2017-10-24 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
OCTOBER 24, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approval of September 26, 2017 Planning Commission (Regular Meeting)
Minutes
5. Approval of October 11, 2017 Planning Commission Special (Workshop)
Meeting Minutes
6. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2017-26: Critical Area Permit for property located at 711 Woodridge
Drive (Sean Hoffmann – Applicant)
7. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
a. Continued Discussion of Proposed Vision, Mission Statement & Goals/Policies
8. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
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.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 26, 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 John
Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
Doug Hennes (excused).
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of August 22, 2017 (Regular Meeting) Minutes
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing page 8 of the minutes, asked if the brackets around words
in Findings of Fact #3 and #4 were to indicate that those words were added and, if not, why were
they there. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the brackets could be
removed. Chair Field asked if it would be appropriate to capitalize the words rather than having
them in brackets. Commissioner Magnuson said she just wanted to know what the brackets meant.
She then suggested that Mr. Benetti check the recording and see if the words should even be in the
document.
Commissioner Magnuson then referenced Condition #1 on the same page, that reads “. . .
construction of any new dwelling on each lot”, and asked if the word each should be there as there
was only one lot. Mr. Benetti replied that the word each can be replaced with the.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2017, WITH THE CORRECTIONS AS NOTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
Approval of August 23, 2017 (Special Meeting) Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 13
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-22
WOODSPRING SUITES HOTELS, SE CORNER OF NORTHLAND DRIVE AND
PILOT KNOB ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) from WoodSpring Suites Hotels for a new 122 room, 4-story hotel located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Northland Drive and Pilot Knob Road. Per Title 12-1L-
6, any use allowed by a CUP in the Industrial Zone has to go through a full site plan and review
process through both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
This item was presented under a Public Hearing Review, notices were published in the local paper,
and notices were mailed out to all property owners within 350 feet. No comments or objections
were received on this application.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location as it relates to the surrounding streets and
properties. The property is zoned and guided Industrial and no changes are pursuant to this
application. The size of the property is just over 3 3/4 acres. The building to land ratio is 7.5%;
well under the 50% threshold. He also shared an aerial view of the property.
Elevation plans show a mixture of stone materials, stone veneers, brick veneers, lap board siding,
and metal fascia boards; a good combination. The color scheme is indicative of a preferred
marketable element of the WoodSpring Suite Hotels.
The information packet provided to the Commission prior to the meeting included the following
elements, of which Mr. Benetti shared a brief overview:
Project Description
Building Plan/Elevations
Site Plan
Parking Plan
Grading & Drainage Plan
Landscape Plan
Lighting Plan
Utility Plan
Sign Plan
Traffic Analysis
Aircraft Noise Attenuation
Mr. Benetti concluded his report by sharing the standards that must be met before a CUP can be
issued and explained how this project met those standards.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 13
Commissioner Magnuson noted that she is not familiar with this brand of hotel and asked if it
would include an independent restaurant, bar, or anything like that. Mr. Benetti replied in the
negative. This would most generally be used as an executive-type extended stay location with the
possibility of a fitness room but no pool, restaurant, bar, or even breakfast service.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he asked his questions to staff earlier so they are prepared to
answer. He then stated that it was his understanding that a stormwater model has not been
completed. Mr. Benetti confirmed and replied that it would be forthcoming. Commissioner
Mazzitello asked that a condition be added to the recommendation, which staff agreed to do.
Commissioner Mazzitello then stated that other development requests that have come through, and
even the others on the agenda this evening, included a provision for the landscape plan to meet the
City’s pollinator-friendly policy. He asked that this condition also be added to this request. Staff
agreed to do so.
Commissioner Toth, referencing the stormwater pond to be installed on the side of the property,
asked if any consideration had been made for a water retention system under the parking lot instead
of the stormwater pond and, instead, have that area designated as green space. Mr. Benetti replied
that this type of consideration is usually up to the developer. If they have the space to put in
stormwater ponds, then they usually do so as they are cheaper than the underground systems. Staff
did speak with the developer and he is open to the idea of installing a fountain feature in the
stormwater pond.
Mr. Andy Berg, Project Manager with Kimley Horn made himself available to add comments to
the staff report or answer questions. He also extended apologies from Mr. Scott Bixler of
WoodSpring Hotels for being unable to attend.
Mr. Berg confirmed Mr. Benetti’s reasons for the stormwater pond and also explained that the
pond also provides a more cost effective and easier access should any problems arise.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if Mr. Berg was familiar with the pollinator-friendly policy of the
City and coordinating their landscaping plan through the master gardeners that volunteer with the
City. Mr. Berg replied that he was not aware of the program; however, it is something he would
be willing to work with.
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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 13
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-22
CONDITIONAL USE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed hotel use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate
surrounding property values.
2. The proposed hotel use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and
comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all
conditions are met and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction.
3. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable
city code standards.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. All new buildings shall be constructed in conformance to building and site plans certified
by a registered architect and/or licensed engineer.
2. Trash enclosure must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building.
3. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop
mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with
one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be
reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review
process.
4. Plant material near the entry points shall not exceed 36-inches in height, and shall not
obstruct fire department connections or hydrants
5. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal
to at least one and one-half (1 ½) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements, to be submitted at time of building permit approval.
6. The Developer shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all
landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from
refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or
landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather
conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated.
7. Any connections to the city’s water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul
Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards.
8. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
9. 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.
10. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the
buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
11. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found
under Title 12-4-1 of City Code.
12. Any new signs proposed under this plan submittal must either be approved as part of an
accepted comprehensive sign plan; or any sign that does not meet the standards of City
Code Title 12-1D-15 must be adjusted to comply with City Code, or the Developer must
request separate variances to allow excess sign sizes.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 13
AND WITH THE ADDITION OF THE TWO FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
13. A stormwater model is produced and submitted to the City for approval by the City
Engineer prior to final approvals.
14. The landscape plan is submitted for review for compliance with the City’s pollinator-
friendly policy.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if it should be stated anywhere in the recommendation that
includes approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan to avoid having any discussion of variances.
Mr. Benetti confirmed that this should be included.
Commissioner Mazzitello agreed to add this as part of the motion. Since Commissioner Magnuson
was the second but also made the recommendation, no second was necessary.
Mr. Benetti asked if modifying Condition #12 to include ‘all new signs proposed as part of this
plan are approved as part of the accepted copies of the site plan’. The Commission agreed that this
would be sufficient.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 3, 2017
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-24
TIM DYRHAUG, 1773 SUTTON LANE
WETLANDS PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Tim Dyrhaug was seeking
approval of a Wetlands Permit to help facilitate the removal and replacement of some retaining
walls in the rear yard, along with select removal of dead or diseased trees and invasive/noxious
vegetation in and around the area of work. The work would also include the repair of a concrete
footing pier.
The Wetland Permit is required due to the work being done within 100 feet of a wetland or water
resource-related area. This item was being presented as a public hearing item, notices were
published in the local paper, and notices were sent to all of the homeowners within 350 feet of the
subject site. No comments or objections had been received.
