2019-02-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2019
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approval of the January 22, 2019 regular meeting minutes
5. Public Hearings
a. Case No. 2019-01: Zoning Code Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, consideration
of Ordinance No. 538, which would allow “Personal Self -Storage Facility” as a new
conditional use in the I-Industrial District. Metro Storage LLC – Applicant
[TABLED FROM THE JAN. 22, 2019 MEETING – CONTINUATION OF HEARING]
b. Case No. 2019-02: Variance for Friendly Hills Middle School to exceed building heights
standards in the R-1 One Family Residential district. ISD #197 – Applicant
c. Case No. 2019-03: Lot Line Adjustment and Variance for properties located at 1840
Hunter Lane. Julia Weisbecker – Applicant
d. Case No. 2019-04: Lot Split (and Lot Combination) request for properties located at
963 Chippewa Avenue. Mark Morin – Applicant
6. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
a. PUBLIC HEARING – re-open the hearing tabled from the previous January 22, 2019
meeting - discuss the new updates to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
- Planning Consultant Phil Carlson - Stantec presenting
7. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
8. Adjourn Meeting
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.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 18
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 22, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January
22, 2019 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, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field suggested that the agenda be revised by handing the Zoning Code Amendment first
and then the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update last. The agenda was approved as revised.
Approval of December 20, 2018 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2018, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-01
METRO STORAGE LLC
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN
THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission of the discussion that
took place at their November 27, 2018 meeting regarding a national self-storage facility’s request
to put in a new generation self-storage facility in the community. As the staff report indicated, the
city currently has no allowances for self-storage facilities in either the commercial or industrial
zones. The industrial zone calls it out as a specifically prohibited use for personal self-storage.
Mr. Benetti shared the excerpt of the minutes regarding this topic from the November 27, 2018
meeting. Based on the comments made at the meeting, Metro Storage LLC has decided to pursue
the seeking an amendment to City Code 12-1G-1, which would allow ‘personal self-storage
facility’ uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district. They are
looking to place a new 80,000 square foot, indoor only, self-storage facility in the community.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 18
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Mr. Benetti shared
excepts from industrial study titled “Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of
2016”, which included a reduced list of trends and a partial list of recommendations.
There are a number of surrounding communicates that do allow storage facilities as a permitted or
conditional use: Eagan, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Burnsville, Blaine,
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Cottage Grove, St. Louis Park, Apple Valley, and Woodbury.
Of these communities, Cottage Grove subject these uses to 12 additional conditions. These
communities allow these types of uses in the commercial / business districts only, industrial
districts only, or a combination of both business/industrial zones.
Based on the Commissions expressed willingness to consider or support this use only in the I-
Industrial district, with conditions, staff prepared a draft ordinance for consideration.
This item was presented under a public hearing process and a notice of this hearing was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
Commissioner Magnuson asked, in his review of the surrounding area ordinances, if Mr. Benetti
found any that limited the size of the facility. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative.
Referencing the list of Cottage Grove conditions, she noticed that some of these conditions were
not included in staff draft ordinance and asked why that was. Mr. Benetti replied that as far as the
hours of operation, Mendota Heights does not limit hours currently but it could be added as part
of a Conditional Use process if the Commission wishes. Most of the facilities do not typically have
hours because of the limited use and people come and go as they choose; they use security cards
or security keys to gain access whenever they need to. As far as screening goes, he was fearful that
by putting up some kind of screening measures someone might take advantage of that and start
storing items outside of their units, which is something the city is trying to avoid.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if staff found any other cities that explicitly prohibited self-
storage facilities. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative and noted that Mendota Heights is one of the
few that specifically prohibited self-storage uses.
Commissioner Corbett noted that it seemed lacking to him that there is no information on why that
decision was made in the past – to prohibit self-storage facilities. He then asked if there has been
an attempt made to look back – or could an attempt be made. It seems to him that it would be
prudent to look and see why the city explicitly said no. Mr. Benetti replied that he was also curious;
however, a search of the city’s system was done without any results.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the tape would provide a better record than just seeing the
minutes. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unsure if they added to the list of prohibited uses or if it
was a comprehensive list at one time. Staff may be able to go back and search something and do a
much more diligent search.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 18
Mr. John Riley of Condor Corporation, owners of Lexington Heights Apartments in Mendota
Heights, noted that his family has done several real estate development projects in the area over
last 40 years. He then introduced several others from his team: Steve Neilson, Dave Garland, and
Bob Heilman of Metro Storage.
Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development at Metro Storage, LLC 13528 W. Bolton Blvd., Lake
Forest, IL provided a brief history of Metro Storage LLC and their proposal. Metro Storage LLC
is a privately owned company with 142 storage facilities in 14 states, the third largest privately
held storage company. They also have footprints in Latin America and Brazil.
History
Privately owned company with 142 facilities in 14 states
Third largest privately held storage company
Has footprints in Latin America and Brazil
Typical Metro Storage Facility
107,400 gross square foot building with 80,000 square feet of rentable space
Exterior would be precast or modular block concrete, metal panel, and anodized aluminum
storefront and glazing
On-site leasing office where client would sign their lease, get the keys, and then proceed
to the loading area
Typical weekdays hours are 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., staff hours from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Saturdays and Sundays would have even more curtailed hours
Music provided through the facility; light and bright facility with lots of natural light
Safety is important; there are security systems that monitor all public areas, both on-site
and over the web
Customers would have a proprietary pin number to access the facility
Communication devices available throughout the facility for assistance
Typically have two interior truck bays that can hold a large box truck; Blaine and
Burnsville both have drive-through truck bays
Exterior illumination – fully shielded LED, which go off when the facility closes at 10:00
p.m. – unless the municipality requests exterior lights to remain on for police patrols
Asphalt or concrete paving
Industry
Approximately 50,000 self-storage facilities in the United States
10% owned by REITS; vast majority are privately operated
o REITS: real estate investment trusts; companies that own or finance income-
producing real estate in a range of property sectors
Nearly one in ten households use self-storage
o Four major user groups: Residential, Commercial, Student, and Military
Drivers
o Life changes (selling a home, moving long distances, parents, divorce, etc.)
Most self-storage facilities are over 90% occupied
o Metro Storage has seven facilities in the metro-area; all are over 90% occupied
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 18
Proposed Facility
Northland Drive and State Route 55
Natural shielding from the roadway due to the 8-foot berm already there and trees along a
second side
Access off of Northland Drive via a private drive
Chair Field reminded Mr. Heilman that the Commission has not been tasked with reviewing any
site plans, but instead are reviewing the request for an ordinance amendment. He did not wish to
give any sense of comfort that they are approving any of the site plans. Mr. Heilman stated that he
was trying to give the Commission a sense of what the generation of development is these days.
The current generation – generation #5 – is of this type of a storage facility. Typically a multi-
story, fully conditioned store. Back some 20-30 years, the type of development was a one-story,
ambient, non-conditioned facility with garage doors. That is not what these facilities are like these
days; majority of them are the three story, drive-through, and no doors on the side that face the
street. Both Blaine and Burnsville have conditions added to their uses that garage-type doors would
not be facing the main arteries. The access door to the facility is a store-front type door that matches
the rest of the façade; an aluminum and glass door that allows the client to drive into the facility
and it opens/shuts right away.
Mr. Heilman shared photographic images of the different types of facilities they develop. He also
shared an example of a city that created an overlay district to allow commercial-type facilities –
including storage facilities – in their industrial zone.
In regards to size limitations, typically he has seen the only limitations being due to zoning codes
related to the piece of property. Screening is typically done by landscaping buffering or berms. For
some reason fences or walls are big in Florida so that is provided there. They may do attractive 8-
foot high cedar fences in other areas. It depends on what the community desires.
Commissioner Noonan noted even though they are not going to be speaking about a site there was
a reference to a proposed square footage of 109,000 square feet. He then asked how many
employees would be working there. Mr. Heilman replied that typically they have a property
manager, a storage consultant, and a maintenance technician. They would rotate through a few
different stores during the week. At any one point in time, they would average 1.5 employees
during the week. From 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. there will always be at least one employee on-site;
unless they are at lunch or going to the bank to make a deposit.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they do any screening of the customers in terms of what they
are planning to store. Mr. Heilman replied that they have a very strict lease; no hazardous materials,
no flammables, no ammunition, no propane tanks; basically nothing that could become a problem.
She then asked if there had been any issues. Mr. Heilman replied that there has not been any issues
with anything inappropriate. In his five years with the company there have been carelessness. They
do not allow smoking on their properties; however, it is hard to control someone if they decide to
light up and drop a cigarette. No major issues have been identified; they are very careful and the
property managers are very well trained in that aspect. The manager does a walk-through of the
facility twice per day – looking, listening, and seeing if they can smell anything out of the ordinary.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 18
Commissioner Toth asked why they chose Mendota Heights. Mr. Heilman replied that basically
in their foot print in Minneapolis there is a large hole of storage on this side of the river; they feel
that there is a market base in the area that is under served. Commissioner Toth then asked if the
market base was for this type of facility or a general storage facility; the closest facility that has
storage is approximately 3.5 miles from Mendota Heights. Mr. Heilman replied that they look at a
3-mile radius; their base marketing. Commissioner Toth asked about capacity. Mr. Heilman replied
that there are two types of capacity; economic occupancy and physical occupancy. Currently, they
are over 92% in all seven facilities in the metro area. This marketplace, right now, is at 90% or
above.
This particular market is so under served that even with the inclusion of this proposed site, the
market would still be under served.
Rather than closing the public hearing, COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO LEAVE THE
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TO TABLE ORDINANCE NO. 538 AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW
PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FURTHER
RESEARCH TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND FOR INFORMATION TO BE BROUGHT BACK
TO THE COMMISSION AT THEIR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING TO
EXPLAIN THE REASONS WHY PROHIBITION WAS SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT IN
THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE; AND TO EXERCISE THE 60-DAY EXTENSION
COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION
Discussion
When asked, Mr. Riley answered that the tabling of the Ordinance and adding the 60-day extension
would be agreeable to the parties.
Commissioner Magnuson suggested that if the Commission had any issues with the proposed
language, in the interest of time and to not wordsmith during the meeting, they bring those issues
to staff prior to the meeting. At that time, staff could re-draft the proposed Ordinance and bring it
back to the next meeting. Staff agreed and it was clarified that these edits would not provide any
indication of approval of the draft ordinance.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Chair Litton Field invited Planning Consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec to give his presentation.
Planning Consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec opened by explaining that the update of the Mendota
Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been a process of many months; there have been
discussions with the community and with the Commission; public hearings; and the initial draft
plan itself was prepared by Stantec. It was then discussed in Planning Commission meetings and
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 18
amongst staff. At some point it was reformatted, reorganized, and some additional chapters created
or revised to include Natural Resources and Resilience; which took on a life of its own with the
citizen communities that helped significantly in putting that together. There have been a number
of workshops and public hearings where the Commission provided comments; Stantec has tried to
put all of those, or a sense of all of those, into the draft.
Mr. Carlson extended his, and Stantec’s desire to provide a Comprehensive Plan that the
Commission and the city deserves, that the Commission thinks represents the community, and that
they want to forward to the City Council for action and adoption.
This latest round incorporated a significant re-write of the Resilience chapter; there has been work
on the Natural Resources chapter; updates to some of the maps in the Land Use chapter; however,
they may be others.
Commissioner Noonan expressed his preference in hearing of any comments or questions from
the public and then address those as necessary. The Commission echoed those sentiments.
Chair Field noted that the public hearing was still open and invited the public to comment or ask
questions.
Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, expressed some generalities about the planning process and
her concerns about where the city is going from here. She stated that the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan take precedence over zoning. What is in the plan must not go beyond general
aspirations, and not details or changes in those details. Details for those aspirations or goals can
be elaborated in zoning regulations, a management plan, or other documents approved by the
Council. For this reason, no changes in land use should be made through the Comprehensive Plan,
either in language or on maps, until such future time as an acceptable development proposal is
made that warrants such a change. Another reason is that this method of individual land use and
zoning changes allows for providing full information to the community and their input regarding
the change at hearings for such individual change.
What is being reviewed is a draft proposal and it is very difficult to track changes from the 2030
plan. Furthermore, the changes between each draft are unclear. She requested that each draft is
read-lined to show current changes so that the reviewer does not have to keep comparing the entire
document for changes.
She identified numerous errors and inconsistencies in previous drafts. It is important to have the
final version of this document be as accurate as possible, so there is no misunderstanding regarding
the facts or meetings. She suggested that since this is a continued hearing regarding the plan and
other changes may be made prior to submitting this to the City Council, that a vote on the draft be
delayed until the next Planning Commission meeting. This would allow for the document to be
considered in lieu of the comments at the hearing this evening, since this is a continued hearing,
and before being forwarded to the City Council as a whole.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 18
She requested that before the next meeting a red-line version from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,
and subsequent changes from meetings and hearings, be provided to make it easier to review and
to appropriately comment.
Commissioner Toth asked what particular land use changes she was referring to. Ms. Smith replied
that she was referring to the various land use changes that have been part of the maps, changes
from the existing Comprehensive Plan to different uses.
As a follow up, Commissioner Noonan noted that one of those changes was probably the guidance
of Augusta Shores; changed to medium density. That was reflecting what’s on the ground; he then
asked if she would disagree with the re-guiding to reflect existing; as opposed to re-guiding a
vacant site, which would have different development potential. Ms. Smith replied that she was less
concerned about that [re-guiding to reflect existing] and she did not understand why that wasn’t
changed initially.
This is very difficult in the Twin Cities area, regarding the requirement that the Comprehensive
Plan take precedence over zoning – because they have very little ability to plan ahead for proposed
changes. On the other hand, if they make changes to the Comprehensive Plan, in today’s
regulations, then there is really little opportunity to deny anything in the future, whether it is
appropriate or not, in the proposed future of the city to amend that. It is very important that things
are done sequentially. Do not change things from the way they are – and, if appropriate changes
take place or are proposed and make sense within the city and have appropriate reasons and are
consistent with the surrounding area, that is done at the time and not preempt those opportunities
for the changes that are prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Smith continued by stating that frankly, in her experience, including these changes on maps
is very important. Do not change designations on maps unless they are sure that they have
something to go on. If something is changed in the Comprehensive Plan, there is little opportunity
– they need to make sure they have the right proposal for this, and if they don’t then, if it is in the
Comprehensive Plan, there is little opportunity to deny this.
