, or discovered any evidence the proposed garage use will be contrary to the standards
of review for conditional use permits listed above. Staff therefore, believes the use may be considered
compatible with the intent of the One Family (single-family) Zoning District and may be approved.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use
is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, with conditions.
OR
2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit 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 Conditional Use Permit to construct a new garage addition to the existing
attached garage structure in the R-1 One Family District, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use
is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
and subject to 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Aerial site map
2. Planning applications, including supporting materials
Page 22
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit Request for Over-Sized Attached Garage
815 Deer Trail Court
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 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.
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
815 Deer Trail Court
Property Information
April 20, 2017
0 110 22055 ft
0 30 6015 m
1:1,200
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 25, 2017
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
Re: Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Last fall the City retained Stantec to assist with the update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. We
initiated the process and began our background research just as the previous planner left in
October for a different job, and I stepped in (as you know) to assist with day-to-day planning
activities until Tim Benetti started in February of this year.
Much of the background research for the Comp Plan continued but the full process of working
with the Planning Commission and community on the Plan was put on hold. Now we are starting
in again.
The attached materials summarize the background report we are preparing and includes the
Background Report: Market and Development Context prepared by Tangible Consulting, our
subconsultant on the project.
I will make a brief presentation of this material at the April 25 Planning Commission meeting and
invite your questions and comments. Then the process will pick up steam into the summer and
fall as we review goals, prepare for a community meeting to review this information and move
into next year to prepare the new plan.
Page 33
Background Report:
Market and Development Context
In support of:
2040 Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan
Prepared for:
City of Mendota Heights, MN
December 2016
Prepared by:
Tangible Consulting Services
Stantec, Inc
Page 34
C ONTENT S
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Residential Market Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Retail Market Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Employment Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Industrial Market Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Office Market Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Page 35
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this background report is to outline the economic context that will shape the future in Mendota
Heights. It overviews the unique housing and economic base that characterizes the city and provides analysis of
opportunities and challenges for Mendota Heights.
The report supports the Mendota Heights 2040 comprehensive and long-range planning process that will establish
goals for future redevelopment and policy decisions in Mendota Heights. This report is based on several types of
information: market research, a review of existing reports, interviews with local developers and real estate
professionals, and direct observation.
Mendota Heights is a fully developed suburb. While that status limits opportunities for new development, there is a
need to stay viable and attractive as the demographics of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area shift. The
population is growing, it is aging, and more households will be renters. Choices about purchasing and employment will
also evolve. Decisions about housing redevelopment, retail support and location, and office and employment
opportunities will influence Mendota Heights’ character as a desirable place to live.
This report considers the housing, retail, industrial and office development sectors. It looks at regional trends, as well
as conditions in Mendota Heights. It evaluates strengths and weaknesses of Mendota Heights locations with respect
to these development sectors, and evaluates opportunities for additional growth and development.
As the Mendota Heights comprehensive planning process progresses, the analysis and findings in this report will serve
to inform decision-making. They will be further modified and augmented through the process of developing the
comprehensive plan, based on discussion with policymakers, stakeholders, and others.
Page 36
Residential Market Context
Existing Conditions
Mendota Heights is a fully developed first-ring suburb.
Its abundance of open space, lakes and wooded areas
give it a distinctly suburban and in some areas rural
feel. Yet its central location gives it excellent access to
downtown St. Paul and the greater metropolitan area.
Housing in Mendota Heights is predominantly single
family. Eighty percent of residential land is guided for
low density housing, with an allowed 2.9 housing
units/acre. (Source: 2030 Comprehensive Plan) Nine
percent is guided rural residential which allows 1.1
units/acre. The remaining 11% of residential land is
guided for medium to high density housing.
Around 70% of existing housing units are single family
homes. Roughly 15% are townhomes, and 15% are in
apartment buildings.
Owner occupied housing predominates. Less than 15%
of housing units are renter occupied.
Single family housing. Residential neighborhoods
throughout the City are strong. Homes are generally
well maintained. The great majority were built in the
last 50 years, as illustrated in the map below. A smaller
number of homes are older than that, and go back to
the late 1800s and early 1900s. They are scattered
throughout the community, but most are in the
northeast area.