The subject property is approximately 17,447 square feet in size, just under 0.40 acres, has an
existing 1 3/4 story single-family dwelling; is zoned R-1 and guided LR-Low Density Residential
development on the Comprehensive Plan. This parcel is located immediately next to three parcels
owned by the City of Mendota Heights and abuts a parcel containing an unnamed pond or water
features, which is also owned and maintained by the City.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 13
Mr. Benetti shared images of the retaining walls that need repair despite being green pre-treated
timbers that also have trees and vegetation growing up next to them and are causing some
problems. The project involves replacement of three retaining wall systems, which would be of
natural stone or boulders rather than the pre-treated wood.
Since all of the work would be completed up near the home, no actual wetland property would be
impacted. Also, staff would ensure that all silt-fencing and bio-rolls are installed to prevent any
type of washouts or erosion control to the pond.
Mr. Tim Dyrhaug, 1773 Sutton Lane, had nothing to add to the staff report but made himself
available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Toth noted that, according to the plans, the retaining walls are less than four feet in
height. He then asked what type of stone wall he would be replacing. Mr. Dyrhaug replied that
they would be of natural fieldstone boulders.
Commissioner Toth also noted that the report indicates that no structural engineering design is
necessary at this point. He then asked if the plan was to use some kind of fabric behind the boulder
walls to keep any other soil amendments that may wash and seep through the soil in later years
from causing problems down the road. Mr. Dyrhaug replied in the affirmative.
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 PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-24 WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the
purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed construction work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent water
feature.
3. The Owner will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent water resource-
related area by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures.
4. The Owner will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect
and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any
impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 13
5. Vegetation will be replanted, in accordance with City guidance and instructions in the
disturbed areas after construction is completed.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
2. An updated plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department showing
vegetation to be re-planted within the disturbed areas of the project. This plan will include
pollinator friendly and/or native plantings/grasses that will grow and thrive in the over-
shaded area of the rear yard.
3. For the agreed upon temporary right-of-access to the city-owned land to the south,
including all work to install, remove and restore said temporary access/construction road,
the Owner/Applicant shall provide evidence or proof of insurance that the City of Mendota
Heights is waived from any and all liability, and named as an added insurer to the
homeowner’s insurance policy or contactor’s policy.
4. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $1,000 shall be
submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all
work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, and the access roadway has been
properly restored.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 3, 2017
meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-25
JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE
AFTER-THE-FACT WETLANDS PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jim Carlson, the owner of 1562
Wachler Avenue, requested a Wetlands Permit for work being done within 100-feet of a wetland
or water resource-related area. Since most of the work has already been completed; approximately
90%, this was considered an after-the-fact permit.
This item was being presented as a public hearing item, notices were published in the local paper,
and notices were sent to all of the homeowners within 350 feet of the subject site. No comments
or objections had been received.
The subject property is 1.77 acres in size and contains a 5,345 square foot single-family home. It
is zoned R-1 and guided LR-Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan.
On August 3, 2017 staff was notified by a concerned resident that extensive grading and
landscaping was being done on the site. Upon investigation by the City Engineer and Mr. Benetti
a Cease and Desist Order was issued and an appointment was made with the applicant, who was
out of town at the time, to discuss the issue. At that meeting Mr. Carlson was very embarrassed
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 13
that he did not know or understand the process. He is new to the community and did realize that a
permit was necessary. He agreed to stop all work, to install bio-filtration rolls, and he has agreed
to not do any further work until approvals are received.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property and the work that had already been done. This
work included removal of some buckthorn and other invasive weeds and plants along the edge of
his rear yard and along the creek edge. When he discovered that he also owned a small area of land
on the other side of the creek, he began the process of grading a new access trail down to the creek
edge and installed a small wooden foot bridge to allow access to that area without crossing his
neighbor’s property. Mr. Carlson would like to finish the work by installing some Class-5 or
similar angular rock roadway leading to and from the foot-bridge for traction.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if a structure of this type – the bridge – be required to meet any
building code or standards. Mr. Benetti replied that there is no building code requirement for this
type of structure.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked how the foot-bridge was imbedded into the creek bed. Mr. Benetti
replied that when he and the City Engineer walked across the bridge they were impressed with its
stability. There was no sway or rocking at all. However, Mr. Carlson could probably address how
it was built.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked, because the creek is a water body and the work has been done
very close to the creek, if there was any necessity to get either the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
or the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) involved in a review of what has been done. Mr.
Benetti replied that, from a staff level, they felt that the DNR was not needed because it was not
an affected or identifiable wetland feature on the wetlands map. Also, the Army Corp of Engineers
usually only provides oversight on navigable waters, which this is not.
Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, came forward and, in response to Commissioner
Mazzitello’s query, noted that the bridge is secured very well and would hold 9,000 pounds easily.
He has also installed some sidewalk blocks underneath so it would not sink and he put boulders
along side the bridge. He also spoke to his neighbor who indicated that in the 20+ years he has
lived there the water has never come up that high.
He moved in last fall and when he walked down to the creek this spring he noticed that the previous
owner had used the area as a brush and wood dump. He started some of the grading to enable the
removal of this debris – which included some large tree trunks – and make it look nice again.
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 PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 13
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he had been working with the neighbor to the south, Mr.
Sweeney, on a project that has nothing to do with this one and he is not under any contract with
Mr. Sweeney; however, he wanted to inform the Commission and the public for transparency.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-25 AFTER-THE-FACT
WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the
purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The project includes erosion and sediment control measures in compliance with the City’s
Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
3. The Owner will make a concerted effort to eliminate or reduce any impacts to the adjacent
water feature by establishing a protective buffer area along the creek within the subject
property.
4. The Owner will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent water resource-
related area by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures.
5. The Owner will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect
and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any
impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms.
6. Vegetation will be replanted, in accordance with City guidance and instructions in the
disturbed areas after construction is completed.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
2. Owner/Applicant must establish and maintain a wild growth buffer area at least 25 feet in
width from the established creek edge
3. The 25-ft buffer area shall comprise of new vegetation cover consisting of wild-native mix
seeding and pollinator friendly plantings within the buffer area, with plantings to be done
by this fall.
4. Owner/Applicant shall install and maintain silt fence or approved erosion control measures
along all disturbed areas and the edges of the creek until the vegetation is properly
established, as determined by the City.
5. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $1,000 shall be
submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all
work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, and the access roadway to the new
footbridge has been properly restored.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 13
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 3, 2017
meeting.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
A) DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED VISION & GOALS
Mr. Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner from Stantec noted that the process of updating the
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan was started late last year; however, with the shuffle
of planners and such there was some delay.
Mr. Carlson stated that every community in the Twin Cities seven county area needs to have a
Comprehensive Plan done by the end of 2018 that will fit with the Metropolitan Council’s
(MetCouncil) format and template, and answer the questions and provide the information that they
are looking for.
Stantec is planning a series of three meetings in the next month with the Planning Commission to
go into the next phase – Goals and Policy. Afterwards, they will develop alternatives – the draft of
the draft – of the plan; develop some implementation steps; and then go through and prepare the
full draft plan next spring and summer. A series of community meetings has also been tentatively
planned to obtain citizen input on what might be in the plan.
Mr. Carlson explained that what they would like to go over is the Preliminary pieces of this section
of the plan – Vision and Goals. This starts with a broad picture of what are the issues in Mendota
Heights today – what do you think is good and bad. Mr. Carlson wants to start a process to look at
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (S.W.O.T.) – what are the issues and how does the
Commission see Mendota Heights today.