Chair Field asked Ms. Smith, since she had identified the category in a very broad form and then
when given the example of Augusta Shores saying that was OK, he noted that they did some things
with parks and open land as respects to golf courses – and he assumed she would say that was OK
– asked that if the Commission decided to carry this forward maybe she could share with the
Commission – assuming the public hearing remains open – her idea of what the changes are that
should not be made. They have put in a lot of work to have a blanket indictment made, especially
since there is some really good things here. Ms. Smith replied that she does not disagree with
everything that has been proposed. Going forward with things in place, as they have been in the
past, is not a problem. However, changing land use designations along Victoria, land use
designations along Victoria and Highway 13, things that are really not in accordance with existing
conditions.
Commissioner Toth noted that the proposed changes along Victoria and Highway 13 were
removed and are not currently listed on the map.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 18
In an effort to move on, Chair Field requested that Ms. Smith return with examples of what she
disagrees with and not generalizations. Commissioner Noonan also asked for examples of other
items she disagreed with, other than land use. Ms. Smith replied that, to her, general aspirations
included a number of things specified within the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. She is very
much in favor of the Natural Resources program, and that many of the issues aspirations go beyond
what should be in the Comprehensive Plan, and all are very important issues for the city. Beyond
that there is a Tree Preservation Ordinance that could also be included. She believes that the
aspirations for preserving the benefits of the community and the beauty of the community should
be addressed more specifically in other areas; but should be addressed in general in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Noonan noted that this comment did not match up with what she initially said and
asked again that if she were to return and have comments on changes in land use, she should be
specific to point out where she suggested details in the Comprehensive Plan go too far.
Ms. Smith noted that she intended her comments to be generalizations; however, she would be
happy to provide specifics to the Commission via a memo. Chair Field replied that he would be
delighted to receive her memo.
Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, expressed his appreciation for the Commission’s response
to the concerns of the citizens with respect to changing some land use categories that were before
them. He read in the plan today that the city would be limited to 15,000 square foot lots in the
future. He did read all 187 pages of the Comprehensive Plan today. He did not read it critically,
but he did go through it all.
There are five lakes listed for the City of Mendota Heights; Rogers Lake was not among them,
which is the largest body of water in the city. He wondered if it had been annexed by Lilydale or
Mendota. He also noted, in the way of nits, that there is a section on Transportation dealing with
the improved safety for pedestrian and vehicles as a consequence of the changes made on Dodd
Road with the pedestrian island. He suggested that ought to be revisited in the view of the fact that
in the last two weeks the signs on that island have twice been flattened. The way that intersection
was configured before the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) got a hold of it
worked perfectly well.
He did go through and compare the land use of 2030 with the existing land use and with the
proposed land use. The only way he could figure out what those changes were was by looking at
and comparing the maps – not a very good idea. Unlike the customary process, there was no
narrative or findings proposed by the Planning Commission with respect to each of those proposed
land use amendments.
Mr. Friel then itemized what he found because he was unsure if what he found was accurate:
The land between Lemay Lake and Augusta Lake was changed from Parks & Open Space
to Medium Density Residential
At this point, Commissioner Petschel interrupted and made a note to staff that he believed there to
be a map that should be labeled Figure 2-6, which has all of the deltas – the last map in the Land
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 18
Use section. He noted that it did not provide a narrative, but it is where one would go to find all of
the deltas.
Mr. Friel continued:
The parcel at Lexington and Highway 13 is proposed from Low Density Residential to
Medium Density Residential
o He reminded the Commission that this was proposed once before and it was voted
down by the Council
Ivy Falls parcel from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
Parcel at Wentworth and Dodd Road from High Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential
Parcel at Marie and Victoria from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
Easterly Kensington parcel from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
Westerly Kensington parcel from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
Parcel at Dodd and Mendota Heights Road from Rural Residential to Medium Residential
There is neither a written narrative nor findings to support a proposal to change any of these land
use classifications.
Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Friel would like to keep the parcel of land south of Mendota
Heights Road adjoining Delaware, as a Medium Density PUD. Mr. Friel replied that he was not
proposing to keep it any use, he was just relating what he believed the map showed. Commissioner
Petschel noted that there was plenty of public discussion as to simply reconciling what is on the
land at these particular places, versus how they are currently guided. Mr. Friel explained that he is
being misunderstood. In making his comments he had no intentions of dealing specifically with
whether the changes should be made or not, his complaint is that there was no information to
support the proposals that are in the maps. Therefore, he cannot tell why the changes are being
done; what if there was a valid objection to its being done.
In general, he would be opposed to changing park land to any other use; and he would be against
changing low density residential to any other density residential, unless there were good and
sufficient reasons.
He concluded that perhaps, but for the Lexington and Highway 13 re-guiding proposal, all the re-
guiding proposals are being instituted as the zoning code provides for it by the city through the
action of the Planning Commission. He assumed that the Lexington and Highway 13 re-guiding
proposal was in response to a second application by the property owner. Chair Field replied that
nothing here is necessarily reflective of a specific application.
Mr. Friel ended by stating that he objects to what he terms as ‘batch’ land use changes. It is
inappropriate and it denies the people who live in each of those separate areas due process of law.
The fact that the Commission has such a lack of attendance this evening, at this important public
hearing, demonstrates the correctness of that statement.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 18
Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, expressed her appreciation to the Commission for
allowing residents to speak and for all of the fabulous meetings held for quite some time. She
mentioned that she also noticed in the Land Use Maps that there were some discrepancies:
The existing Land Use Map is incorrectly highlighting Highland Heights Development as
High Density Residential when it is a Medium Density Residential
Eagle Ridge is incorrectly highlighted as High Density Residential, when only the
apartments along the perimeter are High Density Residential; the rest are Medium Density
Residential
The property that has the Dakota Communities for special needs adults – Victoria and close
to Lexington – is highlighted also as High Density Residential and Dakota Communities
an R-1 Residential and does not need to be listed as High Density Residential
She too was trying to look back and forth and trying recall from the 2030 plan and noted that there
were some discrepancies in what it was called before and what it is being changed to.
Commissioner Petschel noted that the mistakes is one of the things the Commission is trying to
correct. He then asked if she saw any issues with the proposed changes. She replied that she
believed it to be correct in the final 2040 Planned Future Land Use for properties, the change from
2030 to 2040.
Ms. Johnson then stated that she is one of the Master Gardeners that works collaboratively with
the City of Mendota Heights and city staff, along with other Master Gardeners and Master Water
Stewards, on Natural Resources and other projects. Other members of the community, along with
the Master Gardeners and Master Water Stewards, were invited by staff several months ago to
participate and collaborate in drafting the Natural Resources chapter, as is done by many cities.
They appreciated that invitation and expressed thanks to Mr. Benetti and other staff members.
As she reviewed the completed version of the Natural Resources chapter (Chapter 7) on the
website, it is not the chapter that the Commissioners had stated they were to work from at the
previous workshop – the version from Commissioner Mazzitello – which left the entire narrative
in place prior to the goals and policies. She would like to see that portion returned.
Since this is a completely outdated version, the Implementation chapter that is available on the
website is also not correct. She has concerns as to how the priorities were vetted out – that was not
something they had discussed in collaboration with city staff. It appeared to her that these did not
coincide with the work they did in collaboration with the city.
They were hoping to be able to take a look at Chapter 7 (Natural Resources) and say it was good
to go; unfortunately, as the Comprehensive Plan is written now it is not anywhere near the correct
version. She would proposed the corrected version be given to the community for review.
Commissioner Noonan agreed with Ms. Johnson; in fact Commissioner Mazzitello and he said the
exact same thing to staff. If there was a desire to push forward and discuss the Natural Resources
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 18
section, the first recommendation he would have advanced was to delete all with respect with the
goals and the policies, while not touching the narrative and to insert Commissioner Mazzitello’s
work there and have that as the focus of the discussion. With respect to the implementation, she
was 100% correct. If they are to have a meaningful discussion on implementation, then they need
to make sure that the goals and policies are what was forming the basis for the implementation.
Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, had a few specific comments:
Goal 2.4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community
o 2.4.3 Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable
runway use system
The word ‘equitable’ would be left up to so much interpretation and may
not be to the good of Mendota Heights – she proposed a different word be
used
Resiliency chapter
o There are conflicting goals that need to be resolved (for instance, 8.1.4 Increase the
tree canopy and 8.5.1 Protects the direct sunlight to rooftops and principal
structures). She also thought there should be clarification on the intent so that, for
instance, her neighbor cannot say that her tree is blocking his roof and so it has to
go.
o 8.5.2 Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the
development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems
Mendota Heights should carefully control the developers and should not put
direction in the plan for developers
Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, echoed the comments made by Ms. Johnson because she
could not follow the bread crumbs from the last workshop to what was written by Commissioner
Mazzitello to what was presented online.
The Natural Resources narrative that was from the draft version of November 19, 2018 was the
version that was not broken; it could be looked at as the introduction that goes back in. Also, she
commented on the Critical Area – Chapter 9:
On the maps she was not really able to follow a lot of the gray dotted lines and black dotted
lines
o Something they might want to look at in a lot of these maps is the black solid line
that defines city boundaries – it should be better defined what that line is
Chapter 9 also has a section titled Views Toward the River from Public Places
o She believed that Picnic Island should to be included in that section – she had
drafted some verbiage and provided the Commission a copy
In light of the scope of revisions and discussion items from himself, Commissioner Noonan, and
from the public, COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC
HEARING REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 18
MEETING, WHEN HOPEFULLY THE HEARING WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE DRAFT
FINAL 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
COMMISSIONER NOONAN SECONDED THE MOTION
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Discussion
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that Commissioner Noonan had an extensive list of comments
and he himself had an extensive list of corrections in his plan. The initial thought was they would
go through chapter by chapter and he and Commissioner Noonan would relay their observations
and comments for Commission consideration.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he knew that Commissioner Magnuson had some comments as
well. Commissioner Magnuson agreed that she had a number of comments and suggested if there
were policy comments or general comments, that they be discussed. If there were grammar, nits,
wording, formatting – they be provided to staff for incorporation into the document.
Commissioner Petschel asked if his assumption that Commissioner Mazzitello wanted to move
onto Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 correct. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he would like to start
with the Acknowledgements, before they even get to Chapter 1. Commissioner Petschel then asked
if the questions and concerns regarding a lack of specificity or the opaqueness of the Land Use
designation changes be a good place to start. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed this would be a
good place to start.
Commissioner Mazzitello made the following comments:
It would be appropriate in the Acknowledgements to recognize the volunteer resident input
that went into the construction of this Plan as part of the list of individuals that contributed
to its development as well; including, but not limited to:
o Dakota County Master Gardeners
o Volunteer Residents
o Residents who testified at Public Hearings
o Residents who reached out to Commissioners and Councilmembers with comments
Some acknowledgement of that volunteer effort on part of the residents would be nice to
see. There were no objections.
Referencing page 1-4, top paragraph, second to the last line, which read: Excellent schools
and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the
City”, suggested that the word ‘progressive’ be removed. He did not necessarily object to
the reason why that was included in the narrative; however, the word carries with it a
political connotation that he did not believe has a place within the Plan. If agreed, the
sentence would then read “Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement
the traditional character of the City”. No objections were raised.
Chapter 2 Land Use: page layout format is inconsistent with the rest of the chapter.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 18
o Figure 2-2 Focus Areas: the properties on Victoria, just to the east of Lexington,
are highlighted as a Focus Area – these are the large lots that contain the older
structures and asked why they were included if they were specifically had those
stricken from having Land Use changes. It was agreed to have that updated in the
next version.
It was noted here by some of the other Commissioners that the maps included in the Plan were
inconsistently labeled; some were labeled as Figures, and some had no labels on them.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that the color in the keys change for the designations from map to
map. A color should be assigned to a designation and then carried through to each of the maps
from the 2030 Plan and the 2040 Plan.
Chair Field stated that his parcel, and his neighbors, in the section identified as Somerset Area on
the Focus Areas map, particularly with the way they are isolated with Hidden Creek, believed that
their land use does not qualify for redevelopment and the topography would take care it
secondarily. He believed they should be removed from the Focus Area. Commissioner Noonan
stated that in terms of transparency, these should be identified as areas they had discussions on and
were focused on – they were talked about. The real operative piece is the 2040 Land Use Plan.
Even though it is not as clear as it would like to be, it does provide the narrative that these are the
areas the Commission looked at and ultimately, what was recommended is continued on the 2040
Plan and is summarized on the plan that follows the 2040. It should be left in as an item that was
discussed, and then what was ultimately decided is what is on the 2040.
Commissioner Mazzitello continued:
In reference to page 2.4, he asked if verbiage was provided to Mr. Benetti from a workshop
that was held with City Council in October. There should be a Goal 2.2.7 that says
something to the effect of “Provide a mechanism to allow for maintenance to non-
conforming properties to become less burdensome”. The rationale behind this is actually
on page 2.6.
On page 2.5, as pointed out during the public testimony, Policy 2.4.3 advocating for an
equitable distribution of aircraft traffic – he proposed that this policy be stricken from the
Plan. The Commission agreed.
Page 2.6 Future Land Use Categories / Residential – there should be a statement at the end
of the section something to the affect, and verbiage was provided to staff in October, ‘there
exists in the city non-conforming properties developed smaller than lot size and with less
frontage due to development prior to the establishment of the zoning code’ – this would
drive the Goal 2.2.7 on the previous page. This would also address the whole LR-5, LR-9
issue. The intent for the proposal in the first place was to allow for work to take place on
those properties without the burdensome of variances and other permits needed.
Commissioner Noonan, commenting on Table 2-1, which lists the Existing Land Uses by Gross
Acres and by Acres Net of Wetland, asked why the total of each column is equal. It was agreed
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 18
that there should have been a subtotal row for each column, and then the total wetland added back
into the Acres net of Wetland to come up with an equal total in each column. Staff agreed to correct
this misconception. This same adjustment would be made to Table 2-2.
Commissioner Mazzitello continued:
Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use – he assumed this map was to depict what is physically on
the ground as land use. Staff concurred. He then indicated that he believed there to be a
number of properties that are not correctly identified. For instance, Ivy Falls Townhome
Development is identified as High Density Residential. He listed other examples as well.
2040 Planned Future Land Use map and 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with
Planned Land use Changes from 2030 to 2040 – stated that everything that is changed
within this Plan is very easily explainable, but one. He then asked what the Commission’s
desire was for the property on Highway 13 and Lexington. Commissioner Petschel replied
that it would be easily explained by simply saying yes or by changing the map – using a
single narrative. However, there is not a consolidated list of the changes. It is probably
redundant, but at least it would be less confusing. Commissioner Noonan clarified that the
suggestion was to include a Summary Table explaining the property and the change or an
index to the map.