Housing Development by Decade:
Single Family Homes and Townhomes
Source: Mendota Heights Assessor Data
Homes in Mendota Heights are valued markedly higher
than that of homes in neighboring communities, or
homes in the Metropolitan Area as a whole. The
median value of a single family home in Mendota
Heights in 2015 was approximately $360,000. High
home values are correlated with the higher household
incomes that are typical in Mendota Heights.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Census 1990
Census 2000
Estimates 2010
Estimates 2015
Mendota Heights Housing Types
Single Family Homes Townhomes
Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex Multifamily (5 units or more)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1990
2000
2010
ACS 2011-2015
Mendota Heights Housing Tenure
Owner occupied Renter occupied Vacant
Page 37
Source: American Community Survey, 2011-2015
Market Value:
Single Family Homes and Townhomes
Source: Mendota Heights Assessor Data
The map of homes by value shows a similar pattern to
the map of homes by age. Higher value homes tend to
be in the neighborhoods that were developed most
recently.
Multifamily housing. Although single family housing
predominates in Mendota Heights, the city offers some
townhome communities, as well as a few apartment
and condominium buildings. There are four existing
apartment developments in Mendota Heights. Three
are for seniors. One is for general occupancy.
An additional four-story apartment building with 139
units is being developed in the Hwy 110/Dodd Road
area.
Residential Context Map
Source: Mendota Heights Assessor Data
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Median Home Value
Page 38
Housing Needs
Mendota Heights’ housing stock of mostly single family,
owner-occupied homes is valued by City residents, and
is a good fit for upper income, family households. It
offers more limited options, however, for a range of
other household types.
With a metropolitan household that is aging and
diversifying, the interest in a broader set of housing
choices will increase. Broadening the housing types
available in Mendota Heights may be beneficial for
attracting younger couples and families, and providing
opportunities for older residents who are transitioning
from large single family homes.
Few opportunities are similarly available for the
moderate to average income households that may
serve as teachers in the City’s schools, or be employed
in some of the City’s industrial businesses. The
following two chart show the affordability of the City’s
existing housing, and the number of housing units that
are publicly subsidized.
Source: Metropolitan Council
Source: Metropolitan Council
Housing Units Affordable to Households with
Income:
At or below 30% AMI 42
30% - 50% of AMI 180
51% - 80% of AMI 995
(AMI: 2016 area median income in Twin Cities for a
household of four is $85,800)
Publicly Subsidized Housing Units
Total Housing Units 4,676
Total Publicly Subsidized Units 134
Public Subsidized Senior Units 110
Page 39
Market Dynamics – Regional
A shift from owner occupied housing to rental housing
has been occurring since the Great Recession, and is
continuing in 2017. This is partly due to the reduced
ability of some households to meet the financial
requirements of purchasing a home, and more
stringent mortgage qualification requirements. But it
also reflects changes in preferences—that is, an
increased preference for renting versus owning one’s
home. Aging population, the lifestyle choices of many
millennials, and economic factors have made rental
housing an increasingly popular choice.
Twin Cities Apartments:
Under Construction and Completed
In the Twin Cities, developers have responded to the
surge in demand for rental housing by developing more
rental housing—most commonly high-amenity, market
rate apartments.
Condominium development has lagged—partly
because of reduced demand, but also because
production has been constrained by state statutes that
govern developer liability. If liability statutes are
loosened, that would open the door to increased
condominium production.
Apartment development has been largely focused in
the strongest urban locations in the Metro—most
notably downtown Minneapolis and St Paul, and strong
urban transit and commercial nodes. There has been
some suburban apartment development as well, and
suburban development is increasing.
Twin Cities Apartments:
Eastern Metro Construction Activity, 2016
Source: Colliers International
The surge in apartment supply has not yet quenched
the demand. From the 12 months from Fall, 2015
through Summer, 2016, over 5,000 new units were
constructed in the Twin Cities metro, and close to 4,000
units were already scheduled to be delivered in the 12
months through Summer, 2017.
Twin Cities Apartments:
Average Rent and Vacancy
Apartment rents have continued to rise. Vacancy rates
continue to be low overall, but a bifurcation has
emerged between Class A and Class C buildings.
Perhaps because there has been little construction of
non-luxury apartments, there is a particularly low
Page 40
vacancy rate in pre-1970s apartment buildings (98.7%),
which are predominantly Class C buildings. The
average vacancy rate in apartment buildings built after
2000 (mostly Class A buildings) is now over 5%.