The next piece is the Vision Statement – a concise statement that says this is what we intend for
the future. He would like the Planning Commission to look at the current Vision Statement to
ascertain if it still reflects what they feel about the community; would they like to change, modify,
update, add, delete – or do they even see the need for a Vision Statement.
Mr. Carlson had included in the information packet, provided to the Planning Commissioners prior
to the meeting, several pages of goals that were divided into the various elements of the plan. He
had no plans to review those in detail at this point; however, he would like for the Commissioner
to become familiar with them and be prepared to talk about them at the October 11, 2017 special
meeting. At this meeting they would also revisit all of the issues raised this evening, the Vision
Statement, and then the goals in detail.
Hopefully, at the regular meeting on October 24, 2017, they can pull everything together and
finalize the goals.
Chair Field suggested that this part of the meeting be more informal than a typical Planning
Commission meeting to allow more give and take. Mr. Benetti and he had discussed possibly
adjourning this to a more of a roundtable; however, they felt in the interest of time and presenting
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 13
this to the public by means of the broadcast – this would be the best environment to share some of
the work that does need to be done for important work in the next several months. Subsequent
meetings would be – with the exception of the formal Planning Commission meeting – would be
more informal and conversational. As the chair he would welcome the publics coming and
participating in the process.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the intention was to take the commission through a S.W.O.T.
analysis tonight. Mr. Carlson replied that the intent is to take the commission through the first part
of it. Commissioner Noonan stated that he felt particularly unprepared to engage in that discussion;
there was no indication to them to put their thinking caps on before the meeting and come prepared.
If they had the opportunity just to think about it, the quality of what they would offer would be
much more deliberative, thoughtful, and comprehensive than trying to have them throw out ideas
off the cuff.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that the Commission had talked from time-to-time about changing
various zoning requirements – such as creating some special category for institutions in residential
zones – would that appropriate to think about as part of this plan or is that something that gets done
independently after the development of the plan is completed. Mr. Carlson replied that this could
be one of the issues and one of the things that is brought up in this plan. It does get a bit detailed
but it could be a part of the implementation steps. It would be appropriate.
To address Commissioner Noonan’s concern, Mr. Carlson stated that they could go through and
have the meeting next time if they are more informal and feel more prepared. He believed they
could do that and still keep on schedule.
Commissioner Toth stated that being newly appointed to the Commission he has questions for
staff and the Council. He is unprepared to answer or give ideas of where he may see the pro-
activeness of the City moving forward. He agreed with Commissioner Noonan’s comments also.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if it would be an appropriate step now to talk about what the ‘heart
of the plan’ is, what a Vision Statement is, what a Mission Statement is, what goals are for, how
the policies back up the goals, etc. to help get the Commission into the mindset for the next
meeting. Chair Field stated that he believed that would be perfect. While the idea of going through
on a broad brush what they are accomplishing, they also should feel free, if something comes up
that they think is important to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, to mention it so it is
not overlooked at a later meeting.
Commissioner Noonan stated that attached to the report is a series of goals. He then asked if these
goals prescribed by the MetCouncil as part of their planning handbook or are these goals that have
a legacy with the City and the Commission is looking to continue to work and upgrade them. Mr.
Carlson replied that the goals that were attached were a sample for the Commission to start with;
however, they did not come from the MetCouncil. There is a specific list of information that the
MetCouncil wants to be given by the time the City is done with the plan. Part of them came from
the current Comprehensive Plan that was done in 2008; but that plan did not have goals in very
many parts of the plan. He then pulled some from other communities that are typical goals for
those elements.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 13
Chair Field asked for the 2008 iteration of the Comprehensive Plan be sent to the Commissioners
so they have that baseline. It was agreed that this would be made available.
Mr. Carlson then provided a very high level purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and how it is put
together for the newer Commissioners.
Additional general discussion occurred as to what would be appropriate to discuss, add, or change
during the Comprehensive Plan process, what materials should be made available during the
process to facilitate educated discussions, and appropriateness of various topics.
Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted the following:
Planning Case #2017-17
Alltech Engineering Conditional Use Permit to allow an over-height fence in the industrial district
was approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Case #2017-18
Landscape Architecture Inc. and Peter & Jen Eisenhuth Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use
Permit to allow certain construction activities in the critical area overlay district was approved by
the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
Planning Case #2017-19
Mike Swenson – Michael Development of MN, LLC Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use
Permit, and Wetlands permit for the proposed Mendota Heights Apartment Development was
approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti noted
for the Commission that this item passed on a 3-2 vote to approve.
The city is conducting a public hearing at the October 3, 2017 City Council meeting to consider
the vacation of a segment of Hilltop Avenue right-of-way situated between the Larson Greenhouse
site and the old Mendota Motel site. The developer intends to bring the final plat of his Mendota
Heights Apartments development to the October 17, 2017 City Council meeting or future meeting.
Chair Field asked what the genesis was on the 3-2 vote on the Michael Development application.
Mr. Benetti replied there were some objections and concerns about what was presented and
addressed under the overall PUD application process, specifically the allowances given for
increased density, reduced setbacks, impervious surface percentage, reduced distance between
buildings, sight lines and other development standards granted under the PUD approval. Chair
Field asked if there were any surprises. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative.
Planning Case #2017-20
City of Mendota Heights & Ideal Energies Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit
for the city’s new ground-mounted solar array field was approved by the City Council as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
September 26, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 13
Planning Case #2017-21
Minnehaha Academy Interim Use Permit was approved by the City Council as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:42 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (HENNES)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2017
A special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, October
11, 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 John
Mazzitello, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Michael Noonan,
Doug Hennes (both excused).
Staff Present: Consulting Planner Phil Carlson (Stantec), Community Development Director Tim
Benetti, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek; and City Administrator Mark McNeill.
Chair Field welcomed the participants, and stated that this was a special meeting of the Planning
Commission to consider a first look at items relating to the updating of the City Comprehensive
Plan. He said that there would be subsequent meetings, including public hearings and open houses,
to take and consider public input.
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson then began the presentation, and spoke of the anticipated
schedule. He passed out cards, in which participants would be asked to write a six word sentence
about what Mendota Heights might be like in the future.