Getting back to the Highway 13 and Lexington property, Commissioner Mazzitello
reminded them that when the initial application came to the Planning Commission, the
Commission recommended approval of the change in Land Use; however, the City Council
denied the change in Land Use – the same City Council that is seated today. He then asked
what the Commission’s desire to do with respect to designating that piece of property –
given the public testimony and the Council’s previous action.
After much discussion, the Commission decided to leave the designation as is.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing Policy 3.2.2 that read “The City will seek county, regional,
state or federal funding to expand transit services in and around the city” stated that he did not
believe that the city seeks funding for transit services; he suggested that it say that the city would
support the appropriate transit agencies in seeking funding of the county. That way the city is
supportive but not leading the charge. Chair Field noted that this was agreed to during a workshop.
Commissioner Noonan then referenced page 3-12 and noted that he commented at the workshop
meeting and thought there had been an agreement made that instead of the language in the very
last sentence under Delaware Avenue, which presupposes what would be built there, that similar
language be put in that ‘if the interchan ge is not built, long-term alternatives will need to be
considered’. The Commission agreed to this edit.
Commissioner Mazzitello continued:
Pages 3-20 and 3-21: Airport-Related Goals and Policies #2 and Aircraft Noise Policy #3
– again used the term ‘equitable distribution’ and he suggested both be stricken. The
Commission agreed.
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 18
Commissioner Magnuson referred to page 3-22 and made some general comments to staff in that
there were some things throughout the Plan that she believed were carried over from the 2030 Plan
that could use some language updating and updated photos. She would hate for someone to think
that they took the 2030 Plan and slapped on a 2040 Plan cover – especially after all of the hard
work everyone has put in.
Under Parks and Trails, Commissioner Noonan had one comment: there were numbers thrown out
throughout this section – 771, 1,200, 598 – which he found very confusing. He requested that these
be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent.
Also, in regards to Policies 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, he believed were reflected in the Mazzitello version of
the Natural Resources section and do not need to be repeated here. He proposed that these two
policies be deleted. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her disagreement in that if Goal 4.3,
where these policies were listed, were considered as an environmental issue having these policies
would create an environmental system. Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that this become one
Policy, making reference to Chapter 7 and the Guidelines outlined therein. This was agreed upon.
Commissioner Noonan then commented on Page 4-7, under Future Park needs and references the
formula, he believed it was discussed at the workshop that it was not really necessary to reference
the formula given the fact that the city provides parkland over and above it. Including the formula
robs the city of some flexibility.
Commissioner Mazzitello continued:
Page 5-1, second paragraph, last two sentences – he suggested they be combined to read
“Mendota Heights needs to provide housing options for current residents to stay in the city
regardless of changes in family size, income, aging, or other issues, and be welcoming to
everybody who wish to live in Mendota Heights”.
Page 6-4 under Economic Overview that makes reference to (see Appendix X), wanted to
ensure that it is actually identified and attached to the Plan.
o Commissioner Noonan also referenced Chapter 1 where it talks about Appendix
material providing summaries of the feedback from open houses, which was not
included in the copies provided and wanted to ensure they would also be included
in the Plan.
Chapter 7 Natural Resources: since everyone has already received copies of Commissioner
Noonan’s comments he suggested that, rather than editing Chapter 7 at this time, it be
replaced with the entire narrative of the November 19, 2018 addition and the Goals and
Policies as submitted by himself on December 5, 2018. This would then be a topic of
discussion at the February 2019 meeting prior to acting on the Plan. He also noted that the
formatting was incorrect.
Chapter 8 Resilience – again, the formatting is incorrect. Commissioner Noonan made a
general comment on Page 8-2 in that it reference the Dakota County All-Hazard Mitigation
Plan and the Mendota Heights Emergency Operations Plan – as stated before, that it is
incumbent upon the County and the City to communicate to the extent that it can, what are
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 18
in the plans that should be actionable in case of an emergency taking place – something
like “The city supports communication or education of the public as to what actions should
be taken under these Plans, should an emergency situation take place”. Commissioner
Mazzitello explained that that at the November 21, 2018 meeting he supplied five
supplemental comments to this chapter he worked on with Mr. Carlson, and it was to add
a Policy 8.3.5 that says “Review emergency communications procedures to ensure the
public is adequately informed in the event of an emergency”. Commissioner Noonan
suggested that an advance knowledge component or understanding be made available.
In reference to Policy 8.2.3 – Conduct a Population Climate Vulnerability Assessment . . .
Commissioner Noonan stated that he had no clue what that meant. He suggested that this be put in
plainer language.
He also referenced Ms. Christensen’s comments regarding Policy 8.1.4 and Policy 8.5.2 – the
potential inconsistencies should be worked out. Commissioner Petschel also noted that every time
they have reviewed this document they have voted to remove Policy 8.5.1 and yet it remains.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if anyone else felt that the narrative on alternative transportation
on page 8-8 appeared to be out of place. It is right after the topic of Gross and Rooftop Solar
Resources and right before the 2040 Resilient Energy Generation and Consumption Goals and
Policies. She suggested it be moved to right before Goal 8.6: Adopt climate mitigation and/or
energy independent goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or right after Goal 8.6.
Commissioner Noonan referenced Policy 8.6.3 that talks about beginning the application process
to the Minnesota Green Step Cities Program – again the Commission needs to understand what
this program is so they know what is being asked.
In reference to Policy 8.7.3 that reads “Consider housing options along transit corridors as a
strategy for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels”, Commissioner Noonan asked what corridors
were being referenced. He believed this to be misleading since there is no place to do this activity;
it is meaningless to include it. The Commission agreed to delete this policy.
Page 8-10, second paragraph that talks about ‘planning policies and reduce or reinforce structural
barriers that prevent our food supply . . .’ is a general bold statement does not spell out what
policies – it’s pretty light on the details.
His final comment was on the paragraph on page 8-11 which talks about Access to Food Markets
and suggests that reliance on the automobile can be problematic. The Plan should also recognize
market realities; that had been intents to provide local food markets that have not been supported.
Commissioner Mazzitello continued:
There had been conversations regarding adding Policy 8.3.5 referencing Communications,
Procedures, and Public Notifications. Mr. Benetti has the language on that.
Also, on Page 8-5 under Resilient Energy Generation and Consumption, in the second to
last sentence that reads “Mendota Heights must set goals and policies that treat sustainable
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 18
. . . “ – he suggested that the word ‘must’ be changed to ‘desires to’ so that it is not
obligatory.
On Page 8-9 Policy 8.6.4, the word ‘Encouraging’ should be ‘Encourage’
On Page 8-11, Small Scale Food Production in Mendota Heights – he asked that a third
bullet be added titled “Beekeeping” with the substantial language he sent to Mr. Benetti on
December 21, 2018.
Policy 8.8.5 – should read “Support innovative practices such as mobile food markets and
mobile food pantries/food shelves that can bring food closer to elderly and other under-
resourced residents.”
In reference to Chapter 9, Commissioner Noonan asked staff to consider Ms. Pilgrim’s comments
with respect to the mapping as he could see the confusion. For instance, on page 9-4 there is a line
that says ‘city and township boundaries’, yet what has been done is that there is a solid black line.
There needs to be consistency. Mr. Benetti explained that these were stock maps provided by the
Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and he did not believe they could be revised. It was suggested
that this feedback be provided to the Met Council as it would be in their best interest to be
informed.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that it appeared to him that some of these maps seemed to be
sourced and asked where they came from.
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing Page 9-1, noticed that there was a sentence that stated that
the Critical Area was designated by Governor’s Executive Order in 1976, then it talks about that
on January 4, 2017 the Minnesota Rules, chapter 6106 replaced the Executive Order, and then in
the next paragraph it says that in 2016 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources revised the
rules and regulations, which were incorporated into this plan. The dates are inconsistent. The
reality is that the Department of Natural Resources proposed the rules in 2016, which were then
adopted in 2017 and incorporated into the plan.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that there are a lot of problems in Chapter 10 Implementation that
need to be corrected before this Plan gets sent to the City Council. For example, the goals defined
in the tables for the various chapters do not match the Goals and Policies that are in the chapter.
Secondly, there are priority levels set that the Commission has not discussed.
Commissioner Noonan made the following general housekeeping type comments and suggestions:
The footers need to be made consistent; in some cases it says Implementation and then a
page number, and in other cases it is just a naked page number
The headers need to reflect the current version throughout
Ensure that all figures are labeled
The maps have a whole plethora of different dates on them, dating should be consistent
Commissioner Magnuson stated that, in spite of all of the negativity heard this evening, the
Commission believes that everyone did a remarkable job and she expressed the Commission’s
January 22, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 18
appreciation for all of the hard work they put in – and it is obvious that a lot of hard work went
into this Plan.
Staff and Commission Announcements
This being Chair Field’s last meeting, Commissioner Noonan expressed appreciation for his
leadership, direction, the calm voice, and calm demeanor that some needed. Chair Field will be
missed and wished all the best in his next phase.
Mr. Carlson stated that he has had the privilege in his work to see many, many, many Planning
Commissions – not just this one. He could truly say that Chair Field has done an outstanding job;
his demeanor, professionalism, and intelligence in guiding this Commission are unique and
remarkable. The City and its residents owe him a debt of gratitude.
Mr. Benetti asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop meeting before the regular
meeting in February 2019. He echoed Commissioner Mazzitello’s observance that a workshop
would be appropriate and helpful just to do another fine tooth combing of the plans once the edits
are done. Chair Field replied that this would be well advised.
It was agreed by all to have the workshop meeting take place beginning at 6:00 p.m. prior to the
next regularly scheduled meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED TO ADJOURN
COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED THE MOTION
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
CHAIR FIELD ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 9:35 P.M.
Planning Report
(Supplemental)
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01
Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in
the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: (extended to April 25, 2019)
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial
district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL).
This item was officially presented under a public hearing item at the January 22, 2019 regular meeting; and
after initial discussion, a motion was made to table the matter and leave the hearing open until the next
regular scheduled meeting.
DISCUSSION
At the January 22, 2019 regular meeting, staff presented a planning report and analysis (dated 01/22/19 –
attached hereto); and after the presentation, questions were raised by commissioners on the issue of why
“personal self-storage” uses were listed as a prohibited use in the I-Industrial district regulations. Staff did
not have any information or answers to report; and was directed to do more research and provide additional
information for further consideration.
Staff was able to find additional information, and has prepared for you the following information and chain-
of-events related to this request:
January 4, 2016: City Council discussed at a workshop meeting the final implementation
strategies of the city’s Industrial District Redevelopment Plan (adopted by the City Council -
January 2016). As part of this discussion, staff was directed to proceed with exploring potential
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 3
revision and additions to the uses in the Industrial District. The staff memo and minutes from this
workshop meeting are appended as Exhibit-A.
January 26, 2016: city staff presented a planning commission report of proposed Zoning Code
Amendment to the Industrial District Uses. This report provided an initial draft Ordinance No. 491
for consideration, with certain uses added, revised, or struck from the city Zoning Code. The PC
elected to table the matter in order for staff to provide additional information, compare other city
ordinances, and bring the matter back to the next meeting. The report and minutes from that
meeting are appended as Exhibit –B.1 and B.2.
February 23, 2016: city staff presented a follow-up report with additional information; including
an updated Ord. No. 491, but with two different options for the PC to choose. Option No. 1 does
not make any reference or identification of “self-storage” or similar uses, nor does it have a list of
prohibited uses. Option No. 2 however, did provide a list of prohibited uses, which included
“personal self-storage facility”. The PC eventually determined Option 2 as the preferred choice to
present to the Council. Minutes from that meeting reflect little, if any discussion points on how or
why they chose Option 2 or reasoning for including the list of prohibited uses. The report and
minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibit C.1 and C.2.
March 3, 2016: City Council takes up the recommendation from the PC on Ord. No. 491 (Option
2). The planner’s report included a statement: “Title 12-1G-2-2 is established. As proposed, most
manufacturing uses would still be allowed under the proposed permitted use category, as long
as they are compliant with the existing definition. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Industrial District be amended to include "prohibited uses." The proposed list came from
reviewing example ordinances, but can certainly be expanded.” As the minutes from the city
council meeting reflect, comments appear to have focused on “trade schools, colleges, and
universities” and “massage therapy services” – but apparently no comments or input on
prohibited uses was given, either to the list itself or to any specific uses. The report and
minutes from that meeting are appended as Exhibits D.1 and D.2 .
On March 3, 2016, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 491, which officially amended Article G.
Industrial District zoning standards, and provided the current list of prohibited uses found under
Title 12-1G-2-2.
Speaking with the former city planner at the time the Industrial District standards and Ordinance 491 were
being researched and considered, he does not recall any discernible comments, objections, or support for
this list of prohibited uses, nor any extended discussion related to personal self-storage uses. For all intents
and purposes, the former staff member suggested he may have simply added another city’s list of prohibited
uses, and offered them up for consideration to the Planning Commission, which was eventually accepted
or made part of the overall recommendations, and later adopted by the City Council.
As for recorded evidence or video of these previous meetings, the city unfortunately retains video records
(CD’s) of all televised meetings for one year (per city retention policies), and Town Square Television does
not retain video of meetings beyond one year as well.
Since there apparently is no “hard proof” or written/recorded evidence of why or how personal self-storage
uses became a prohibited use in the Code, the Planning Commission must decide on whether or not this use
or activity should be removed from the list; and if so, does the Commission support the allowance of such
uses in the community. The draft Ordinance No. 538 (included herein) provides language for such
allowance, but only as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with specific certain site standards. The
Commission may choose to accept this draft ordinance as presented, or modify accordingly. Conversely,
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 3
if the Commission feels this use should remain a prohibited use or not allowed as this time, a
recommendation of denial is in order, with findings (or statements) supporting such a recommendation.
Please note the Applicants are requesting the commission consider additional information for consideration
in this matter. Included in this report is a narrative, which explains the process for calculating demand and
predicting future demand(s) for self-storage uses in certain markets (see attached Exhibit E).
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented (or with revisions), which
amends Zoning Code Title 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as a conditional use
with certain site standards in the I-Industrial district, and amending Title 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited
Uses by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under said section; or
2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment, and make no changes to Title 12-
1G-1 (Industrial District) or Title 12-1G-2-2, with findings to support such recommendation; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to provide additional information for further consideration
by the Planning Commission, and present this information at the next scheduled Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Re-open the public hearing; allow for additional public comments as needed; discuss with city staff and/or
the Applicant the request for zoning code amendment; make a motion to either approve the request as
presented by recommending favorably on the draft Ordinance No. 538 as presented herein; or deny the
request with certain findings to support such denial.