Market Dynamics – Mendota
Heights
As indicated in the following chart and map, the
suburban communities around Mendota Heights are
experiencing some apartment development in recent
years. (Mendota Heights is in the S. St. Paul/Eagan
Submarket in the following chart.)
Apartment Unit Completions by Year
Source: Colliers International
Multifamily (MF) Apartment Construction
around Mendota Heights Since 2010
Source: CoStar
Market indicators. Demand for existing multifamily
development seems strong. Although Costar only
tracks two of the four existing apartment buildings in
Mendota Heights, those buildings experience very low
vacancy. The housing that was built at The Village at
Mendota Heights was sold and occupied, even though
some of it came online just before the start of the
recession.
Mendota Heights Apartment Vacancy
Source: Costar
Rents for multifamily units have been increasing
steadily and in 2016 are at $1.10 per square foot.
Mendota Heights Apartment Asking Rents
(per Square Foot)
Source: CoStar
The market is strong enough to have attracted new
market rate multifamily housing. A four story
apartment building with 139 units is under construction
near Hwy 110 and Dodd. It overlooks Dodge Nature
Center and will be connected via pedestrian bridge to
Mendota Plaza.
Additional apartment and condo development seems
likely to be supported by the market in certain
locations in the community. But development
opportunity sites in Mendota Heights are hard to find.
Page 41
Development Considerations
Strengths and weaknesses. Mendota Heights has
important locational strengths and weaknesses for
attracting housing development, and residential
population. Strengths include:
Its stable single family neighborhoods
Its central location in the metropolitan area,
with excellent transportation connections in
all directions.
Proximity to both downtown St. Paul and
downtown Minneapolis.
High quality schools, including three high
schools—Henry Sibley, and St. Thomas
Academy, and Visitation—which have regional
reputations.
Good quality neighborhood retail at Highway
100 and Dodd, including the unique retail
environment offered by The Village, a mixed-
use shopping area north of Hwy 110 and
Dodd.
High quality natural amenities including
Dodge Nature Center, two golf courses, lakes
and other natural areas, and proximity to the
Mississippi River and trails.
Challenges include:
Limited options for transit service are
available.
Lack of retail goods and services, restaurants
and entertainment, beyond those that are
available at Highway 110 and Dodd Road.
Development opportunities. Because Mendota
Heights is fully developed, there is little opportunity for
additional development of single family homes.
Because there are few new home opportunities this
close to the center of the metro, homes that are
developed would likely be quite marketable.
The proposed At Home Apartments development at
Highway 110 and Dodd Road shows that Mendota
Heights can attract the type of high amenity apartment
construction that is being built in other parts of the
region. It will build on the success of the housing that
was built at The Village in Mendota Heights. It’s
notable that new housing is being concentrated at the
location in Mendota Heights where there are the
strongest retail amenities and dining opportunities.
Additional apartment development at this commercial
node would likely be attractive and marketable, if
suitable sites can be identified or assembled.
Other locations where housing development may be
viable in the coming decades include the following.
Underdeveloped locations near Augusta or
Lemay Lake.
Existing golf course land, if its financial viability
declines in the future.
The attractiveness of existing housing in Mendota
Heights, and the ability to attract new housing, would
benefit from steps taken to strengthen the amenity
base—particularly with respect to transit availability,
and retail, dining and entertainment options.
Strengthening these amenities may be important to
maintaining Mendota Heights desirability and
attractiveness as the tastes and demographic character
of the Twin Cities evolves over the coming decades.
Page 42
Retail Market Context
Existing Conditions
A city’s retail areas play an important role in its identity
and attractiveness. Retail development in Mendota
Heights is almost entirely focused at the crossroads of
Highway 110 and Dodd Road. Two retail areas are
present at this intersection – The Village at Mendota
Heights, north of Hwy 110 at Dodd, and Mendota Plaza,
across Hwy 110 to the south. These developments have
distinctly different characters.
The Village at Mendota Heights. The Village at
Mendota Heights was developed over the period of
2001 to 2007. It is a neighborhood center in its scale of
development, and the type of stores that anchor the
development. But it has a destination market draw.
Many of its customers come from Eagan, or from east
and west of Mendota Heights, arriving via Highway
110.
The Village at Mendota Heights
The Village is a mixed-use area of retail and office,
townhomes and condominiums, senior apartments,
and a park. A unique, “new urbanist” style of
development, it is a high density, walkable area that
provides the opportunity to live close to shopping and
offices, or park in the one of the parking lots and stroll
along storefront-style stores, offices and restaurants.