S.W.O.T. Analysis
Mr. Carlson led the participants in a “SWOT” analysis, in which the Commissioners listed
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the City of Mendota Heights currently, and in
the future. They began by reviewing and including a number of suggestions which had been
submitted by Commissioner Noonan in an e-mail (as he was unable to attend this meeting), and
added to each category with their own suggestions. The items listed by the participants are noted
as follows:
Strengths
• Low Taxes (5)
• Low Crime Rates (5)
• Overall Accessibility (transportation) (3)
• Rural Feel (3)
• Proximity to Mpls./St. Paul/MSP Airports
• Business Park Employment Base
• Stable Residential
• Diverse Education uses
• Mix of Private vs. Open Spaces
• Community Institutions (schools, churches, civics uses)
• River amenities
• Recreation areas (parks / golf courses / trails
• History (institutional knowledge / generational)
• Public Safety / Public Works (very responsive)
• Industrial Park - “room-to-grow”
• Nearby attractions
• Mix of Housing Stock (style, economics, rural feel)
• Non-Bureaucratic (nimble, responsive government)
• Recreational uses / Trails
Weaknesses
• Limited Amenities (5)
• Financially Constrained (need diversity) (4)
• Lack of Commercial/ Retail services (3)
• Limited Development Opportunities (2)
• Airport Noise (2)
• Resistance to Change (2)
• Age of Housing Stock (2)
• Lack of Public Transit / Transportation Programs (2)
• Lack of Diverse Housing Stock (1)
• Cellular service (poor in parts) (1)
• Lack of Medical Services (clinics, doctor offices, special med services)
• Lack of Affordable Housing
• Overhead Power Lines
• Lack of Broadband service
• Dual-Income Families / Stability
• Aging Population
• Limited Starter Housing Opportunities
• Impacts of Vikings development (Eagan)
Opportunities
• Aging Population (encourages younger populace to move in) (6)
• Vikings development (5)
• Bourn Lane Properties (city-owned lands off Hwy 13 & south of Resurrection Cem.) (5)
• Select Redevelopment (4)
• Proximity to Minneapolis / St. Paul cities / MSP Airport
• Revamp Hwy 149 (Dodd Road) and Hwy 110
• Added Population (adjacent cities) / Added Customer Base
• Resurgence of Downtown St. Paul
• Expanded Food / Retail in the Industrial District
Threats
• Development in Adjoining Communities (especially traffic) (4)
• Aging Infrastructure (4)
• Increased Air Traffic (3)
• Age of Housing Stock (3)
• Tear-downs/Mega-Mansions
• Stagnation – due to maturity of community
• School capacity
• Losing Aged Populace
• Emergency {Plans/Disaster Awareness
• Pipelines (leaks, explosions, environmental damage, etc.)
• Invasive Vegetation (i.e. buckthorn, sumac, etc.) & Insects (i.e. emerald ash borer)
• State Legislative Actions / Un-funded Mandates
• Bluff Area Impacts (erosion, deforestation, new/expanded development)
• Local Businesses “poached” by Adjacent Cities
Once these were identified, Commissioners were asked to list their top priorities in each
classification. The most significant issue(s) were marked with a color-coded dot to represent the
commissioners’ priority or vote under each category, which are noted in the (red #) after each issue
above.
Members of the audience were invited by Chair Field to comment. Concerns were expressed about
impacts on neighborhoods from developments; the Metropolitan Council seeing density as a
positive; Mendota Heights having lost the focus of being “spacious and gracious”; a lack of access
to healthcare; increased traffic; and how to maintain ponds and waterways.
Positives included the collective wisdom of the senior residents of the community; strong and
diverse faith communities; and playground and ballfields being used by younger families.
Vision and Mission Statements
Mr. Carlson stated that the City had an existing Vision Statement, which was not a requirement of
the Comprehensive Plan, but could certainly be included. He notes that the existing Vision
Statement is now 58 years old. The consensus of the group was to include it, and that it could give
a snapshot of where the City could be in the next 20 years.
Discussion turned to the difference between a Vision Statement, and a Mission Statement. It was
stated that the Vision Statement is aspirational; the Mission Statement is how you get there.
After considerable discussion and input, a first draft of the revised mission statement was
formulated as follows:
“Mendota Heights will continue to be a high quality, family oriented residential community,
with the feel of the (small town feel in an urban setting) country and the amenities of a city.
While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers
form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way
of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights achieved its successful business community
and exceptional residential neighborhoods by following the detailed comprehensive plans set
forth by its forefathers over xx years ago….”
“Mendota Heights will be recognized as a, high quality, family oriented residential
community, with a spacious, natural small town, rural feel and the amenities of a city.
- Spacious and gracious
- Continue what we have now, not more high density
- Vision is aspirational, Mission is what you do to get there
- Include as background
- Community is to children as to me
- Large wetlands, near water, streams
“. . . Innovative and forward thinking on the part of community officials has resulted in a
planned community, which affords a quiet lifestyle for its residents while providing a full
array of services and employment opportunities. The community has preserved an abundance
of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for
diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated
populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City. Civic pride and
aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights.”
Consensus was that the Vision Statement should be included as part of the “Background” section
of the Plan. Commissioner Mazzitello volunteered to draft a Mission Statement to consider at the
next meeting.
Discussion of Goals
Mr. Carlson led the group in a review and updating of the goals in the current Comprehensive
Plan, including the Chapters and elements of the Goals. He advised the participants that the goals
could be very general, or be specific to Mendota Heights.
The Land Use Goals were reviewed, and modifications were suggested (in red text) below:
GOAL 1: THE LAND USE PLAN WILL SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR LAND
USE DECISIONS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
POLICIES
• Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, economic
development, housing, transportation, parks and other community facilities.
• Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure consistent
development policy in current and future development decisions.
• Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan.
• Balance land use designations to meet projected demand.
GOAL 2. PRESERVE, PROTECT AND ENRICH THE ESTABLISHED
RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
• Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and architectural
design.
• Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level
in community development and building.
• Parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance of all
residential areas.
• Encourage development and planning of land that provides for reasonable
connection to surrounding neighborhoods.
• Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be
a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow.
• Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions.
GOAL 3: SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
DESIGNATED AREAS.
POLICIES
• The City will use available resources to meet development and redevelopment
needs.
• Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible
land uses.
• Enhance viability of ?commercial/retail, complementary uses to
GOAL 4. ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
POLICIES
• Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems
including lakes, ponding areas, aquifers, and drainage areas
• Encourage sustainable and energy efficient design in all public and private
construction.
• Take into account air quality and noise impacts in land use and infrastructure
decisions.
• Follow best practices in land use and infrastructure decisions that impact
stormwater runoff.
• Pollinator friendly, native plantings, ecological stewardship, eliminate invasive
GOAL 5. REDUCE THE IMPACT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
• Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight
Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) through the
Airport Relations Commission
• Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and
corridor compliance.
• Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway
use system.
• Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport
Comprehensive Plan.
• Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and
advance technology.
• Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer
general aviation use to other reliever airports.
• Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions are
encountered.
• Consider aircraft noise and safety issues in all land use and zoning decisions.
It was decided that the discussion of the remainder of the goals would be held as part of the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, which would be held on October 24,, 2017.
Adjournment
Chair Fields adjourned the meeting at 9:18 pm
Minutes Taken By:
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Planning Staff Report
DATE: October 24, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-26
Critical Area Permit
APPLICANT: Sean Hoffmann
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 711 Woodridge Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: December 10, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. Sean Hoffmann is seeking a critical area permit to construct a new cedar-wood pergola feature, a fence
and approval to remove a few invasive and undesirable trees in and along the bluff area, located to the rear
yard of the residence. The subject property is located at 711 Woodridge Drive, which is located within the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for
all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 0.66 acre parcel, and contains a 2,870 sq. ft. (finished) single story residential
dwelling. The property is accessed from Woodridge Drive only, and has a relatively flat, level yard space
from the front to the rear yard area, except where the yard meets the bluff line on the back edge of the lot.
In June of 2014, a landslide event occurred in the bluff area along the back-yard area of the neighboring
property located at 731 Woodridge Drive (Perlman-O’Shaughnessy residence), which resulted in the
installation of a very large and expensive concrete retaining wall by the homeowners. According to Mr.
Hoffmann’s narrative, a similar landslide event took place almost 17 years ago on his property, which also
resulted in the installation of concrete block retaining walls in the bluff area, with lower one shown in the
Google Street image below.