If the Planning Commission wishes to delay this matter once again, you should provide reasonable
justifications for tabling, and make a motion accordingly.
Attachments
1) Exhibit –A: 01/04/16 Council Report Memo and 01/04/16 Council Workshop minutes
2) Exhibit –B: 01/26/16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes
3) Exhibit –C: 02/23//16 Planning Report and PC Mtg. minutes
4) Exhibit –D: 03/03/16 Council Report Memo & City Council Mtg. minutes
5) Exhibit –E: Supplemental Narrative from Applicant
6) 01/22/19 Planning Staff Report (Complete) with Draft Ordinance No. 538
DATE: January 4, 2016
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Industrial District Redevelopment Plan Implementation
BACKGROUND
The DRAFT Industrial District Redevelopment Plan was presented to the City Council on December 15.
Stantec and staff are now working to finalize the plan based on the discussion.
Phil Carlson will be in attendance at the workshop to assist in facilitating a discussion on implementation
strategies, as included in the attached matrix. In response to the Council discussion, also attached is a map
depicting the allowable building height to airspace range within the study area.
BUDGET IMPACT
The consulting services contract and work plan with Stantec for this project does not include any
implementation tasks. It is anticipated that staff can complete the majority of the tasks related to
implementing the plan’s recommendations. If the Council determines that additional consulting services
are necessary, a separate work plan and budget would have to be developed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council discuss and prioritize the Industrial District Redevelopment Plan’s
recommendations and direct staff accordingly.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the City Council Workshop - Goalsetting Session
Monday, January 4, 2016
Pursuant to due call and notice, a workshop meeting of the Mendota Heights City Council was
held at 3:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Councilmembers present included
Duggan, Norton, Petschel, Povolny.
Staff present included City Administrator Marlc McNeill, Assistant to the City Administrator
Tamara Schutta, Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Finance Director
Kristen Schabacker, Recreation Program Coordinator Sloan Wallgren, and City Clerlc Lorri
Smith.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1NDUSTRIAL DISTRICT STUDY RESULTS
Planner Wall introduced consultant Phil Carlson of Stantec. They reviewed the study results of
the Industrial District Redevelopment Area Plan.
Staff discussed the ongoing tasks that were developed for the Industrial District which included
keeping the area zoned for office use, preserving the area's roadway network, staying current
with changes in the requirements of industrial and office uses and adjusting policies accordingly,
and continuing to work with the owners, managers, and tenants to keep the park successful.
Tasks for the next five to ten years were outlined, which included exploring ways to capitalize on
the new Vikings facility, reviewing parlcing standards, and studying the broadband and
technology infrastructure available.
2016 tasks were reviewed which included exploring the potential revisions to the uses allowed in
the park, studying traffic and circulation in the vicinity of Pilot Knob Road, conducting a
pedestrian and bike study to improve the trail system, and continue commercial land uses and
zoning design on the Bourne site and change it if the market warrants it.
Councilmember Povolny stated he would like to see the Bourne site developed for residential
use.
Mayor Krebsbach noted that she would like to see permitted uses in the district to be aligned
with the airport regulations, distinguishing daycares and removing these from allowed uses in the
district, parking regulations and trails to be reviewed, and possible rezoning of the Bourne site.
She also supported exploring re-guiding the land adjacent to the TH 55 corridor to be residential.
Planner Wall stated that the action items will be brought forward to the City Council for their
approval and staff will begin working on the other items.
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 52
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone a 651.452.8940 fax
www.rrendota•heights.com
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DATE: January 26, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-04
Proposed Code Amendments — Industrial District Uses
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G of the City Code concerning uses in
the Industrial Zoning District.
BACKGROUND
The City is in the process of finalizing the Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and is proceeding with
implementing several recommendations included in the Plan. The recommendations were developed as a
result of the following planning process:
Survey of property owners/managers, tenants, and brokers
Market analysis from a commercial real estate firm
Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop
City Council presentations/discussions
The Plan's implementation strategy was discussed at the January 4 City Council goal setting workshop.
Subsequently, staff was directed to proceed with exploring potential revisions or additions to the uses
allowed in the Industrial District.
ANALYSIS
The City's zoning authority is created and regulated by statutes and court decisions. The zoning regulations
should be continually reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the goals and visions for the community.
When drafting and amending zoning regulations, the city is utilizing its legislative (law -making) authority.
When using its legislative authority, the only limits on the city's zoning authority are that actions must be
constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the
public. This is commonly known as the "rational basis standard" and is generally an easy standard to meet.
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 53
Permitted Uses
Permitted uses are allowed by right in a given zoning district, subject to the applicable regulations and any
required building permits. To the extent the use meets the applicable requirements, it must be permitted.
As a result, it is prudent for the city to review and scrutinize permitted uses to ensure they fit current needs
and are compatible with the city's vision for the area. Certain uses could be stricken or reclassified as
conditional uses, where conditions may be imposed to prevent any negative secondary effects.
Title 12 -1G -1-A and B of the City Code include the following permitted uses within the Industrial District:
A. Within any I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used except for the conducting of a
process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling of one or more of the following uses:
Aeronautic and automotive testing equipment
Apparel.
Appliances.
Artificial limbs.
Automobile painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair when conducted within a completely
enclosed building.
Bakery goods.
Batteries.
Boats.
Bus terminals and maintenance garage.
Cabinet shops.
Camera and photographic supplies.
Canvas products.
Ceramic products using kilns fired only by electricity or gas.
Cigarettes and tobacco products.
Clocks, watches andjewelry.
Cork and cork products.
Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and toiletries.
Electric motors, generators, transformers and other electric components.
Electronic products.
Engraving and printing.
Furniture.
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 54
Heating, washing, cooling, drying, cleaning appliances.
Ice, cold storage plants, bottling works.
Laundries.
Machine shops.
Metal polishing and plating.
Monument works.
Musical instruments.
Office equipment.
Paint manufacturing.
Paperproducts from previously processed paper.
Research laboratories.
Rubber and synthetic rubber products.
Sheet metalwork, ornamental iron, welding, and stamping.
Shoes, boots, footwear.
Sporting equipment.
Television, radio.
Tools, hardware andsmall metal products.
Video equipment. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
B. The following nonmanufacturing uses:
Business and professional offices.
Landscaping and building design and construction.
Railroad spurs and sidings.
Scientific research, investigation, testing and experimentation.
Trade schools and colleges or universities, without accessory housing.
Warehousing.
Water softening units. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 457, 11-19-2013)
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 55
Conditional Uses
Generally, conditional uses are not appropriate without conditions that ensure the use is compatible with
the surrounding area and conforms to the zoning regulations and comprehensive plan. By requiring a use
by conditional use permit (CUP), the city has more flexibility in administering the zoning regulations by
including rational conditions on the use. Once a CUP is granted, the property interests run with the land as
long as compliance with the approved conditions is maintained.
Title 12 -IB -2 of the City Code includes the following definition:
CONDITIONAL USE: Either a public or private use which, because of its unique characteristics, cannot
be properly classified as a permitted use in any particular district or districts.
Title 12-1G-2 of the City Code includes the following conditional uses within the Industrial District:
Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be usedfor the following uses except by
conditional use permit:
Accessory, enclosed retail sales, provided that:
A. Accessory Use: The retail sales portion of the business shall be an accessory use to the
existing permitted or conditionally permitted use in the I industrial district.
B. Site Requirements: The retail sales portion of the business shall be conducted within the same
building as the principal use.
C. Building Requirements: The retail sales portion of the business shall not constitute more than
five percent (S%) of the gross floor area of the principal use.
D. Building Design: The building design shall be in compliance with subsection 12 -ID -13-2C of
this chapter.
E. Parking: Adequate offstreet parking and off street loading shall be provided and shall be in
compliance with the provisions of section 12-1 G -S of this article and section 12 -ID -16 of this
chapter.
F. Signage: All signage shall be in compliance with the provisions of section 12 -ID -15 of this
chapter. Separate wall signage may be considered at the retail entrance, but no separate
freestanding signage shall be considered.
G. Landscaping: All landscaping shall be in compliance with subsection 12 -1D -13-2D of this
chapter, section 12-1 G-6 of this article and section 12-1I--9 of this chapter.
H. Screening: All screening shall be in compliance with subsection 12 -1D -13-2E of this chapter,
section 12-1 G-6 of this article and section 12-1I--9 of this chapter.
I. Hours Of Operation: The hours of operation of the retail sales portion of the business shall be
limitedfrom eight o'clock (8: 00) A.M. to seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. on weekdays and eight o'clock
8: 00) A.M. to five o'clock (S: 00) P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays.
Accessory structures.
Adult daycare, provided that the proposed facility meets the following conditions:
A. Clients are brought to the site primarily through the use ofgroup transportation, such as vans
or buses.
B. A separate exterior entrance is available to the facility for clients and staff.
C. The facility will require parking space at a rate no greater than that of an office tenant for
staff, clients, and visitors.
D. If located in a multi -tenant building, the daycare facility is found to be compatible with the
other uses that are allowed on the property under the applicable zoning regulations.
E. Outdoor activities on or around the property in question, ifpart of the program, are accessible
via adequate pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks or trails.
F. The daycare facility is properly licensed by the state ofMinnesota under applicable statutory
requirements for clients ages eighteen (18) and over.
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 56
Airports, truck andfreight terminals, team tracks and open sales lots.
Athletics, participative.
Automobile and other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building.
Essential service structures.
Massage therapy services to the general public for purposes of a teaching program accredited by the
National Certification Board For Therapeutic Massage And Bodywork and the Accrediting Commission
Of Career Schools And Colleges Of Technology as an accessory use to trade schools, colleges, and
universities in which no fee is chargedfor the services.
Motel and hotel.
Motor fuel stations subject to the requirements of section 12-1D-13-3 of this chapter.
Outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment accessory to landscaping and building design
and construction, provided that:
A. The site shall be occupied by a principal building of no less than fifteen thousand (15, 000)
square feet.
B. All storage and display is located in the rear or side yard of the property and behind the front
building line of the principal building, and shall not be located in a yard that abuts any local
public street.
C. No storage and display shall be located on any parcel that is within one thousand five hundred
feet (1,500) from any residentially zoned property, measuredfrom the closest point of the lot
lines.
D. The storage and display area shall not be open to retail sales, and shall be utilized only for
stock and supply for clients of the landscape or building design and construction business.
E. All storage and display is located on paved surfaces, which shall be properly maintained to
prevent deterioration.
F. The storage and display area shall occupy no more than sixty percent (6001o) of the total lot
area.
G. The storage and display area shall be set back from all lot lines no less than ten feet (10).
K The storage and display area shall be screened from surrounding property by fencing, walls,
and/or landscaping.
L All storage and display shall be located under three (3) sided, coveredstructures, with the
exception of landscape plant materials and trucks or equipment as shown on a specific and
detailed site plan.
J. Trucks and equipment kept within the storage and display area shall be located within
designated striped parking spaces and shall not be usedfor storage.
K. Fencing utilizedfor screening purposes shall be constructed of wood or other materials as
approved by the city council.
L. Circulation and water service on the property shall meet the requirements of the city's fire
chieffor access andfire protection.
M. Covered structures used to protect stored materials or equipment shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Structures greater than eight feet (8) in height shall be designed and constructed of
materials consistent with the requirements ofsection 12-1D-13-2 of this chapter.
2. Structures of eight feet (8) in height or less may be constructed of alternative
materials as approved by the city council, provided such structures are not visible from
surrounding property or public streets.
3. All structures shall comply with applicable building andfire codes.
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 57
Radio, television or transmission towers.
Ready mix concrete and concrete productsplants.
Restaurants (full service dining, not drive-in or convenience/fast food type).
Retail sales and service complexes, provided that:
A. Site Requirements: The retail sales and service complex must be located adjacent to an
interstate highway and within three hundredfeet (300) of an interchange entrance or exit ramp
with such highway. The site may be comprised of more than one lot but the lot area for any retail
site shall be limited to one acre or less.
B. Mix Of Uses: A retail sales and service complex may include any service uses which are listed
as permitted or conditional in the I district as well as retail uses listed as permitted or conditional
uses in the B-2 zoning district. Any retail building must contain a minimum of two (2) tenants. As
part of the conditional use permit application, applicants may propose to include a drive-in or
fastfood restaurant as defined in section 12 -ID -13-4 of this chapter; provided that no single
restaurant exceeds two thousandfive hundred (2,500) square feet in size.
C. Parking: Sufficient access and parking shall be provided. If the retail sales and service
complex includes more than one lot, cross parking and cross access may be permitted and the
required number ofparking spaces may be reduced. The size of the parking stalls may be reduced
to nine feet (9) in width and eighteen feet (18) in length. Parking areas may be set back ten feet
10) from a front property line or side property line abutting a street.
D. Building Requirements: Notwithstanding the height requirements of the I district, any hotel or
motel in the retail sales and service complex may be a maximum offour (4) stories or fifty feet
50) in height. Notwithstanding the floor area ratio requirements of the I district, the floor area
ratio of the retail sales and service complex may be a maximum of sixty percent (6001o).
E. Flexibility In Site Setbacks: Building setbacks may be reduced to thirty five feet (35 ) from a
front property line or side property line. Building setbacks may be reduced to forty feet (40) from
a rearproperty line. Setbacks to interior side property lines (not abutting a street) may be
reduced to zero.
F. Architectural Controls: Applicants for a conditional use permit must provide samples of
exteriorfinishes which shall be approved as part of the conditional use permit process.
G. Landscaping: At least twenty five percent (2501o) of the land area shall be landscaped with
grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. All lots within the proposed retail sales and
service complex development may be calculated together to meet the twenty five percent (25%)
requirement.
H. Signage: Approved signage shall be based on the overall size of the retail sales and service
complex but flexibility may be granted to allow more than one sign on a particular lot that is part
of the retail sales and service complex. Freestanding or pylon signs may be located at least ten
feet (10) from a front property line or side yard abutting a public street and interior side
property lines. Pylon signage may be permitted provided that signage included in any retail sales
and service complex located along I-494 shall be no higher than nine hundredfifteen feet (915
above mean sea level.
I Remaining Standards: All other standards of the I industrial district and other applicable
zoning standards shall apply.
Solar energy systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are designed to supply
energy to on site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter.