This “experience retail” can retain its attractiveness
through shifts in the retail landscape, because it has a
character that cannot be replicated through online
purchasing.
Mendota Plaza. Mendota Plaza is a more traditional
neighborhood center. It is a strip center anchored by a
Walgreens, a natural food store, a fitness facility and a
restaurant. It has 60,000 square feet of retail floor area
with surface parking in front of the stores. It was
renovated within the past ten years, and is currently
undergoing an 11,000-square foot expansion in
conjunction with the development of a four story, 139-
unit apartment building just to the east of the existing
development along Highway 110. A pedestrian bridge
will connect the apartments across a wetland area to
Mendota Plaza. Another key factor in the expansion is
the addition of driveway access into Mendota Plaza
from Hwy 110.
Mendota Plaza
A regional trail is being developed that will cross
Highway 110 at this location via a tunnel under
Highway 110. Connecting to the Mississippi River in
one direction, and the City of Eagan in another, the trail
will effectively connect the two retail areas for
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Page 43
Market Dynamics – Regional
Competitive Retail Context. The location of Mendota
Plaza and The Village at Mendota Heights, relative to
other retail areas in the area, has an important impact
on the opportunity for additional retail development in
Mendota Heights. The Retail Context Map illustrates
the shopping
centers in and
around Mendota
Heights, which
are tracked by
Costar according
to type of
center. Centers
are given circular
symbols that are
illustrative of the
size of the
center. Large
circles indicate
regional centers.
Small circles
illustrate
neighborhood-
oriented retail
centers.
The City of
Eagan, south of
Mendota
Heights is
becoming a
destination retail powerhouse on the scale of
Woodbury. It added a new major retail development,
Central Park Commons, on the former Lockheed Martin
site at Pilot Knob Road and Yankee Doodle Road, west
of Interstate 35E. That development includes a Hy-Vee
grocery store, Marshalls, and other destination
retailers. Twin Cities Premium Outlets is located a little
further south at the intersection of Highways 13 and
77. The new Vikings headquarters and training facility,
to be located near Interstate 494 at the intersection of
Dodd Road and Lone Oak Parkway, will include office,
retail, residential, hospitality and a conference center,
and will become a destination in the region. The Eagan
Promenade offers another cluster of destination
retailers and restaurants at Yankee Doodle Road, east
of I-35E.
The retail offerings at these centers draw shoppers
from Mendota Heights. New retail development tends
to build on existing retail strength. So the retail
primacy of Eagan dampens the attractiveness of
Mendota
Heights for
destination
oriented
retailers.
To the east,
along Robert
Street in West St
Paul, there is a
less upscale set
of destination
retail areas. The
section of Robert
Street between
Wentworth and
Marie Avenues
hosts a Walmart,
Target, and
Lowe’s. The
Signal Hills
Shopping Center
is at South
Robert Street
and Butler
Avenue.
The competing destination retail areas in Eagan and
West St Paul, along with a scarcity of suitable retail
locations in Mendota Heights, make it difficult to
expand the retail footprint in Mendota Heights. On the
other hand, the distance from Mendota Heights retail
areas to competing retail areas in Eagan and West St
Paul buffer the Mendota Heights retail areas from
competition, and protect their long-term viability—
since neighborhood centers offer goods and services
that people don’t generally drive great distances for.
Retail Context Map
Page 44
Regional market indicators. The Twin Cities retail
market has been reaping the benefits of the economic
recovery. Absorption of retail space has been strong
over the past five years, to the point that average retail
vacancy metro-wide is at a very low 3.6%. And retail
development has followed, reaching a post-recession
high in 2016.
Retail Vacancy, Absorption and Deliveries
Twin Cities Metro
Source: Costar
Average asking rents per square foot have remained
pretty steady over the same period at around $13.50
per square foot.
Retail Asking Rents Per Square Foot
Twin Cities Metro
Source: CoStar
Market Dynamics – Mendota
Heights
Market indicators. Though limited in scale, the retail
areas in Mendota Heights are outperforming the
metropolitan area as a whole. Costar data shows that
the retail areas at Highway 110 and Dodd Road have
continued to attract retail shops and services to the
point where there is no vacancy in the two retail
centers. No new retail has been constructed over the
past five years, but that will change with the addition to
Mendota Plaza.