Mr. Hoffmann’s professional landscaper suggested that in order to prevent the failure and expensive
replacement of this wall system, it would be ideal to remove a number of small, box elder trees that are
growing on the back side of this wall, and any buckthorn that may be evident. Mr. Hoffmann intends to
have these invasive plantings removed; and as per the suggestion of the DNR, this area behind the wall
should be sprayed with herbicide to prevent future growth of other invasive trees and vegetation. The
removal plans also include the select removal of two Siberian Elms near the top edge of the bluff line, along
with an amur maple tree, and approximately 5-6 sumac shrubs near the edge. All of these trees/shrubs
varieties are considered undesirable and invasive plants.
The drop-off from the edge of the lawn at the bluff line is severe, and the grades are very steep down to the
Sibley Memorial Hwy road bed, with an elevation beginning at 910-ft. down to 870-ft. Mr. Hoffmann
intends to provide an open, cable-wired style fence (see image below-left) along the back edge of his yard
near the established bluff line, in order to provide added safety measures for his young children playing in
the rear yard. The new fence will require a separate zoning (fence) permit for approval.
To complete the landscape plans in this area, Mr. Hoffmann also intends to install a 21’ x 14’ cedar-wood
pergola feature (see image above-right), which will be placed and anchored on the existing concrete patio
located along the rear side of the home. Although this wooden pergola is by definition a “structure” – the
city’s Building Official deems this a landscape feature, which is not regulated or identified as a structure
requiring a building permit. Therefore, the Planning Commission may consider excluding this pergola as
it pertains to any related accessory structure standards of the Zoning Code.
No grading or soil disturbance or excess vegetation removal will occur as part of this project.
ANALYSIS
Critical Area Overlay District
According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is:
…to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to
promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to
preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element
in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…
The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are:
Section 12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses:
D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels developed and built upon prior to
June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance,
and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the exception of the
slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or detached structures,
provided that:
1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the
existing structure.
2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance standards
and regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site plan
review as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter.
As noted previously, the pergola is intended to be placed over an existing concrete patio; and is not
expressly identified as an accessory structure per State Building Code regulations. Therefore, this
landscape feature appears to comply with general Critical Area standards, and should not cause or create
any negative effects upon the bluff line or impact any river/valley views in this area.
The proposed 3-foot tall, cable-wired fence would be placed along the top edge of the bluff line, to ensure
appropriate fall protection from the adjacent back yard space. The cable wires provide much better views
through the fence; meets the 30% opacity standards; and should be less obtrusive or noticeable from the
adjacent properties, which all fall into general compliance of the Critical Area standards for new features.
In addition, no soil disturbance or excessive vegetation removal will occur, beyond what is required for the
removal or those trees identified by the Applicant (and approved) under this permit.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
• Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no objections; and provided
recommendations related to the future maintenance or prevention of vegetation growth near the
retaining wall (see attached email (10/16/17)
City of St. Paul – Parks and Recreation Department
• As of the preparation of this report, no comments were received.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 711 Woodridge Drive, which would allow a new
fence, pergola and removal of invasive trees and shrubs in and around the bluff area, based on the
findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical
Area Overlay District, with certain conditions established by the Planning Commission;
OR
2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit request for 711 Woodridge Drive based on the findings of fact
that the application does not meet the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District;
OR
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for the property located at 711 Woodridge
Drive, based on the attached findings of fact, and with the following conditions to be affirmed or modified
by the Planning Commission:
1. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be
performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
2. Removal of trees and vegetation limited to the box elders near the bottom retaining wall; the two
(2) Siberian Elms and one (1) Amur maple located near the top edge of the bluff line; the sumac
shrubs along the top edge of the bluff line; and any buckthorn or other undesirable invasives that
may be present or evident during removals.
3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
4. A separate fence permit must be obtained prior to fence installation work.
SYLVANDALE RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL H
WY
WOODRIDGE DRWACHTLER AVELAURA STSUNSET LN
KNOLLWOOD LNIVY FALLS AVE
ARCA
DI
A
D
R
MAPLE PARK DR
LO
N
D
O
N
R
D
IV
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
DODD RDBUTLER AVE
CASCADE LNMEDOR
A
RD
IVY FALLS C
T
LAURA CT
SY
L
V
A
N
D
A
L
E
C
TFALLS VIEW CTMEDORA
C
T
MAPL
E
P
A
R
K
D
R
Dakota County GIS
711 Woodridge DrivePlanning Case No. 2017-26 City of
Mendota
Heights0490
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
10/19/2017
236211
205159 21090
85
83126
19218076
107103
100
64
59754238
3025
2
2
209
811611727
709
711
1133714
701
731
WOODRIDGE
D
R
SIBLEY
M
E
M
O
RI
A
L
H
W
Y
CASCADE LNDakota County GIS
711 Woodridge DrivePlanning Case No. 2017-26 City of
Mendota
Heights060
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
10/18/2017
711 WOODRIDGE DR. (TOP ELEV.)04/04/2017
711 WOODRIDGE DR. (REAR ELEV.)04/04/2017
SITE PHOTOS – 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE
From:Skancke, Jennie (DNR)
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:RE: Critical Area Permit for 711 Woodridge Dr.
Date:Monday, October 16, 2017 8:03:14 PM
Hi Tim, all this seems fine, so long as the pergola isn’t higher than the existing structure, which
I’m quite sure is the case. They might consider having someone spray some herbicide along
their wall to prevent future volunteer trees that might do this again.
Jennie Skancke - Area Hydrologist (Scott, Dakota and Carver Counties)
MnDNR | 1200 Warner Road | St. Paul, MN 55106 | T: 651-259-5790 |
Jennie.Skancke@state.mn.us
From: Tim Benetti [mailto:timb@mendota-heights.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 5:05 PM
To: Skancke, Jennie (DNR) <jennie.skancke@state.mn.us>
Subject: Critical Area Permit for 711 Woodridge Dr.
Jennie: Can you please review the attached Planning Application for a Critical Area Permit we
received from Sean Hoffmann, 711 Woodridge Drive.
His landscaper says they should remove some box elders growing behind the bottom retaining wall.
They are also requesting to remove a diseased Siberian elm; a not-so-good-looking amur maple and
sumacs along the front edge of the bluff.
I am available for any questions. Thank you.
Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
(651) 255-1142
timb@mendota-heights.com
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit
for
711 Woodridge Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, and is
consistent with the general policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan; including (but not
limited to) the following goals and statements:
a. Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the
community.
b. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment.
c. Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems.
d. The prevention and mitigation of irreversible damage to [the MRCCA] and the preservation
and enhancement of its natural, aesthetic, cultural and historic values is in furtherance of the
health, safety and general welfare of the city.
2. The Applicant will make a concerted effort to remove a minimal number of invasive trees on the
subject property; and keep and preserve existing significant trees in and around the bluff line area.
3. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area.
4. The proposed work is in keeping with the character of the area.
5. The new fence will not be obtrusive or detract from any views from nearby properties; and the
proposed wooden pergola feature does not increase the extent (livable space) or height of the
existing principal structure.
DATE: October 19, 2017
TO: Chair Field and Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Continued Discussion – Issues, Vision & Goals
At the October 11, 2017 Special Planning Commission meeting, the city’s planning consultant Phil Carlson
from Stantec conducted a workshop style session to discuss the 2040 Comp Plan Update. The meeting
began with a very productive S.W.O.T. analysis, whereby certain issues were identified and listed under
the general categories of “Strength, Weakness, Opportunity or Threats” to the community. The meeting
then segued in discussing the Plan’s current “Vision and Mission Statements”, which eventually led to the
process of discussing and refining the respective goals and policies under each of the Plan’s elements (or
chapters). As you may recall, we only got through the Land Use goals and policies, before adjourning.