Trade schools, colleges, and universities with accessory housing for the students of the school only.
Uses which are permitted under section 12-1I--8 of this chapter which involve the storage or use of
materials which decompose by detonation. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 446, 3- 5-2013; Ord. 457, 11-
19-2013; Ord. 485, 9-15-2015)
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 58
Interim Uses
Interim uses must conform to the zoning regulations and can be terminated based on a date or event that
can be identified with certainty. As a result, they are effective tools for redevelopment planning by allowing
for certain temporary uses of property without jeopardizing a long-range plan. The City Code was amended
in 2015 to include interim uses, as in Ordinance 479.
Title 12 -IB -2 of the City Code includes the following definition:
INTERIM USE: A temporary use ofproperty until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular
event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit the use.
Title 12-1G-2-1 of the City Code includes the following interim uses within the Industrial District:
Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be usedfor the_ following uses except by interim
use permit:
Off leash dog area, provided that:
A. The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres, which may include a combination of adjoining
lots under control by the city.
B. No structures shall be located on the lot(s).
C. Proper fencing shall be installed around the entire off leash area with height and materials
approved by the city council.
D. Adequate off street and/or on street parking shall be supplied, as determined by the city
council.
E. Hours of operation shall be limited to between seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and nine o'clock
9: 00) P.M.
F. Fixed lighting structures are prohibited.
G. All dogs shall be appropriately licensed.
H. All dogs shall be kept on leash at all times except within the designated off leash area.
I. No dog(s) shall be left unattended within the off leash area.
J. Dog waste receptacles shall be provided and all dog waste shall be properly disposed of on
site by the user or removedimmediately. (Ord. 484, 8-4-2015)
Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are located on the same lot, but are subordinate or incidental to a permitted use. Accessory
uses are still subject to applicable zoning regulations and required building permits. They often include
uses that enhance the use of the property, but do not change the primary permitted use.
Title 12 -IG -3 of the City Code includes the following accessory uses within the Industrial District:
Within the I district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Fences as regulated by this chapter.
Guesthouses owned and operated in conjunction with a permitted or principal use.
Offstreet parking and loading as regulated in this chapter.
Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in relation to
a principal use.
Signs as regulated in this chapter. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 59
Proposed Amendments
Based on discussions during the planning process, staff has included proposed amendments concerning
certain uses for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. It is not intended at this time to
propose any new uses, which has historically been a process driven by a proposed request. Also, the impacts
of eliminating or reclassifying certain uses should be considered as it relates to any existing uses that operate
within the Industrial District.
Ultimately, the City Council may consider any amendments necessary to ensure the city's land use goals
and policies within the Industrial District are implemented appropriately.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 491, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 491.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment concerning certain uses
in the Industrial District. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month's meeting.
Staff would propose to bring back any substantial revisions for review and further discussion at a future
meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. DRAFT Ordinance 491
2. Industrial Zoning District maps
3. Implementation Framework
4. Planning application, including supporting materials
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 60
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 491
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Title 12 -1G -1-B is hereby amended as follows:
The following nonmanufacturing uses:
Trade ,.,.h, els a+id eColleges or universities.,
Section 1.
Section 2.
Title 12-1G-2 is hereby amended as follows:
Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by
conditional use permit:
Massage therapy services to the general public for purposes of a teaching program accredited by the
National Certification Board For Therapeutic Massage And Bodywork and the Accrediting Commission
Of Career Schools And Colleges Of Technology as an accessory use to trade colleges; and
universities in which no fee is charged for the services.
Trade sehae4 .Colleges -ate or universities w4h a , i .using for- 4ie s.adeats arthe se4aa' a*l
1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 61
Section 3.
Title 12-1G-3 is hereby amended as follows:
Within the I district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses:
Residential strue Hfes and related residential -Eises neeessafy for- seeiir-ity and safe, r-easeas in r-ela6efi E) a
pfifleipal
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this XXX day of Month, 2016.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
January 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
PLANNING CASE #2016-04
City of Mendota Heights
Proposed City Code Amendments concerning Industrial Zoning District uses
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering amendments
to various sections of Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G of the City Code concerning uses in the
Industrial Zoning District. The City recently finalized the Industrial District Redevelopment Plan
and is proceeding with implementing several of the recommendations included in the plan. The
recommendations were developed as a result of surveying property owners and managers, tenants,
and brokers; a market analysis completed by a commercial real estate firm; Planning
Commission/City Council joint workshop; and then the City Council was presented this
information and had several discussions regarding the implementation strategy. More specifically,
at the January 4 City Council workshop staff received direction to proceed with the process to
consider revisions to the uses that are allowed in the Industrial District.
Planner Wall then gave a definition of the following terms: Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses,
Interim Uses, and Accessory Uses.
After lengthy discussion regarding the list of permitted uses, the Commission requested that staff
bring back examples of what surrounding communities have on their list of permitted uses.
Planner Wall briefly summarized each section, fielded questions from the Commission;
discussions occurred and suggestions made.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TO TABLE ORDINANCE NO. 491 AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 23, 2016 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page13
MEETING DATE: February23, 2016
TO:PlanningCommission
FROM: NolanWall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: PlanningCase2016-04
ProposedCode Amendments – IndustrialDistrictUses
APPLICANT: CityofMendotaHeights
PROPERTYADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTIONDEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OFTHEREQUEST
TheCityis considering amendments toTitle12, Chapter 1, Article GoftheCityCodeconcerningusesin
theIndustrialZoningDistrict.
BACKGROUND
DRAFTOrdinance491wasreviewedanddiscussed bythePlanning CommissionattheJanuary meeting.
Asaresultofthe Commission’s comments, staffhasrevised theproposed amendmentsforcontinued
reviewanddiscussion.
ANALYSIS
TheCityisusingitslegislative authoritywhenconsidering actiononacodeamendment requestandhas
broaddiscretion; the onlylimitationsarethatactionsmust beconstitutional, rational, andinsomeway
relatedtoprotecting thehealth, safetyandgeneral welfareofthepublic.
Basedonthediscussionatlastmonth’s meeting, staffisproposing two optionsforreviewanddiscussion
bythePlanning Commission. Asummary oftheproposed amendments containedin DRAFTOrdinance
491includesthefollowing:
OPTION 1
Section 1
Title12-1G-1-Acontains permitteduses underthefollowingguidelines:
Withinany Iindustrialdistrict, nostructure orlandshallbeusedexceptforthe conductingofaprocess,
fabrication, storage, manufacturingorwholesaling ofoneormoreofthefollowing uses…
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page14
1.Revisetheexisting “autorepair” usetoincludebothmajorandminoruses, underthefollowing
existingdefinitions:
AUTOMOBILEREPAIR, MAJOR: Generalrepair, rebuildingorreconditioningofengines,
motorvehiclesortrailers, includingbodywork, framework, andmajorpaintingservice.
AUTOMOBILEREPAIR, MINOR: Thereplacement ofanypartorrepairofanypartwhich
doesnotrequiretheremovaloftheengineheadorpan, engine, transmissionordifferential;
incidentalbodyandfenderwork, minorpaintingandupholsteringservicewhensaidservice
abovestatedisappliedtopassengerautomobilesandtrucksnotinexcessofathree-quarter
3 tonrating. 4
Basedontheexistingdefinitions, itislikelythatany “majorautomobile repair” usewouldalsobe
completing “minorrepairs.”
2.Reclassifythefollowingmanufacturingusesfrom “permitted” to “conditional”:
Batteries
Laundries
Metalpolishingandplating
Paperproductsfrompreviouslyprocessedpaper
Rubberandsyntheticrubberproducts
Sheetmetalwork, ornamentaliron, welding, andstamping
Section 2
Title12-1G-1-Bcontainspermitted “nonmanufacturing” uses.
1.Add “municipalbuildingsandstructures” toincludetheexistingpublicworksgarage.
2.Eliminate “tradeschools” andincorporatetheexistingtradeschooldefinitionintotheusecategory
inorder torecognizeallpost-secondaryeducationoptionswithoutusingtheoutdatedterm.
3.Add “distribution” totheexisting “warehousing” use, inordertorecognizethattheusesareoften
co-dependentoneachother.
Section 3
Title12-1G-2containsconditionaluses.
1.AddtheusesreclassifiedfrompermittedusesinSection1.
2.Eliminatethefollowinguses:
Adultdaycare
Athletics, participative
Tradeschools, colleges, anduniversitieswithaccessory housingforthestudentsofthe
schoolonly
3.Add “Commercial recreation, whenconductedwithinacompletely enclosedbuilding” asa
conditionaluse.
Theintentistoallowforadditionalusesthatmaybeabletoutilizeexistingvacantwarehousespace
andrepurposethebuildingtomeettheirneeds. Therehasbeeninterestintrampolineand
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page15
gymnasticsusesinthepastwithintheIndustrialDistrict. Section5includesaproposedrevised
definitiontospecifyqualifyinguses.
4.Revise “massage therapy” usetoeliminatethereferenceto “trade school,” whichisproposed tobe
eliminatedfromtheCode.
5.Add “motorfuelstationconveniencestores” totheexistingusecategory.
Currently, theCodecontainsseparate definitionsfor “motor fuelconveniencestore” and “motor
fuelstation.”
MOTORFUELCONVENIENCESTORE: Astoreoperatedinconjunctionwithamotorfuelstation
ortruck stopforthepurpose ofoffering forsalegoodsnot essentialfortheoperationofmotor
vehicles.
MOTORFUELSTATION: Aretailplaceofbusinessengagedprimarilyinthesaleofmotor fuels,
butalsomaybeengagedinsupplyinggoodsandservicesgenerallyrequiredintheoperationand
maintenanceofmotorvehicles. Thesemayincludethesaleofpetroleumproductsandthesaleand
servicingoftires, batteries, automotive accessories, replacement items, lubricationservices, and
theperformanceofminorautomotive maintenanceandrepair.
Bothusesareallowedasconditional usesintheB-2andB-3zones, howeveronly “motorfuel
stations” areallowedbyintheB-4andIndustrialzones. Basedonfeedbackfromthesurveys
completedaspartoftheRedevelopmentPlan, theareaneedsadditionalsupportservicesforthe
existingworkforce. Bynotallowingforaconveniencestoreoption, astand-alongmotorfuel
stationdoesnotaddressthedemonstrated needforadditionalservices.
Section 4
Title12-1G-3containsaccessoryuses.
1.Eliminatethefollowinguses:
Guesthousesownedandoperatedinconjunction withapermittedorprincipaluse
Residential structuresandrelatedresidentialusesnecessaryforsecurityandsafetyreasons
inrelationtoaprincipaluse.
Section 5
Title12-1B-2containsdefinitions.
1.Eliminate “tradeschool” definition.
AsinSection2, theexistingdefinitionwouldessentially beincludedwithintheapplicable
permittedusecategory.
2.Revisetheexisting “commercialrecreation” definitiontolimitcertainusesallowedbyconditional
usepermit.
OPTION2
Uponrecommendation bytheCommission, staffreviewedsampleordinancesfromsurroundingsuburban
communitiestodetermine additionaloptionsforclassifyingindustrialdistrictuses. TheIndustrialDistrict
inMendotaHeights isuniquewhencomparedtoothercommunitiesduetoitsdiversityofallowedusesand
nodifferentiation betweenheavyandlightindustrialuses.
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page16
Section 1
Title12-1G-1-Acontainspermitteduses. Theexistinglistofpermittedmanufacturing usesisoutdatedand
couldbesimplifiedtoaccomplishasimilarintent.
1.Eliminatetheexistinglistofpermittedmanufacturinguses.
2.Add “manufacturing, whenconductedwithinacompletelyenclosedbuilding.”
Title12-1B-2defines “manufacturing” asfollows:
MANUFACTURING: Alluseswhich includethecompounding, processing, packaging, treatment,
orassembly ofproducts andmaterials, providedsuchusewillnotgenerate objectionable
influences thatextend beyondthelotonwhichtheuse islocated.
Aswritten, aproposed usethathas “objectionable influences” onsurrounding properties isnot
permitted.
3.Reclassify “automobile repair, majoror minor, when conducted completelywithinanenclosed
building” asapermitted use.
4.Reclassify “bus terminals and maintenance garages” asapermitted use.
5.Add “municipalbuildingsandstructures” toaddresstheexistingpublicworksgarage.
6.Eliminate “tradeschools” andincorporate theexistingtradeschooldefinition intotheusecategory
inorder torecognize allpost-secondary education optionswithout using theoutdatedterm.
7.Add “distribution” tothe existing “warehousing” use, inordertorecognizethatthe usesare often
co-dependent oneach other.
8.Eliminate “watersofteningunits,” since itiscovered under theproposed “manufacturing” use.
9.Movethefollowingpermittednonmanufacturingusesintonewpermittedusesection:
Businessand professional offices.
Landscaping andbuildingdesignandconstruction.
Railroadspursand sidings.
Scientific research, investigation, testingandexperimentation, includinglaboratories.
Section 2
1.Eliminate12-1G-1-B, asitisincorporated into12-1G-1-Aabove.
Section3 (seeOption1, Section3 forrationale)
Title12-1G-2contains conditional uses.
1.Eliminatethefollowing uses:
Adultdaycare
Athletics, participative
Tradeschools, colleges, anduniversitieswith accessory housing forthestudentsofthe
school only
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page17
2.Add “Commercial recreation, whenconductedwithinacompletely enclosedbuilding” asa
conditionaluse.
3.Revise “massagetherapy” usetoeliminatethereferenceto “trade school,” whichisproposed tobe
eliminatedfromtheCode.
4.Add “motorfuelstationconveniencestores” totheexistingusecategory.
Section4 (sameasOption1, Section4)
Title12-1G-3containsaccessoryuses.
1.Eliminatethefollowinguses:
Guesthousesownedandoperatedinconjunction withapermittedorprincipaluse
Residential structuresandrelatedresidentialusesnecessaryforsecurityandsafetyreasons
inrelationtoaprincipaluse.
Section5 (sameasOption1, Section5)
Title12-1B-2containsdefinitions.
1.Eliminate “tradeschool” definition.
2.Revisetheexisting “commercialrecreation” definitiontolimitcertainusesallowedbyconditional
usepermit.
Section 6
Asproposed, mostmanufacturing useswouldstillbeallowedunderthepermittedusecategory, aslongas
theyarecompliantwiththeexistingdefinition. Therefore, staffrecommends thattheIndustrial Districtbe
amended toinclude “prohibiteduses.” Theproposedlistcamefromreviewingexampleordinances, but
cancertainlybeexpanded.