Retail Vacancy, Absorption and Deliveries
Mendota Heights
Source: CoStar
Asking rents at these centers, at around $15 per square
foot, are higher than the metro average of $13.50 per
square foot.
Retail Asking Rents Per Square Foot
Mendota Heights
Source: CoStar
Page 45
Development Considerations
Strengths and weaknesses. The retail areas in
Mendota Heights benefit from their visibility from the
heavily traveled Highway 110 corridor. Highway 110
carries a daily traffic volume of 20,000 to 30,000 ADT
(average daily trips). They are the first retail center of
any size on Highway 110 after crossing the Mendota
Bridge from Minneapolis or Richfield. They also benefit
from their distance from competing retail areas. In a
sense, their distance from the centers in Eagan and
West St Paul gives them a monopoly on neighborhood
goods and services for residents in the surrounding
neighborhoods. These locational characteristics are
likely to keep the areas strong into the future.
Another foundational strength of Mendota Heights
retail is the relatively high income of its residents,
relative to the metro area. Residents have the
purchasing power to support neighborhood retail
goods and services, as well as some distinctive
restaurants and night spots.
Mendota Heights is more limited in its prospects for
destination retail. It is not likely to be able to develop a
strong destination retail area, given the strength of
destination retail areas in the surrounding
communities.
Development opportunities. There are limited
opportunities for additional retail in Mendota Heights,
and these include:
At Mendota Plaza and The Village at Mendota
Heights, limited opportunity may emerge for
additional retail expansion, beyond what is
already planned.
There is a daytime population at Mendota
Heights Industrial District which is
underserved by restaurants and retail
amenities. Although land is not available that
would support the development of a large-
scale retail center, there are several locations
where a small footprint of retail could be
developed to serve the district.
Prospects for retail growth would be strengthened by
increased housing, particularly that which is in close
proximity to the retail expansion area. Retail areas can
also be strengthened by building additional
connections to them. Increasing bike and pedestrian
connections from neighborhoods to existing retail may
bring a different type of customer traffic, and
strengthen the appeal of Mendota Heights to families.
Page 46
Industrial and Office Market Context
Employment in Mendota Heights
The Minneapolis–St. Paul economy continues to boast
one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country,
currently hovering around 3.4 percent. Over 28,000
jobs were added in the last 12 months, and the
metropolitan area benefits from the headquarters of
16 Fortune 500 companies as well as large local
employers like the University of Minnesota. The local
workforce ranks 11th in the country in terms of
education, with 41 percent achieving a bachelor’s
degree or higher. The average annual household
income is $69,000, topping the national average by 29
percent.
Mendota Heights has a unique employment profile for
a Twin Cities suburb. Businesses in Mendota Heights
offer a high number of good-paying jobs. And there are
almost two jobs in Mendota Heights for every
employed person who lives in Mendota Heights.
While some jobs are in neighborhood serving retail
businesses, and in its educational institutions, the great
majority of jobs in Mendota Heights are in the
industrial facilities and offices in the City’s industrial
and office areas.
Industry mix. Mendota Heights has a quite different
business profile than the metropolitan area as a whole.
It has a relatively small footprint in sectors that are
commonly strong, such as health care, educational
services, and retail. It has an unusual concentration of
businesses and employment in the following industrial
sectors:
Transportation and Warehousing
Administration and Support
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Finance and Insurance
Source: OnTheMap, US Census Bureau
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%
Transportation and
Warehousing
Construction
Administration & Support
Management of
Companies
Wholesale Trade
Finance and Insurance
Professional, Scientific,
Technical Services
Accommodation and
Food Services
Retail Trade
Educational Services
Manufacturing
Other Sectors
Health Care and
Social Assistance
Industry Sectors, Mendota Heights
& Metro Area
MSP MSA Mendota Heights
Page 47
Inflow/Outflow. Most Mendota Heights workers
commute to jobs outside of Mendota Heights. Of the
roughly 5,500 workers who live in Mendota Heights,
almost 95% go to work at a location outside the City.
Around 300 Mendota Heights residents work at a
business in Mendota Heights.
Mendota Heights Job Inflow/Outflow
Source: OnTheMap, US Census Bureau
Location of industrial and office development. The
majority of employment in Mendota Heights is focused
in two distinct areas—the Mendota Heights Industrial
District, and the Centre Pointe Business Park.