Attached for you review is a listing of those issues identified under the SWOT Analysis. The column after
each issue provides a ranking or indication of priority that was indicated by certain colored dot casting by
the Commissioners in the follow-up review.
As part of the Vision and Mission statement discussion, Commissioner Mazzitello offered to provide a draft
language of the Mission Statement, which is attached for review on the attached 10/18/17 email.
On Saturday, October 14th, the City Fire Department held its annual open house celebration, and city staff
provided a table with information on the 2040 Comp Plan process, which also included poster boards of the
same SWOT Analysis the Planning Commission identified at your October 11th meeting. Staff answered
many questions and comments from interested residents and visitors; and we asked residents to provide a
“dot-mocracy” on the SWOT poster boards by providing four color-coded dots (blue, yellow, green and
red) – and asked they put one dot on the issue they most agreed with or found as most significant to them
as residents. The results of this public SWOT tabulation are attached.
At the upcoming meeting of October 24th, Planning Consultant Carlson will again lead and continue the
discussion on the Plan’s goals and policies, starting with the Housing Element. We will try to get thorough
as many goals/policies that night, and we welcome the Commissioners’ feedback and comments. The
ultimate outcome of this discussion is to formalize or refine a draft of all the goals and policies under the
new Comp Plan, and present them to the general public for further review and consideration.
At this time, city staff has identified three future public information/public engagement meetings for the
residents and stakeholders, noted as follows:
• Thursday, November 2nd - 5:00 – 8:00 pm. – City Hall Council Chambers
• Wednesday, November 8th - 5:00 – 8:00 pm. – Somerset Elementary School
• Wednesday, November 15th - 5:00 – 8:00 pm. – Friendly Hills Middle School
Staff will have more information for you at the October 24th meeting. Please call me at (651) 255-1142 or
email timb@mendota-heights.com if you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting. Thank you
– and we hope to see everyone next Tuesday night.
STRENGTHS
Isssue(s) Rank
Low Taxes 5
Low Crime Rates 5
Overall Accessibility (transportation) 3
Rural Feel 3
Proximity to Mpls./St. Paul/MSP Airports
Business Park Employment Base
Stable Residential
Diverse Education uses
Mix of Private vs. Open Spaces
Community Institutions (schools, churches, civics uses)
River amenities
Recreation areas (parks / golf courses / trails
History (institutional knowledge / generational)
Public Safety / Public Works (very responsive)
Industrial Park - “room-to-grow”
Nearby attractions
Mix of Housing Stock (style, economics, rural feel)
Non-Bureaucratic (nimble, responsive government)
Recreational uses / Trails
WEAKNESSES
Isssue(s) Rank
Limited Amenities 5
Financially Constrained (need diversity) 4
Lack of Commercial/ Retail services 3
Limited Development Opportunities 2
Airport Noise 2
Resistance to Change 2
Age of Housing Stock 2
Lack of Public Transit / Transportation Programs 2
Lack of Diverse Housing Stock 1
Cellular service (poor in parts) 1
Lack of Medical Services (clinics, doctor offices, special med services)
Lack of Affordable Housing
Overhead Power Lines
Lack of Broadband service
Dual-Income Families / Stability
Aging Population
Limited Starter Housing Opportunities
Impacts of Vikings development (Eagan)
OPPORTUNITIES
Isssue(s) Rank
Aging Population (encourages younger populace to move in) 6
Vikings development 5
Bourn Lane Properties (city-owned lands off Hwy 13 & south of Resurrection Cem.) 5
Select Redevelopment 4
Proximity to Minneapolis / St. Paul cities / MSP Airport
Revamp Hwy 149 (Dodd Road) and Hwy 110
Added Population (adjacent cities) / Added Customer Base
Resurgence of Downtown St. Paul
Expanded Food / Retail in the Industrial District
THREATS
Isssue(s) Rank
Development in Adjoining Communities (especially traffic) 4
Aging Infrastructure 4
Increased Air Traffic 3
Age of Housing Stock 3
Tear-downs/Mega-Mansions
Stagnation – due to maturity of community
School capacity
Losing Aged Populace
Emergency {Plans/Disaster Awareness
Pipelines (leaks, explosions, environmental damage, etc.)
Invasive Vegetation (i.e. buckthorn, sumac, etc.) & Insects (i.e. emerald ash borer)
State Legislative Actions / Un-funded Mandates
Bluff Area Impacts (erosion, deforestation, new/expanded development)
Local Businesses “poached” by Adjacent Cities
From:John Mazzitello
To:Mark McNeill
Cc:Tim Benetti
Subject:Mission Statement
Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2017 5:05:14 PM
Administrator McNeill,
Please forward the following to the Planning Commission as a starting point for discussion on the
City’s Mission Statement. This statement is deigned to back up the Vision Statement derived at our
last meeting, and provide more clarity as to how the Vision will ultimately be realized. Again, just a
draft.
“Our Mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the community by providing quality
public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth.”
I welcome all comments and suggestions.
John R. Mazzitello, PE (MN,AK), PMP, MBA
Director of Municipal Services
651-222-2176 Direct
952-658-9344 Mobile
370 Wabasha Street North, Suite 300
Saint Paul, MN 55102
kljeng.com
October 11, 2017
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ISSUES, VISION & GOALS
Mendota Heights
Implmt Plan Preparation
Inventory + Analysis
Goals +
Vision
Alternatives
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2016 20182017
PC
Hearing
Draft Plan
SCHEDULE
COMMUNITY
MEETINGCOMMUNITY
MEETINGS
Planning Commission Meetings
CC
Adoption
Interim
WE ARE HERE
Planning Commission
Meeting
Agenda
Six-Word Story
•Planning tool for community meetings
•PC members –tell us your story
Issues/SWOT Analysis
•What is good and bad in Mendota Heights?
•Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats
Vision
•Statement about the future
Goals
•General & specific statements
•Land Use, Transportation, Parks & Trails, Housing, etc.
6-Word Story
Six-Word Story
Ernest Hemmingway was famous for his six-
word story contest, an exercise in brevity
while still conveying meaning and
substance.
As an activity in the planning process, the
Six-Word Story encourages participants to be
creative while providing telling information
about the core sentiment of their experience
of a place.The Six-Word Story attempts to
distill a person’s experience or narrative into
a short, evocative story.
Your Six-Word Story:What Does the
Future Hold for Mendota Heights?
SWOT Analysis
Issues Discussion
Consider the key issues, concerns, or characteristics of
Mendota Heights that are important to you. There is no right
answer –it’s what you think is important.
•Strengths –things are good, that you are proud of,
that enhance the City.
•Weaknesses –things that are bad or failing, that you
are ashamed of, that detract from life in the City.
•Opportunities –good things that could happen, but
haven’t happened yet.
•Threats –bad things that could happen, but haven’t
happened yet.
•All items are recorded, prioritized
Vision Statement
Mendota Heights will continue to be a high quality, family
oriented residential community, with the feel of the (small
town feel in an urban setting) country and the amenities of a
city. While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the
Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt
around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet,
private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights
achieved its successful business community and exceptional
residential neighborhoods by following the detailed
comprehensive plans set forth by its forefathers over xx years
ago. . .