ALTERNATIVES
Followingthepublichearingandfurtherdiscussion, thePlanningCommissionmayconsiderthefollowing
actions:
1.RecommendapprovalofDRAFTOrdinance491, aspresentedorasamendedbytheCommission.
OR
2.Recommend denialofDRAFTOrdinance491.
OR
3.Tabletherequest, pendingadditionalinformationandrevisionsfromstaff.
STAFFRECOMMENDATION
StaffrecommendsthePlanningCommissiondiscusstheproposedcodeamendment concerningcertainuses
intheIndustrialDistrict. IfacceptabletotheCommission, actioncanbetakenatthismonth’smeeting.
Staffwouldproposetobringbackanysubstantialrevisionsforreviewandfurther discussionatafuture
meetingpriortomakingarecommendation totheCityCouncil.
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page18
MATERIALSINCLUDEDFORREVIEW
1.DRAFTOrdinance491 (2options)
2.CityCodeTitle12, Chapter1, ArticleG – IndustrialDistrict
3.IndustrialDistrictUseTable
4.Planningapplication, includingsupportingmaterials
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page19
1 CITYOFMENDOTAHEIGHTS
2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3 ORDINANCENO. 491
4
5 OPTION1
6
7 ANORDINANCE AMENDINGTITLE 12, CHAPTER1, ARTICLESB ANDGOFTHECITY
8 CODEOFTHECITYOFMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTACOUNTY,
9 CONCERNINGDEFINTIONSANDUSESINTHEINDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
10
11
12 TheCityCounciloftheCityofMendotaHeights, Minnesota, doesherebyordain:
13
14 Section 1.
15
16 Title12-1G-1-Aisherebyamendedasfollows:
17
18 WithinanyIindustrial district, nostructureorlandshallbeusedexceptfortheconductingofaprocess,
19 fabrication, storage, manufacturing orwholesalingofoneormoreofthefollowinguses:
20
21 Automobilerepair, majororminor, painting, upholstering, tirerecappingandmajorrepairwhen
22 conductedwithinacompletely enclosed building.
23
24 Batteries.
25
26 Laundries.
27
28 Metalpolishingandplating.
29
30 Paperproductsfrompreviouslyprocessedpaper.
31
32 Rubberandsyntheticrubberproducts.
33
34 Sheetmetalwork, ornamentaliron, welding, andstamping.
35
36 Section2.
37
38 Title12-1G-1-Bisherebyamendedasfollows:
39
40 Thefollowing nonmanufacturinguses:
41
42 Municipalbuildingsandstructures.
43
44 TradeschoolsandcColleges, oruniversities, orpost-secondary, skill-basededucationalinstitutions which
45 offerprogramsthatissuecertificates, degrees, orcertifiedtrainingtofulland/orpart-timestudents.
46 withoutaccessoryhousing.
47
48 Warehousing anddistribution.
49
50 Section32.
51
52 Title12-1G-2ishereby amendedasfollows:
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page20
53
54 WithintheIindustrialdistrict, nostructureorlandshallbeusedforthefollowingusesexceptby
55 conditionalusepermit:
56
57 A.Conductingofaprocess, fabrication, storage, manufacturingorwholesaling ofoneormoreofthe
58 followinguses:
59
60 Batteries.
61
62 Laundries.
63
64 Metalpolishingandplating.
65
66 Paperproductsfrompreviouslyprocessedpaper.
67
68 Rubberandsyntheticrubberproducts.
69
70 Sheetmetalwork, ornamentaliron, welding, andstamping.
71
72 B.Thefollowingnon-manufacturing uses:
73
74 Adultdaycare, provided thattheproposedfacilitymeetsthefollowingconditions:
75 A. Clientsarebroughttothesiteprimarilythroughtheuseofgrouptransportation, suchasvans
76 orbuses.
77 B. Aseparateexteriorentranceisavailabletothefacilityforclientsandstaff.
78 C. Thefacilitywillrequireparkingspaceataratenogreaterthanthatofanofficetenantforstaff,
79 clients, andvisitors.
80 D. Iflocatedinamulti-tenantbuilding, thedaycarefacilityisfoundtobecompatiblewiththe
81 otherusesthatareallowedonthepropertyundertheapplicable zoningregulations.
82 E. Outdooractivitiesonoraroundthepropertyinquestion, ifpartoftheprogram, areaccessible
83 viaadequatepedestrian facilitiessuchassidewalksortrails.
84 F. ThedaycarefacilityisproperlylicensedbythestateofMinnesotaunderapplicablestatutory
85 requirements forclientsageseighteen (18) andover.
86
87 Athletics, participative.
88
89 Commercial recreation, whenconductedwithinacompletelyenclosedbuilding.
90
91 Massagetherapyservicestothegeneralpublicforpurposesofateachingprogramaccreditedbythe
92 NationalCertificationBoardForTherapeutic MassageAndBodyworkandtheAccrediting Commission
93 OfCareerSchoolsAndCollegesOfTechnology asanaccessoryusetotradeschools, colleges, and
94 universities, andpermittedpost-secondaryinstitutions inwhichnofeeischargedfortheservices.
95
96 Motorfuelstationsandmotorfuelstationconveniencestoressubject totherequirements ofsection12-
97 1D-13-3ofthischapter.
98
99 Tradeschools, colleges, anduniversities withaccessoryhousingforthestudentsoftheschoolonly.
100
101 Section43.
102
103 Title12-1G-3ishereby amendedasfollows:
104
Ord. 491 – OPTION1 – 02.23.16DRAFTforPlanningCommissionReview Page2of3
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page21
105 WithintheIdistrict, thefollowingusesshallbepermittedaccessoryuses:
106
107 Guesthousesownedandoperatedinconjunctionwithapermittedorprincipaluse.
108
109 Residentialstructuresandrelatedresidentialusesnecessaryforsecurityandsafetyreasonsinrelationtoa
110 principaluse.
111
112 Section54.
113 Title12-1B-2ishereby amendedasfollows:
114
115 TRADESCHOOL: Apostsecondary, skillbasededucationalinstitutionwhichoffersprograms thatissue
116 certificates, degrees, orcertifiedtrainingtofulland/orparttimestudentssuchasthoseintechnical,
117 mechanical, servicesandcomputingfields.
118
119 RECREATION, COMMERCIAL: Recreationalinstructionuses, includingBowlingalley, carttrack,
120 jump/trampolinecenter, golfrange/simulator, fitnesscenter, poolhall, vehicleracing oramusement,
121 dancehall, skating, tavern, theater, firearmsrange, recreational instruction (suchasmartialartsschools,
122 danceschools,etc.)andsimilaruses.
123
124 Section 6.
125
126 ThisOrdinance shallbeineffectfromandafterthedateofitspassageandpublication.
127
128 AdoptedandordainedintoanOrdinance thisXXXdayofMonth, 2016.
129
130 CITYCOUNCIL
131 CITYOFMENDOTAHEIGHTS
132
133
134
135 SandraKrebsbach, Mayor
136 ATTEST
137
138
139___________________________
140 LorriSmith, CityClerk
Ord. 491 – OPTION1 – 02.23.16DRAFTforPlanningCommissionReview Page3of3
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page22
1 CITYOFMENDOTAHEIGHTS
2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3 ORDINANCENO. 491
4
5 OPTION 2
6
7 ANORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES BANDGOFTHECITY
8 CODEOFTHECITYOFMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTACOUNTY,
9 CONCERNINGDEFINITIONSANDUSESINTHEINDUSTRIALDISTRICT
10
11
12 TheCityCouncil oftheCityofMendotaHeights, Minnesota, doesherebyordain:
13
14 Section1.
15
16 Title12-1G-1-Aishereby amendedas follows:
17
18 WithinanyIindustrial district, nostructureorlandshall beusedexceptfortheconductingofaprocess,
19 fabrication, storage, manufacturing orwholesaling ofone ormore ofthefollowing uses:
20
21 Aeronauticandautomotivetestingequipment.
22 Apparel.
23 Appliances.
24 Artificiallimbs.
25 Automobilepainting, upholstering, tirerecapping andmajorrepairwhenconducted withinacompletely
26 enclosedbuilding.
27 Bakery goods.
28 Batteries.
29 Boats.
30 Busterminalsandmaintenancegarage.
31 Cabinet shops.
32 Cameraandphotographicsupplies.
33 Canvas products.
34 Ceramicproductsusingkilnsfiredonlybyelectricityorgas.
35 Cigarettes andtobaccoproducts.
36 Clocks, watches andjewelry.
37 Corkandcorkproducts.
38 Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticalsandtoiletries.
39 Electricmotors, generators, transformersandotherelectriccomponents.
40 Electronic products.
41 Engravingandprinting.
42 Furniture.
43 Heating, washing, cooling, drying, cleaning appliances.
44 Ice, coldstorage plants, bottlingworks.
45 Laundries.
46 Machine shops.
47 Metalpolishingandplating.
48 Monumentworks.
49 Musicalinstruments.
50 Office equipment.
51 Paintmanufacturing.
52
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page23
53 Paperproductsfrompreviouslyprocessedpaper.
54 Researchlaboratories.
55 Rubberandsyntheticrubberproducts.
56 Sheetmetalwork, ornamentaliron, welding, andstamping.
57 Shoes, boots, footwear.
58 Sportingequipment.
59 Television, radio.
60 Tools, hardwareandsmallmetalproducts.
61 Videoequipment.
62
63 12-1G-1: PERMITTEDUSES
64
65 WithinanyIindustrialdistrict, nostructureorlandshallbeusedexceptforthefollowinguses:
66
67 Automobilerepair, majororminor, whenconducted completelywithinanenclosedbuilding.
68
69 Busterminalsandmaintenance garages.
70
71 Businessandprofessional offices.
72
73 Landscapingandbuildingdesignandconstruction.
74
75 Manufacturing, whenconductedwithinacompletelyenclosedbuilding.
76
77 Municipalbuildingsandstructures.
78
79 Railroadspursandsidings.
80
81 Scientificresearch, investigation, testingandexperimentation, includinglaboratories.
82
83 TradeschoolsandcColleges, oruniversities, orpost-secondary, skill-basededucationalinstitutions which
84 offerprogramsthatissuecertificates, degrees, orcertifiedtrainingtofulland/orpart-timestudents.
85 withoutaccessoryhousing.
86
87 Warehousing anddistribution.
88
89 Watersofteningunits.
90
91 Section2.
92
93 Title12-1G-1-Bisherebyremoved.
94
95 Section3.
96
97 Title12-1G-2ishereby amendedasfollows:
98
99 Adultdaycare, provided thattheproposedfacilitymeetsthefollowingconditions:
100 A. Clientsarebroughttothesiteprimarilythroughtheuseofgrouptransportation, suchasvansorbuses.
101 B. Aseparateexteriorentranceisavailabletothefacilityforclientsandstaff.
102 C. Thefacilitywillrequireparkingspaceataratenogreaterthanthatofanofficetenantforstaff, clients,
103 andvisitors.
Ord. 491 – OPTION2 – 02.23.16DRAFTforPlanningCommissionReview Page2of4
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page24
104 D. Iflocatedinamulti-tenantbuilding, thedaycarefacilityisfoundtobecompatiblewiththeotheruses
105 thatareallowedonthepropertyundertheapplicablezoningregulations.
106 E. Outdooractivitiesonoraroundthepropertyinquestion, ifpartoftheprogram, areaccessiblevia
107 adequatepedestrianfacilitiessuchassidewalksortrails.
108 F. ThedaycarefacilityisproperlylicensedbythestateofMinnesotaunderapplicablestatutory
109 requirements forclientsageseighteen (18) andover.
110
111 Athletics, participative.
112
113 Commercial recreation, whenconductedwithinacompletelyenclosedbuilding.
114
115 Massagetherapyservicestothegeneralpublicforpurposesofateachingprogramaccreditedbythe
116 NationalCertificationBoardForTherapeutic MassageAndBodyworkandtheAccrediting Commission
117 OfCareerSchoolsAndColleges OfTechnologyasanaccessoryusetotradeschools, colleges, and
118 universities, andpermittedpost-secondaryinstitutions inwhichnofeeischargedfortheservices.
119
120 Motorfuelstationsandmotorfuelstationconveniencestoressubject totherequirements ofsection12-
121 1D-13-3ofthischapter.
122
123 Tradeschools, colleges, anduniversities withaccessoryhousingforthestudentsoftheschoolonly.
124
125 Section4.
126
127 Title12-1G-3ishereby amendedasfollows:
128
129 Guesthousesownedandoperatedinconjunctionwithapermittedorprincipaluse.
130
131 Residentialstructuresandrelatedresidentialusesnecessaryforsecurityandsafetyreasonsinrelationtoa
132 principaluse.
133
134 Section5.
135 Title12-1B-2ishereby amendedasfollows:
136
137 TRADESCHOOL: Apostsecondary, skillbasededucationalinstitutionwhichoffersprograms thatissue
138 certificates, degrees, orcertifiedtrainingtofulland/orparttimestudentssuchasthoseintechnical,
139 mechanical, servicesandcomputingfields.
140
141 RECREATION, COMMERCIAL: Recreationalinstructionuses, includingBowlingalley, carttrack,
142 jump/trampolinecenter, golfrange/simulator, fitnesscenterpoolhall, vehicle racingoramusement, dance
143 hall, skating, tavern, theater, firearmsrange, recreational instruction (suchasmartialartsschools, dance
144 schools,etc.) andsimilaruses.
145
146 Section6.
147
148 Title12-1G-2-2isherebyadded:
149
150 12-1G-2-2: PROHIBITED USES:
151
152 WithintheIindustrialdistrict, nostructureorlandshallbeusedforthefollowinguses:
153
154 Acidmanufacturing.
155 Asphaltplants, asaprincipaluse.
Ord. 491 – OPTION2 – 02.23.16DRAFTforPlanningCommissionReview Page3of4
2/23/16PlanningCommissionPacket - Page25
156 Creosotetreatmentormanufacture.
157 Junkyards.
158 Landfills.
159 Manufacturing ofhazardouschemicals, asaprincipaluse.
160 Miningofanytype.
161 Petroleumrefineries.
162 Permanentortemporarystorageofhazardouswaste, asaprincipal use.
163 Personalself-storagefacility.
164 Sludgedisposal.
165 Use, storage, ormanufactureoffirearmammunition.
166
167 Section7.
168
169 ThisOrdinance shallbeineffectfromandafterthedateofitspassageandpublication.
170
171 AdoptedandordainedintoanOrdinance thisXXXdayofMonth, 2016.
172
173 CITYCOUNCIL
174 CITYOFMENDOTAHEIGHTS
175
176
177
178 SandraKrebsbach, Mayor
179 ATTEST
180
181
182___________________________
183 LorriSmith, CityClerk
Ord. 491 – OPTION2 – 02.23.16DRAFTforPlanningCommissionReview Page4of4
February 23, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1
PLANNING CASE #2016-04
City of Mendota Heights
Proposed City Code Amendments concerning Industrial Zoning District uses
Chair Field noted that this DRAFT Ordinance 491 discussion and review is a continuation from
the previous Planning Commission meeting and that the public hearing is still open.