Businesses in the Mendota Heights Industrial District
(MHID) offer over 7,000 principal jobs. The MHID is
home to a mix of industrial and office developments.
Industrial development (that is, a facility that includes a
warehouse or production component in addition to any
finished office space) is most common. But there are
also a number of buildings that are strictly office
buildings, without a warehouse component.
Industrial and Office Context Map
Source: Mendota Heights Assessor Data
The Centre Pointe Business Park offers around 800
jobs. The business park was developed in the 1990s
and 2000s, and is comprised entirely of office buildings.
Public benefits of employment areas. The Mendota
Heights Industrial District offers a greater job density
than many comparable industrial areas. This is partly
due to the prevalence of office buildings in the District.
Industrial and office jobs tend to pay a living wage
which are higher on the average than jobs in some
other sectors such as retail stores and services.
Jobs per Acre
Source: OnTheMap, US Census Bureau
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Mendota
Heights
Industrial
District
Burnsville Cliff
Road
Eagan Dodd
Road
Cottage Grove
Business Park
Page 48
The Mendota Heights Industrial District is also an
important contributor to the tax base.
Industrial Market – Regional
Metropolitan Area. The Twin Cities is a growing region
with a vibrant and diversified economy—factors which
support a positive long-term outlook for industrial
development in the region.
Industrial Absorption & Deliveries: Twin Cities
Source: Costar
Market conditions have strengthened in the industrial
market. Metro-wide, there has been positive and
strengthening absorption of industrial space over the
past five years. New development of industrial space
region-wide is at around 3 million square feet per year
over the last four years. That’s up from around 0.5
million square feet per year in the preceding three
years. But there’s still room to grow, since the historic
average is around 5 million square feet of new
industrial space per year.
The ongoing absorption of industrial space over the last
few years demonstrates a growing demand for the
space, which manifests itself in two ways. First, the
vacancy rate for industrial property has dropped over
the past few years to under 5%.
Industrial Vacancy: Twin Cities
Source: Costar
And second, average rents have been gradually rising,
to a current blended rent rate of $6.50 per square foot.
Industrial Asking Rents: Twin Cities
Source: Costar
Increasing rents lead to the development of new space,
since stronger rents support a financial return for new
development.
South Central Submarket. Mendota Heights is in the
South Central industrial submarket of the Twin Cities,
as defined by Costar. The South Central Submarket
encompasses cities such as West St Paul, South St Paul,
Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Apple Valley and
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Land Value per acre Taxes per acreValue Compared to Mendota HeightsIndustrial Comparison Areas
Mendota Heights Industrial District
Burnsville Cliff Road
Eagan Dodd Road
Cottage Grove Business Park
Page 49
Burnsville, which are situated south of the Minnesota
River and west of the Mississippi.
The South Central Submarket is performing very
similarly to the Twin Cities market as a whole, with an
overall vacancy rate that has dipped to around 4%.
Average asking rents are around $6.30, which is a little
lower than the Twin Cities average rent. New industrial
development in the South Central Submarket is coming
online more slowly than in the metro area overall.
Only three quarters of the last 12 have seen 100,000 or
more square feet of new industrial product.
Industrial Market – Mendota
heights
Strengths and weaknesses. Industrial development in
Mendota Heights is located almost entirely in the 425-
acre Mendota Heights Industrial District. Strengths and
weaknesses of the area were assessed by a recent
survey of stakeholders as part of the creation of the
Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment
Plan. Strengths included:
Centrality of the location in the region
Airport proximity and access
Connection to regional transportation network
Flat topography
Well buffered from residential areas
Utility availability
Reasonable tax rate
Diversity of tenants in the district
This impressive set of positive attributes makes the
area highly attractive for industrial businesses. The
district also has some weaknesses.
Limited opportunity for on-site facility
expansion
Lack of retail or dining amenities
Absence of sidewalks
Airport noise
Limited transit access for workers
Market indicators. Overall, these attributes result in
strong utilization of the industrial space in the District,
which has seen positive absorption over the last three
years. The vacancy rate has correspondingly declined
to around 3%, which is lower than that of the
metropolitan area as a whole.
Industrial Vacancy
Mendota Heights Industrial District
Source: Costar
Area demand has also resulted in an increase in
average asking rents in recent years to over $10 per
square foot.