-Vision is aspirational, Mission is what you do to get there
-Include as background
-Community is to children as to me
Vision Statement
Mendota Heights will be recognized as a, high quality, family
oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural small
town, rural feel and the amenities of a city.
-Spacious and gracious
-Continue what we have now, not more high density
-Vision is aspirational, Mission is what you do to get there
-Include as background
-Community is to children as to me
-Large wetlands, near water, streams
Vision Statement
. . .Innovative and forward thinking on the part of community
officials has resulted in a planned community, which affords a
quiet lifestyle for its residents while providing a full array of
services and employment opportunities. The community has
preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces,
encourages spacious residential development, and has
planned for diversified, high technology offices and business
areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated populace
complement the traditional but progressive character of the
City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities
in Mendota Heights.
Goals
Goals – Chapters/Elements
•Land Use
•Transportation
•Parks & Open Space
•Housing
•Economic Development
•Water Supply
•Sanitary Sewer
•Surface Water
Goals
LAND USE
GOAL 1: THE LAND USE PLAN WILL SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR LAND
USE DECISIONS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
POLICIES
•Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use,
economic development, housing, transportation, parks and other
community facilities.
•Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure
consistent development policy in current and future development
decisions.
•Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan.
•Balance land use designations to meet projected demand.
Goals
LAND USE
GOAL 2. PRESERVE, PROTECT AND ENRICH THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL
ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
•Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and
architectural design.
•Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general
aesthetic level in community development and building.
•Parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance
of all residential areas.
•Encourage development and planning of land that provides for
reasonable connection to surrounding neighborhoods.
•Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and
maintained to be a source of civic pride and to set a standard for
private property owners to follow.
•Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions.
Goals
LAND USE
GOAL 3: SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGNATED AREAS.
POLICIES
•The City will use available resources to meet development and redevelopment
needs.
•Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible
land uses.
•Enhance viability of ?commercial/retail, complementary uses to
GOAL 4. ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
POLICIES
•Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems
including lakes, ponding areas, aquifers, and drainage areas
•Encourage sustainable and energy efficient design in all public and private
construction.
•Take into account air quality and noise impacts in land use and infrastructure
decisions.
•Follow best practices in land use and infrastructure decisions that impact stormwater
runoff.
•Pollinator friendly, native plantings, ecological stewardship, eliminate invasives
Goals
LAND USE
GOAL 5. REDUCE THE IMPACT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
•Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight
Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) through
the Airport Relations Commission
•Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and
corridor compliance.
•Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable
runway use system.
•Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport
Comprehensive Plan.
•Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes
and advance technology.
•Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and
transfer general aviation use to other reliever airports.
•Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions
are encountered.
•Consider aircraft noise and safety issues in all land use and zoning decisions.
Goals
LAND USE
GOAL 6: PROTECT REASONABLE ACCESS TO DIRECT SUNLIGHT FOR
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS.
POLICIES
•Consider modification of existing ordinances to protect access of
direct sunlight to rooftops of all principal structures.
•Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the
development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems.
•Encourage builders and developers to offer solar energy system
options, to the extent practical, for space heating and cooling and
hot water heating in residential, commercial and industrial
developments.
Goals
HOUSING
GOAL 1: PRESERVE AND IMPROVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND
HOUSING UNITS.
POLICIES
•Continue to enforce housing maintenance and zoning codes.
•Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards to encourage
and allow expansion and reinvestment in existing houses.
•Partner with Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, the State of
Minnesota and other agencies that provide housing rehabilitation
programs and services.
•Protect public safety by requiring owners to repair substandard
housing or as a last resort, abate and demolish dangerous housing.
•Develop a housing maintenance program that promotes and
requires safe homes and attractive neighborhoods.
Goals
HOUSING
GOAL 2: MEET FUTURE NEEDS WITH A VARIETY OF HOUSING PRODUCTS.
POLICIES
•Encourage life-cycle housing opportunities in Mendota Heights that allow
residents to remain in the community throughout their lives. This includes:
•Maintenance of existing entry level housing.
•Construction of move-up single family housing.
•Construction of various types of senior housing, including senior ownership
units, senior rental units, memory care and assisted living units.
•Providing a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels,
age groups, and special housing needs.
•Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and
construction practices.
•Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and distinct
neighborhood characteristics in the community.
•Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
•Periodically assess the housing needs in the community, including the elderly,
disabled, active retirees, and other groups with special housing needs to
determine development priorities and to formulate strategies to meet those
needs and maintain an adequate and quality housing supply.
Goals
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
GOAL 1: PROVIDE THE OPTIMUM AMOUNT OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OPEN
SPACE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF ALL MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESIDENTS.
GOAL 2: PROVIDE A PARK SYSTEM THAT ASSURES THE QUALITY OF
FACILITIES WILL MATCH RESIDENT’S DESIRES AND STANDARDS OF LIVING.
GOAL 3: USE THE PARK SYSTEM AS A MEANS TO ENHANCE THE
ENVIRONMENT OF EACH NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
Goals
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
GOAL 4: SUPPORT THE DAKOTA COUNTY 2030 GREENWAY CORRIDORS
PLAN/VISION.
POLICIES
•Encourage the preservation of open space by private property
owners and the City.
•Maximize the use of existing park facilities and consider establishment
of additional facilities for all age groups when necessary, including
facilities for the handicapped.
•Explore new opportunities and continue to work cooperatively with
School District #197, St. Thomas, Visitation, Fort Snelling State Park,
and other entities to provide maximum recreational opportunities
and avoid duplication.
•Improve and expand bicycle and pedestrian connections to City
parks and other community destinations.
•Provide neighborhoods of the City with trails, open space, and
quality park facilities and amenities.
Goals
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL 1: PROVIDE A SAFE, HIGH-QUALITY, AND COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-MODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
POLICIES
•Transportation improvements will be coordinated with the plans of MnDOT,
Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, and adjoining communities.
•The City will support regional improvements to major transportation facilities
serving the city when feasible.
•New construction techniques, technologies, and environmental sustainability
will be considered in planning new transportation facilities.
•A network of sidewalks and trails will be constructed in all new developments
and redevelopments, where practical and feasible.
•Developers will be required to provide the transportation facilities within and
adjacent to new subdivisions, including rights-of-way, roadways, and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities necessary to support their development.
•Existing transportation facilities will be maintained so as to preserve or improve
service levels and minimize life-cycle costs. This includes an ongoing pavement
management program for city streets.
•Where practical and feasible, planning for roadway improvements will include
landscaping, street lighting, and other aesthetic improvements.
Goals
TRANSPORTATION
GOAL 2: EXPAND TRANSIT OPTIONS SERVING MENDOTA HEIGHTS
POLICIES
•The City will continue to support and participate in efforts to
implement improved transit service in the City.
•The City will seek county, regional, state or federal funding to expand
transit services in and around the city.
Goals
WATER SUPPLY
[To be reviewed by Staff]
Goals
SANITARY SEWER
GOAL 1: EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY’S
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.
POLICIES
•Mendota Heights will construct its system to facilitate operation and
maintenance and prevent inflow and infiltration.
•Mendota Heights will maintain a detailed inventory of its sanitary sewer system
including an up-to-date electronic map including location and specifications
of all pipes, structures, and lift stations.