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this item was tabled at the last meeting to address feedback
and ideas from the Commission and to bring back additional revisions for further discussion. Items
included in the staff report proposed two different options dealing specifically with the existing
permitted uses allowed within the Industrial District.
Planner Wall summarized each of the sections and included an updated table of uses list. He shared
a diagram that goes through each of the proposed options for discussion by the Commission.
Commissioners asked questions and/or had discussions regarding "and similar uses” in the
proposed “commercial recreation” definition being a catch -all phrase and could that potentially
open this up for unintended uses; adding “sports training facilities” to the list of proposed
commercial recreational uses; the list of permitted uses versus conditional uses and prohibited
uses; “municipal” use versus “governmental” use; and the rationale for eliminating “use, storage,
and manufacturing of firearm ammunition” and adding language to include fireworks and other
explosives.
Once it was established that the Commission was leaning towards Option Two, Planner Wall
summarized the changes he had heard thus far.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-04, DRAFT ORDINANCE 491,
OPTION TWO AS DISCUSSED AND WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Chair Field asked Planner Wall to send the Commissioners a clean copy of DRAFT Ordinance
491 with the revisions discussed this evening for administrative review.
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2016 meeting.
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED THE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: March 3, 2016
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance 491 Adopting Proposed Code Amendments Concerning Definitions
and Industrial District Uses
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City is considering amendments to various sections ofTitle 12, Chapter 1, Articles B and G of the City
Code concerning definitions and industrial district uses.
Background
The Industrial District Redevelopment Plan’s implementation strategy was discussed at the January 4 City
Council goal setting workshop. Subsequently, staff was directed to proceed with proposing potential
revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the Industrial District. The attached staff reports include various
options considered by the Planning Commission. The attached DRAFT Ordinance incorporates the
Commission’s comments. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings at the January 26 and
February 23 meetings; there were no public comments.
As proposed, DRAFT Ordinance 491 includes the following recommended amendments and rationale:
Section 1:
Title 12-1G-1-A contains permitted uses under the following guidelines:
Within any I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used except for the conducting of a process,
fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling of one or more of the following uses…
1. Eliminate the existing list of permitted manufacturing uses.
The existing listof permitted manufacturing uses is outdated and could be simplified to accomplish
a similar intent.
2. Add “manufacturing, when conducted within a completely enclosed building” as a permitted use.
Title 12-1B-2 defines “manufacturing” as follows and does not permit a use that has “objectionable
influences” on surrounding properties:
MANUFACTURING: All uses which include the compounding, processing, packaging, treatment,
or assembly of products and materials, provided such use will not generate objectionable
influences that extend beyond the lot on which the use is located.
page 164
3. Revise the existing permitted “auto repair” use to include both major and minor uses, and reclassify
as a permitted use, under the following existing definitions:
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR, MAJOR: General repair, rebuilding or reconditioning of engines,
motor vehicles or trailers, including bodywork, framework, and major painting service.
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR, MINOR: The replacement of any part or repair of any part which
does not require the removal of the engine head or pan, engine, transmission or differential;
incidental body and fender work, minor painting and upholstering service when said service
above stated is applied to passenger automobiles and trucks not in excess of a three-quarter
3/
4) ton rating.
Based on the existing definitions, it is likely that any “major automobile repair” use would also be
completing “minor repairs.”
4. Reclassify “bus terminals and maintenance garages” as a permitted use.
5. Add “governmental buildings and structures” as a permitted use to address the existing public
works garage.
6. Eliminate “trade schools” as a conditional use and incorporate the existing trade school definition
into the use category in order to recognize all post-secondary education options without using the
outdated term.
7. Add “distribution” to the existing permitted “warehousing” use, in order to recognize that the uses
are often co-dependent on each other.
8. Eliminate “water softening units” as a permitted nonmanufacturing use since it is covered under
the proposed permitted “manufacturing” use.
9. Move the following permitted nonmanufacturing uses into a new permitted use section:
a. Business and professional offices.
b. Landscaping and building design and construction.
c. Railroad spurs and sidings.
d. Scientific research, investigation, testing and experimentation, including laboratories.
Section 2:
Eliminate section 12-1G-1-B concerning permitted nonmanufacturing uses, as it is incorporated into section
12-1G-1-A above.
Section 3:
Title 12-1G-2 contains conditional uses.
1. Eliminate the following conditional uses:
Adult daycare
Athletics, participative, which is incorporated into #2 below.
Trade schools, colleges, and universities with accessory housing for the students of the
school only
2. Add “Commercial recreation, when conducted within a completely enclosed building” as a
conditional use.
page 165
The intent is to allow for additional uses that may be able to utilize existing vacant warehouse space and/or
repurpose a building to meet their needs. There has been interest in trampoline and gymnastics uses in the
past within the Industrial District. Section 5 includes a proposed revised definition to specify qualifying
uses.
3. Reclassify the following manufacturing uses from “permitted” to “conditional” uses:
Batteries
Laundries
Metal polishing and plating
Paper products from previously processed paper
Rubber and synthetic rubber products
Sheet metal work, ornamental iron, welding, and stamping
4. Revise “massage therapy” conditional use to eliminate the reference to “trade school,” which is
proposed to be eliminated from the Code.
5. Add “motor fuel station convenience stores” to the existing conditional use category.
Currently, the Code contains separate definitions for “motor fuel convenience store” and “motor
fuel station”:
MOTOR FUEL CONVENIENCE STORE: A store operated in conjunction with a motor
fuel station or truck stop for the purpose of offering for sale goods not essential for the
operation of motor vehicles.
MOTOR FUEL STATION: A retail place of business engaged primarily in the sale of
motor fuels, but also may be engaged in supplying goods and services generally required
in the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles. These may include the sale of
petroleum products and the sale and servicing of tires, batteries, automotive accessories,
replacement items, lubrication services, and the performance of minor automotive
maintenance and repair.
Both uses are allowed as conditional uses in the B-2 and B-3 zones, however only “motor fuel
stations” are allowed by in the B-4 and Industrial zones. Based on feedback from the surveys
completed as part of the Redevelopment Plan, the area needs additional support services for the
existing workforce. By not allowing for a convenience store option, a stand-alone motor fuel
station does not address the demonstrated need for additional services.
Section 4:
Title 12-1G-3 contains accessory uses.
Eliminate the following accessory uses:
1. Guesthouses owned and operated in conjunction with a permitted or principal use
2. Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in
relation to a principal use.
Section 5:
Title 12-1B-2 contains definitions.
1. Eliminate “trade school” definition.
As in Section 2, the existing definition would essentially be included within the applicable
permitted use category.
page 166
2. Revise the existing “commercial recreation” definition to limit certain uses allowed by conditional
use permit.
Section 6:
Title 12-1G-2-2 is established. As proposed, most manufacturing uses would still be allowed under the
proposed permitted use category, as long as they are compliant with the existing definition. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Industrial District be amended to include “prohibited uses.” The proposed list came
from reviewing example ordinances, but can certainly be expanded.
Discussion
The City is using 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.
The proposed amendments are limited to the existing permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. Potential
amendments to the additional standards could be considered as part of a different amendment process.
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended approval of DRAFT Ordinance 491, as described in Planning
Case 2016-04. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting
ORDINANCE 491 CONCERNING DEFINITIONS AND USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 167
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA2
3
ORDINANCE NO. 4914
5
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES B AND G OF THE CITY6
CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, 7
CONCERNING DEFINITIONS AND USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT8
9
10
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 11
12
Section 1. 13
14
Title 12-1G-1-A is hereby amended as follows: 15
16
Within any I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used except for the conducting of a process, 17
fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling of one or more of the following uses: 18
19
Aeronautic and automotive testing equipment. 20
Apparel. 21
Appliances. 22
Artificial limbs. 23
Automobile painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair when conducted within a completely24
enclosed building. 25
Bakery goods. 26
Batteries. 27
Boats. 28
Bus terminals and maintenance garage. 29
Cabinet shops. 30
Camera and photographic supplies. 31
Canvas products. 32
Ceramic products using kilns fired only by electricity or gas. 33
Cigarettes and tobacco products. 34
Clocks, watches and jewelry. 35
Cork and cork products. 36
Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and toiletries. 37
Electric motors, generators, transformers and other electric components. 38
Electronic products. 39
Engraving and printing. 40
Furniture. 41
Heating, washing, cooling, drying, cleaning appliances. 42
Ice, cold storage plants, bottling works. 43
Laundries. 44
Machine shops. 45
Metal polishing and plating. 46
Monument works. 47
Musical instruments. 48
Office equipment. 49
Paint manufacturing. 50
Paper products from previously processed paper. 51
Research laboratories. 52
page 168
Ord. 491 – 02.23.16 DRAFT for City Council Review Page 2 of 4
Rubber and synthetic rubber products. 53
Sheet metal work, ornamental iron, welding, and stamping. 54
Shoes, boots, footwear. 55
Sporting equipment. 56
Television, radio. 57
Tools, hardware and small metal products. 58
Video equipment. 59
60
12-1G-1: PERMITTED USES61
62
Within any I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used except for the following uses: 63
64
Automobile repair, major or minor, when conducted completely within an enclosed building. 65
66
Bus terminals and maintenance garages. 67
68
Business and professional offices. 69
70
Landscaping and building design and construction. 71
72
Manufacturing, when conducted within a completely enclosed building, excluding the manufacturing uses73
in section 12-1G-2 and prohibited uses in section 12-1G-2-2. 74
75
Governmental buildings and structures. 76
77
Railroad spurs and sidings. 78
79
Scientific research, investigation, testing and experimentation, including laboratories. 80
81
Trade schools and cColleges, or universities, or post-secondary, skill-based educational institutions which82
offer programs that issue certificates, degrees, or certified training to full and/or part-time students. 83
without accessory housing. 84
85
Warehousing and distribution. 86
87
Water softening units. 88
89
Section 2. 90
91
Title 12-1G-1-B is hereby removed. 92
93
Section 3. 94
95
Title 12-1G-2 is hereby amended as follows: 96
97
Adult daycare, provided that the proposed facility meets the following conditions: 98
A. Clients are brought to the site primarily through the use of group transportation, such as vans99
or buses. 100
B. A separate exterior entrance is available to the facility for clients and staff. 101
C. The facility will require parking space at a rate no greater than that of an office tenant for staff, 102
clients, and visitors. 103
page 169
Ord. 491 – 02.23.16 DRAFT for City Council Review Page 3 of 4
D. If located in a multi-tenant building, the daycare facility is found to be compatible with the104
other uses that are allowed on the property under the applicable zoning regulations. 105
E. Outdoor activities on or around the property in question, if part of the program, are accessible106
via adequate pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks or trails. 107
F. The daycare facility is properly licensed by the state of Minnesota under applicable statutory108
requirements for clients ages eighteen (18) and over. 109
110
Athletics, participative. 111
112
Commercial recreation, when conducted within a completely enclosed building. 113
114
Manufacturing, when conducted within a completely enclosed building, of one or more of the following115
uses: 116
A. Batteries. 117
B. Laundries. 118
C. Metal polishing and plating. 119
D. Paper products form previously processed paper. 120
E. Rubber and synthetic rubber products. 121
F. Sheet metal work, ornamental iron, welding, stamping. 122
123
Massage therapy services to the general public for purposes of a teaching program accredited by the124
National Certification Board For Therapeutic Massage And Bodywork and the Accrediting Commission125
Of Career Schools And Colleges Of Technology as an accessory use to trade schools, colleges, and126
universities, and permitted post-secondary institutions in which no fee is charged for the services. 127
128
Motor fuel stations and motor fuel station convenience stores subject to the requirements of section 12-129
1D-13-3 of this chapter. 130
131
Trade schools, colleges, and universities with accessory housing for the students of the school only. 132
133
Section 4. 134
135
Title 12-1G-3 is hereby amended as follows: 136
137
Guesthouses owned and operated in conjunction with a permitted or principal use. 138
139
Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in relation to a140
principal use. 141
142
Section 5. 143
Title 12-1B-2 is hereby amended as follows: 144
145
TRADE SCHOOL: A postsecondary, skill based educational institution which offers programs that issue146
certificates, degrees, or certified training to full and/or part time students such as those in technical, 147
mechanical, services and computing fields. 148
149
RECREATION, COMMERCIAL: Recreational instruction and participative athletic uses, including150
Bowling alley, cart track, jump/trampoline center, golf range/simulator, fitness center, sports training151
facilities, pool hall, vehicle racing or amusement, dance hall, skating, tavern, theater, firearms range, 152
recreational instruction (such as martial arts schools, dance schools, etc.) and similar uses. 153
154
155
page 170
Ord. 491 – 02.23.16 DRAFT for City Council Review Page 4 of 4
Section 6. 156
157
Title 12-1G-2-2 is hereby added: 158
159
12-1G-2-2: PROHIBITED USES: 160
161
Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses: 162
163
Acid manufacturing. 164
Asphalt plants, as a principal use. 165
Creosote treatment or manufacture. 166
Junkyards. 167
Landfills. 168
Manufacturing of hazardous chemicals, as a principal use. 169
Mining of any type. 170
Petroleum refineries. 171
Permanent or temporary storage of hazardous waste, as a principal use. 172
Personal self-storage facility. 173
Sludge disposal. 174
Use, storage, or manufacture of firearm ammunition, explosives, or fireworks. 175
176
Section 7. 177
178
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 179
180
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this XXX day of Month, 2016. 181
182
CITY COUNCIL183
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS184
185
186
187
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor188
ATTEST189
190
191
192
Lorri Smith, City Clerk193
page 171
March 3, 2016 Mendota Heights City Council
A) ORDINANCE 491, CONCERNING DEFINITIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT USES,
PLANNING CASE 2016-04
Planner Wall explained the proposed amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Articles B and G of the
City Code concerning definitions and industrial district uses. The City finalized the Industrial
District Redevelopment Plan and is proceeding with implementing several recommendations that
were included in that plan.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their meeting in January and again in
February. Their proposed recommendations were encompassed in the draft ordinance being
presented.