Industrial Asking Rents
Mendota Heights Industrial District
Source: Costar
Development considerations. The Mendota Heights
Industrial District is attractively positioned for
continued business occupancy, but there is not a lot of
opportunity for new industrial development. Some
properties can accommodate facility expansion, and
that may well be pursued by the property owner or
business tenant.
The Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment
Plan makes several recommendations for actions to
strengthen the area’s attractiveness to industrial users,
and invite building renovation and improvement.
These include:
Explore ways to communicate, brand, and
promote the Industrial District
Consider city policies toward redevelopment
incentives to potentially implement on future
projects
Page 50
Consider investments in broadband and other
technology infrastructure as necessary to
ensure the area is competitive and serves the
business needs
Office Market – Regional
The office buildings in the Mendota Heights Industrial
District, and the Centre Pointe Business Park operate in
a different competitive environment than the industrial
facilities. Vacancy rates tend to be higher in office
properties. There is a cachet effect that groups office
development into clusters or districts within the
metropolitan area. Transit availability, and proximity to
amenities, are more important for attracting office
tenants than they are for attracting industrial
businesses.
The following chart shows Twin Cities office space
absorption over the past 9 quarters. There is a clear
pattern of positive absorption of space, aside from the
most recent quarter. This has brought the overall Twin
Cities office vacancy rate down to around 7.5%.
Metropolitan area rents vary by building class. They
currently average around $25 per square foot for Class
A office space, around $17.50 for Class B space, and
around $15 for Class C space.
Office Market – Mendota heights
The office buildings in the Mendota Heights Industrial
District and Centre Pointe Business Park are 20 years
old on average. Together they offer around 1.4 million
square feet of floor area. Buildings range in size from
6,000 square feet to 130,000 square feet. Many
buildings are occupied by a single tenant, and many
others have multiple tenants.
Market indicators are mixed for the office buildings in
Mendota Heights. The vacancy rate in 2016 is lower
than the metropolitan area as a whole. But rents are
also lower than the metropolitan average.
Office Absorption, Deliveries and Vacancy
Mendota Heights
Source: Costar
Office Average Asking Rent
Mendota Heights
Source: Costar
Development considerations. The office districts in
Mendota Heights have some strengths and face some
challenges. As is true for industrial businesses,
centrality in the region, and access to the freeway
transportation network are significant strengths.
However, the weaknesses of the area are more
detrimental to the viability and attractiveness of the
area to office tenants than they are for industrial
Page 51
businesses. The relative lack of amenities in or near
the Mendota Heights Industrial District was cited as a
particular concern by real estate professionals that
were interviewed for this report. Offices at the Centre
Pointe Business Park are better situated in this respect
than those in the Mendota Heights Industrial District.
Other liabilities, such as airport noise, and the limited
nature of transit service, have a dampening impact on
the Mendota Heights office market.
The Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment
Plan suggested consideration of guiding land along
Interstate 494 for office development over the long
term, as opposed to a mix of office and industrial. This
may strengthen the attractiveness of the area to office
users, and clarify an office-oriented brand for the
southern part of the industrial district. On the other
hand, the market support for additional office
development in the area is not assured.
To support continued viability of the office areas in
Mendota Heights, consideration could be given to
actions such as:
Strengthen the office identity and branding of
the southern part of the Mendota Heights
Industrial district. Let the district be part of a
broader Eagan/Mendota Heights office district
Build the amenity base of the area with the
addition of some retail and restaurants, even if
the opportunities for doing this are limited
Page 52
Request for Planning Commission Action
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Title 12-1D-15: Signs – Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Allow Pylon or
Freestanding Signs in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park
Districts
Introduction
City staff is requesting the Planning Commission consider amending certain parts of City Code Title 12-
1D-15: Signs, specifically allowing pylon or freestanding signs in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A
Business Park Districts.
Background
Staff was recently contacted by the owners of the 1200 Center Pointe Curve multi-tenant offices to install
a new freestanding sign in the front-yard of the commercial property. The property is situated in the B-1
Limited Business District. Upon review of the Sign Code, it was discovered that although nameplate and
business signs (wall signs) were allowed, pylon and freestanding signs were not identified or allowed under
this B-1 or the related B1-A Business Park zoning districts.
The relevant sign code text is noted as follows:
I. Signs In B And I Districts:
2. Pylon Or Freestanding Sign: The erection of one pylon type sign for any single lot in the
B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts is permitted under the following provisions:
a. A pylon or freestanding sign 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 sign 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 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 sign shall not exceed
one hundred (100) square feet.