•Mendota Heights will clean a portion of its sanitary sewer system every year.
•Mendota Heights will regularly televise and clean its sanitary sewer system to
determine whether it is performing adequately.
•During major street reconstruction projects, Mendota Heights will assess the
system within the project area and makes improvements as needed.
•Mendota Heights is committed to training those responsible for managing its
sanitary sewer system and ensures that staff has the equipment necessary to
properly maintain the system. . .
Goals
SANITARY SEWER
GOAL 1: EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY’S
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.
POLICIES, continued
•Mendota Heights will maintain an organizational chart of its sewer
maintenance department and ensure that each staff member has a job
description.
•Mendota Heights will rehabilitate sewers before their deterioration negatively
affects residents, businesses, or the Metropolitan Disposal System.
•Mendota Heights will maintain a general emergency response plan that
pertains to sanitary sewer overflows.
•The City will coordinate sanitary sewer utility services and development with
surrounding communities, Washington County, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, and the Metropolitan Council.
Goals
SANITARY SEWER
GOAL 2: TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE THAT IS ADEQUATE TO MEET
CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS.
POLICIES
•The extension of sanitary sewers shall be programmed so as to achieve
maximum benefit from the existing utilities.
•The sanitary sewer system shall be constructed to accommodate the proposed
land use densities and uses identified in the future land use plan.
•Mendota Heights will provide a system reserve capacity in all trunk designs so
that local occurrences of higher sewage generating uses or higher densities
can be accommodated.
•When in-fill development or redevelopment occurs, Mendota Heights will
evaluate existing sanitary sewer systems as to their capacity.
•Mendota Heights develops and regularly updates its sanitary sewer system
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
•The City will encourage development densities that maximize the use of the
existing sanitary system. Where existing facilities do not have capacities to
accommodate the maximum allowable densities, the City reserves the right to
restrict development to average density. . .
Goals
SANITARY SEWER
GOAL 2: TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE THAT IS ADEQUATE TO MEET
CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS.
POLICIES, continued
•For properties not connected the sanitary sewer system, subsurface sewage
treatment systems (SSTS) shall be allowed provided such systems conform to all
local, county, state and federal requirements.
•When feasible, maintain sanitary sewer depth to provide maximum flexibility
related to future development.
•When installing new sanitary sewer adjacent to properties on private well and
septic, sanitary sewer services will be installed to allow for cost effective
connection it the future.
Goals
SANITARY SEWER
GOAL 3: MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROVIDES A COST EFFECTIVE SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEM THAT IS EQUITABLY FINANCED.
POLICIES
•Mendota Heights finances new sanitary sewer trunks for new
development through area and connection charges.
•Mendota Heights finances its existing system operation and
maintenance through utility billings.
•Mendota Heights prepares for replacement of its sanitary sewer
system by incorporating replacement costs into its utility billing rates.
•The extension of sanitary sewers shall be programmed so as to
achieve maximum benefit from the existing utilities. This staging
program will result in the most efficient expenditure of public funds
while maintaining the City’s growth pattern.
Goals
SURFACE WATER
GOAL 1: MANAGE SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES USING
APPROACHES THAT MEET OR EXCEED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS BY FOLLOWING
THE CITY’S LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE LOCAL WATERSHED
PLANS, AND PERMITS ADMINISTERED BY THE MPCA, BWSR, USACE, MNDNR, AND
ANY OTHER GOVERNING AGENCIES THAT ARE APPLICABLE AND HAVE
JURISDICTION AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
POLICIES
•Provide adequate flood protection for residents and structures and protect the
integrity of conveyance channels and stormwater detention areas.
•Pursue the reduction of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
loading to water bodies by compliance, municipal management activities,
and public education.
•Classify and effectively manage water bodies in the community to achieve
watershed management organization, state, and federal regulatory agency
standards.
•Classify, manage, and administer wetlands in the community.
•Regulate new development and redevelopment activities within the
community including erosion control at construction sites.
Goals
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 1: PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS THROUGH A
COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO BUSINESS NEEDS.
POLICIES
•Manage growth and land resources to ensure an appropriate mix of
development and an adequate land supply to secure new business
investments.
•Retain the present industrial and commercial base and assist companies with
their expansion needs where appropriate.
•Attract quality businesses consistent with the City’s target market to areas
available for development.
•Encourage an adequate supply of sites and buildings to meet the demand for
commercial and industrial development.
•Maintain an infrastructure system to meet the needs of current businesses and
facilitate future growth.
•Address unique development challenges including the reuse and
redevelopment of vacant buildings.
•Foster private investment and economic activity without compromising
community objectives to maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’s
environment.
Goals
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 2: PROMOTE BUSINESS ATTRACTION, RETENTION, AND EXPANSION
IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
POLICIES
•Identify target markets and prepare and implement a marketing
plan to attract businesses that fit this market.
•Work with local businesses and industry to ensure needs for expansion
and development are adequately met and maintain an open line of
communication with the business sector through the Business
Retention and Expansion Program.
•Continue to actively market Mendota Heights to commercial brokers
and retail businesses to expand retail opportunities in the City.
•Work cooperatively with local business groups, the school district,
and area colleges and universities to provide training for workers with
the skills needed for existing and future Mendota Heights businesses.
Goals
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 3: PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PUBLIC
FINANCING TOOLS.
POLICIES
•Periodically review economic development opportunities, such as
incentive programs from the county, regional and state.
•Review new and innovative economic development incentives for
application in Mendota Heights.
•Pursue outside funding sources to develop or redevelop land for
commercial and industrial uses, such as Metropolitan Council Livable
Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization
Account, Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA),
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development,
and other applicable grants.
Goals
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 4: CONTINUE TO DEVELOP COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AREAS
THAT SERVE THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
•Provide and support commercial areas to supply convenience
goods and services for residents of Mendota Heights.
•To mitigate conflicts between commercial and residential
development, require appropriate land use transitions at the edges
of residential neighborhoods through the use of setbacks, screening,
buffering and fencing.
•Require sidewalk connections along major streets leading up to
neighborhood commercial centers and direct connections from the
public sidewalk to the storefronts.
Goals
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL 5: CONTINUE TO DEVELOP BUSINESS PARK AREAS THAT PROVIDE
JOBS AND SERVE THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY.
POLICIES
•Provide opportunities for new industrial development and expanded
employment opportunities to create livable-wage positions in
Mendota Heights and the redevelopment of existing industrial uses to
serve existing businesses in the community.
•Provide attractive, planned environments as means to induce
employers to locate within the City.
•Continue to provide and enforce standards for industrial
developments that improve the appearance and character of
industrial properties.
•Provide high quality public services and infrastructure in all
commercial and industrial districts.
Next Steps
2017
•Oct 11/Special PC –Issues, Vision & Goals
•October PC –Final Goals
•Oct/Nov –Community Meetings –
•What is a Comp Plan? +
Background/Vision/Goals, Issues/SWOT
•Table Topics –Housing, Parks, Economic
Development, etc.
•6-Word Story
•Food, kids’ activities
2018
•January PC –A lternatives
•March PC –Implementation
•May PC –Draft Plan
•June PC –Open House & Hearing
•August –City Council Adoption
•City staff and Stantec
team to research, prepare,
communicate Plan
elements
•Community engagement:
City website, other media
October 11, 2017
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ISSUES, VISION & GOALS
Mendota Heights