The areas of the city where the B1 and B1-A districts lie are identified on the attached copy of the city’s
Official Zoning Map.
Page 53
Staff attempted to explore and research why these two commercial zoning districts were specifically
excluded from these types of sign, but no explanation or reasoning could be found. A quick search of an
old 1981 Zoning Ordinance manual in our offices revealed the language is virtually the same as it reads
today when addressing freestanding signs under these commercial (B-2, B-3, B-4 and I) districts.
As a result of a comment made by the owner of 1200 Centre Pointe, Staff did inspect other similar B-1 and
B1-A zoned uses throughout the city, and soon discovered a number of these businesses have different
styles and levels of freestanding signs. There appears to be no records however, of any variances being
issued to allow such signs.
Attached to this memo are some street-view images of certain businesses located either in the B1 or B1-A
district where freestanding signs currently exist on said properties.
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.
Recommendation
It is Planning Staff’s professional opinion that it seems highly unusual to see these two commercial/business
districts excluded from the freestanding sign allowances normally afforded to other (and somewhat similar)
commercial/business districts. Therefore, we would suggest the Planning Commission initiate the process
of amending the City Code in allowing such signs in the B-1 and B1-A zones.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission initiate a discussion to the proposed code amendment; suggest
or provide any standards or limitations (if any) you wish to see in the proposed sign code text amendment;
and direct staff to bring this item back for further consideration at a future Planning Commission meeting.
Action Required
No official action is needed; just a simple majority vote directing appropriate city staff to proceed with
researching and preparing new language for future consideration.
Page 54
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
O
Administered By:
City of Mendota HeightsPlanning Department1101 Victoria CurveMendota Heights, MN 55118(P) 651.452.1850(F) 651.452.8940
www.mendota-heights.com
NOTE: This map cannot be fully understood without reference to the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. In addition, zoning and comprehensive plan designations are subject to amendments by the procedures included in the City Code. Please consult with the City Planner for interpretation of this information.
ZONING DISTRICTS
D A K O T A C O U N T YD A K O T A C O U N T Y
Sources: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Last Revised: 10/23/2015Document Path: I:\Planning\MAPS\Zoning_updated format.mxd
I N V E R
I N V E R G R O V E
G R O V EH E I G H T S
H E I G H T S
E A G A N
E A G A N
M E N D O T A
M E N D O T A L I L Y D A L EL I L Y D A L E
S U N F I S H
S U N F I S H L A K E
L A K E
W E S T
W E S TS T. PA U L
S T. PA U L
S T. PA U L
S T. PA U L
Pickeral Lake
Mississippi RiverSomerset Country Club
Par 3 Golf Course
Somerset Elementary School
Henry Sibley High School
Dodge Nature Center
Friendly MarshFriendly Hills Middle SchoolSt. Thomas Academy
Convent of theVisitation School
I-494
Rogers Lake Dodd Rd.I-35E
TH 110TH 110
Resurrection Cemetery
Mendakota Country Club
I-35E
TH 13T
H
5
5TH 13Gun Club LakeMinnesota RiverFort Snelling State Park
Lake Augu
s
ta
L
a
k
e
L
eM
a
y
Acacia Park Cemetery
Lexington Ave.Pilot Knob Rd.Mendota Heights Rd.Victoria Rd.Delaware Ave.Dodd Rd.Wentworth Ave.
Marie Ave.
City HallPolice Dept.
Public WorksGarage
R-1 One Family Residential
R-1A One Family Residential
R-2 Two Family Residential
R-3 Multiple Family Residential
MR-PUD Medium Density Residential
HR-PUD High Density Residential
Residential:
B-1 Limited Business
B-1A Business Park
B-2 Neighborhood Business
B-3 General Business
B-4 Shopping Center
Commercial:
MU-PUD Mixed Use
I Industrial
State Park
Other:Mendota Elementary School
City of Mendota HeightsDakota County, Minnesota
Page 55
Mendota Corporate Center 1110 HWY 110
Howry Residential Services – 1150 Centre Pointe Curve
Page 56
Peterson Dental 1031 Mendota Heights Road
MH Executive Plaza – 750 Plaza Drive South
Page 57
Farmers Insurance – 750 Plaza Drive South
Signart – 2170 Dodd Road
Page 58
910 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
880 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
Page 59