Planner Wall reviewed each section of the proposed ordinance and received suggestions and
comments from Councilmembers. Under Title 12-1G-1-A: Permitted Uses, Mayor Krebsbach
stated she opposes adding “governmental buildings and structures” as a permitted use to address
the existing public works garage. She recommended using “municipal buildings and structures”.
Councilmember Petschel concurred.
Mayor Krebsbach stated she opposes the change proposed for the “trade schools, colleges, and
universities permitted use” and would like to see it designated as a conditional use or not allowed
in the Industrial District. Councilmember Petschel stated she would like to leave schools as
stated in the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Norton stated the issue of allowing or not
allowing schools in the Industrial District is a topic that should be discussed at a Council
workshop.
Mayor Krebsbach recommended removing the paragraph related to Massage Therapy Services
for purposes of a teaching program as a conditional use, since there is no need to call out a
specific program. Councilmembers Norton and Petschel recommended discussing the school use
issue at a workshop meeting.
Councilmember Petschel inquired about a fast food restaurant being incorporated inside a motor
fuel station convenience store. Planner Wall stated it would potentially be allowed if it is
incorporated inside a convenience store.
Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt ORDINANCE 491 CONCERNING DEFINITIONS
AND USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT with three minor non-substantive changes as
discussed.
Councilmember Norton seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 1 (Krebsbach)
Absent: 1 (Povolny)
Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights, Minnesota
An important indicator for calculating existing demand and predicting future demand for self‐storage
product in various submarkets is to utilize the supply ratio. The supply ratio is calculated by taking all
rentable square footage (“RSF”) within the market (typically, a 3 mile radius surrounding the subject
property is used) and dividing it by the total population in that same trade area. In the trade area
surrounding Metro’s proposed subject property, there are three self‐storage competitors within a 3 mile
radius:
1. Acorn Mini Storage
2935 Lexington Ave S., Saint Paul, MN 55121
2. Beyond Self Storage
3100 Courthouse Lane, Eagan, MN 55121
3. Town Centre Self Storage
3495 Denmark Ave, Eagan, MN 55123
In total, these three facilities offer approximately 216,590 RSF to the marketplace. Given that the total
population is 35,826 in the same trade area, the existing supply ratio is 6.0 RSF / Person:
(216,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 6.0 RSF / Person
This is a useful formula for calculating demand in the trade area as that specific market is currently
constructed. However, when proposing to develop a new facility in a market, it is also important to
quantify how the market will be impacted by additional self‐storage product offered from the new facility.
Since Metro’s proposed project would feature approximately 80,000 RSF, the proposed supply ratio would
be 8.3 RSF / Person:
(296,590 RSF / 35,826 People) = 8.3 RSF / Person
To offer some perspective, Metro typically views a supply ratio anywhere in the 6‐10 RSF range as the
“sweet spot” for a high‐end, suburban market such as Mendota Heights. Both the pre‐ and post‐ Metro
project supply ratios indicate that the market is undersupplied. Therefore, given the strong physical
occupancies of the existing stabilized self‐storage operators in the trade area (approximately 90‐95%) and
the very healthy supply ratios (both excluding and including the proposed subject facility), Metro is
confident that the market will adequately absorb this additional Class‐A self‐storage product.
In addition to these factors, the average household income in the surrounding market is very strong at
$110,000‐120,000, which will lead to a customer base that will utilize the storage facility products
(premium climate controlled and merchandise).
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-01
Zoning Code Amendment – Personal Self-Storage Facility Uses in
the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Metro Storage LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: February 25, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “personal self-storage facility” uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial
district. The applicant is Metro Storage LLC (Lake Forest, IL). Metro Storage is seeking the opportunity
to place a new 80,000 sq. ft., indoor only, self-storage facility in the community.
This item (request) was originally introduced at the November 27, 2018 regular meeting, whereby the
applicant’s representatives asked the Planning Commission to provide preliminary feedback and comments
on whether or not such use (indoor self-storage) would be given favorable consideration. The excerpt
minutes from the 11/27/18 meeting are appended to this report for the Commissioner’s review.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
ANALYSIS
City Code does not identify or provide any allowance for a self–storage facility or use in any of the business
districts (B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4), nor the I-Industrial zone. Moreover, Section 12-1G-2-2 provides a list of
prohibited uses within the Industrial zone, and “Personal self-storage facility” is noted as one of these uses.
Zoning Code Sect. 12-1G-1 does allow warehousing as a permitted use in the Industrial zone; with
warehousing defined as follows:
“WAREHOUSING: The storage of materials or equipment within an enclosed building.”
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 2 of 5
In staff’s professional opinion, “warehousing” [in general] is not the same as self-storage or similar uses,
and should be considered a use or activity limited to or associated with wares, goods and products services
stored or distributed from a permitted use within the district.
A comment made at the 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting is noted below:
“This type of use would be somewhat inconsistent with the industrial study that the city
commissioned, where they did a look at what the industrial park wanted to be. It is quite clear that
the city desired it to be a robust employment generator that supported the economic development
aspirations of the city. This section in the Comprehensive Plan currently under discussion
certainly supports that notion. A use like this, which one could suggest is rather sterile in the sense
that it does not have a larger plant base or the activity that would be associated with the activity
in the industrial area, would be out of character. That may have been one of the reasons why it
was prohibited originally and has nothing to do with whether the storage is outside or inside.”
The “industrial study” noted above is in reference to the Mendota Heights Industrial District
Redevelopment Plan of 2016. As a follow-up to this comment, staff is presenting an excerpted (reduced)
version of this study, including trends, which are highlighted below:
Trend 1: Large warehousing facilities are needed.
Trend 2: Flexibility is critical.
Trend 3: Sustainability is key.
Trend 4: Telecommuting and transit.
Trend 5: New technology.
Trend 6: Decline and reuse.
The study also provide a list of recommendations, some of which are noted in the partial list below:
1) Keep the area guided and zoned for office, industrial and related uses; don’t make significant
changes that would interfere with its success as a business park.
2) Explore potential revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the park by scrutinizing and
revising if necessary the list of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning code.
10) Stay current on changes in the requirements of industrial and office uses generally and adjust
the city’s policies and regulations as needed to respond to new developments.
11) Promote the opportunity for Industrial land use on the City-owned Bourne Lane site, and only
encourage other uses if the market warrants it.
12) Continue to work cooperatively with Industrial Park owners, managers and tenants to keep the
park successful.
15) Explore ways to communicate, brand, and promote the Industrial District.
As was communicated by staff at the Nov. 27th meeting, there has been a number of inquiries from different
real estate management groups or self-storage user groups (including the applicant) searching for a site
within the City of Mendota Heights. A number of metro cities have embraced or allowed similar indoor
(only) self-storage facilities within their own communities. The following table provides a list of
surrounding communities that allow self-storage, warehousing or similar uses/activities:
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 3 of 5
METRO-NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES - COMPARISON MATRIX
CITY USE or ACTIVITY PERMITTED or
CONDITIONAL USE
ZONING
Eagan Storage facilities w/n Enclosed
Building
Permitted G-B General Bus. Dist.
West St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted I-1 and I-2 Zones
South St. Paul Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted
CUP
I-Ind. Dist.
Exterior storage w/ permitted
warehouse use
Inver Grove Heights Self-Storage (mini-storage) CUP B-3 Gen. Business
I-1 Limited Industry
Burnsville Mini-Storage Uses
Permitted B-4 Highway Comm.
I-3 Office-Industrial Park
Warehousing (enclosed building) Permitted Gateway Ind. Heavy;
Gateway Ind. Medium
Blaine Mini-Storage w/o Outdoor Storage CUP
B-2 Community Comm.
B-3 Regional Comm.;
I-1 Light Industrial
I-2 Heavy Industrial
Brooklyn Center Warehousing and Storage (inside) Special Use Permit I-1 Industrial Park
Brooklyn Park Self-Storage facility CUP B-3; B-4; I-Industrial
Cottage Grove Self-Storage Facility CUP B-2 Retail Bus.;
B-3 Gen. Bus.;
P-B Planned Business Park
St. Louis Park Warehousing and Storage Permitted
CUP
Ind. Park Dist.; Gen Industrial Dist.
Business Park Dist.
Apple Valley Self-Storage Facility w/n Enclosed
Building
Permitted GB-General Business
Woodbury Self-storage Use CUP BC-Business Campus Dist.
Of all the communities listed, only one (Cottage Grove) offered the following or added conditions as part
of any self-storage facility use:
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 4 of 5
Self-storage facilities [Cottage Grove] are subject to the following conditions:
A. Shall not allow maintenance of any vehicles on site, except for minor maintenance such as tire
inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery replacement.
B. Shall have a security system adequate to limit access to person s renting a storage site.
C. Shall screen all storage, consistent with the requirements of this code.
D. Shall be screened from all public right of way and residential use and/or zone, with an opaque
fence, wall or berm not to exceed eight feet (8') in height, constructed of new materials (chain-
link with slats is not an acceptable screening material), and maintained in good condition.
E. Exterior storage is prohibited.
F. Shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential use and/or zone.
G. All drive aisles and parking surfaces are surfaced with asphalt or concrete.
H. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not directly face a
public street or adjoining property.
I. An accessory caretaker residence may be permitted with a storage facility, provided it is only
used for resident security and management purposes and the exterior building materials match
those of the principal and accessory storage facility structures.
J. The hours of operation of the self-service storage facility shall be restricted to between the
hours of six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M.
K. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner
acceptable to the fire marshal.
L. Common parking space available to all storage units shall be provided at a rate no less than one
space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. (Ord. 904, 5 -16-2012
As the Commission can see, the matrix identifies a number of cities that allow indoor warehousing and self-
storage uses in the commercial / business districts only, the industrial districts only; or a combination of
both business/industrial zones. The matrix also shows the ratio of cities that allow storage type uses is
almost 50/50 as either a permitted use vs. conditional use in the respective cities.
At the Nov. 27th meeting discussion, it appears some Commissioners would consider or support such uses,
but only in the I-Industrial district, and with certain or special conditions. Staff has prepared a draft
ordinance for the Commission to consider, which would allow such use, along with some suggested
conditions (modified from Cottage Grove’s ordinance). T he Commission may choose to add or modify
these conditions accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-
storage facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-1
or 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage facility” as either a permitted use or conditional use
in the I-Industrial district; or
Planning Case 2019-01 Zoning Code Amend-Self-Storage Uses Page 5 of 5
2. Recommend denial of the requested Zoning Code Amendment to remove “Personal self-storage
facility” under City Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and make no amendments to Section
12-1G-1, with certain findings; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing; allow for public comments; and discuss with city staff and/or the Applicant the
request for zoning code amendment.
Following the public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending
approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendment by removing “Personal self-storage facility” under City
Code Section 12-1G-2-2 Prohibited Uses; and amend Section 12-1G-2 by adding “Personal self-storage
facility” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district, with certain condition as presented under the draft
Ordinance No. 538, presented and attached hereto.
Attachments
1) Draft Ordinance No. 538
2) 11/27/18 Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts)
3) MH Industrial District Redevelopment Plan of 2016
4) Proposed Self Storage Development Concept Plans and Information
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 538
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G.
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY
AS A CONDITIONAL USE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Personal self-storage facility, provided that:
A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of vehicles, trailers,
and equipment is strictly prohibited.
B. Maintenance and servicing of vehicles stored on site is prohibited, except for minor
maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil, wiper replacement, and battery
replacement.
C. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons
renting at the facility.
D. Facility shall not be located closer than three hundred feet (300') to any residential
use and/or zone.
E. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or
concrete.
F. All storage space openings shall be oriented internally to the facility and shall not
directly face a public highway or major collector.
G. Access to the interior of the fenced area shall be available to emergency responders in
a manner acceptable to the fire marshal.
H. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than
one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area
Section 2.
Title 12-1G-2-2: Prohibited Uses is hereby amended as follows:
Personal self-storage facility
Section 3.
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this _____ day of February, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter)
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Planning Report
DATE: February 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-02
Variance to Building Height Limits
APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Friendly Hills Middle School
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 Mendota Heights Road
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional)
ACTION DEADLINE: March 11, 2019
INTRODUCTION
ISD #197 is seeking to construct a new gymnasium/performance space building addition to the rear of the
Friendly Hills Middle School facility, which requires variance from the height standards set for the R-1
One Family Residential District.
This legal notice of this public hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed
to all properties within 500-feet from the outer perimeters of the school boundary lines. The city received
one letter of opposition, which is appended to the back of this report. No other comments or objections on
this school addition project (or the variance) have been received.
BACKGROUND
The property is located in the R-1 One
Family Residential zone, but guided for
S-School (Institutional) use. The
subject parcel consists of approximately
30 acres in land area, and contains a
90,000 sq. ft. school facility, with
visitor/staff parking lot, bus/delivery
service areas, and soccer/ball fields on
the north and east sides of the campus.
A large natural wooded and pond are
located on the westerly edges of the site,
and a smaller stand of mature trees are
located near the southeast corner of the
campus (see image –right).
In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical
maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom
and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and
handicapped accessibility.
The school facility contains three, 2-story wings of educational space; along with a cafeteria/delivery space
near the east side of the school, and a gymnasium on the north side. The property is currently accessed by
two driveway openings on to Mendota Heights Road only. The westerly entrance is for bus service (drop-
off/pick-up) and bus parking only, and includes a circular turn-around at the end of this bus driveway. The
second entrance is located across from Lockwood Drive to the south, and provides access to the delivery
area on eh east side of the building, and leads back to the main outdoor surface parking lot for staff, visitors
and parent drop-offs.
SITE PLAN
The applicant intends to construct a 64’ x 126’, 8,064-sf. addition on the back side of the existing
gymnasium, which will be used for additional interior activity and performance space for the school (see
image below). The plans also include a new hard-surface play/vehicle turn around area, along with a new
“soft-play” area, all on the west side of the new addition. There are no other major building additions
planned for the school at this time.
The proposed height of the new building addition will match the existing gym height of 31-ft., 5-inches
(see elevation image – below).
The R-1 Zone requires all structures to have no more than 25-feet in height. Flat-roofed structures such as
these are measured at the upper-most edge of the building.
As evident on the attached site plans, the school is looking to separate the bus/ truck traffic from the
parent/visitor/staff traffic that enters into the school site from Mendota Heights Road. FHMS intends to
shut-off the westerly bus entrance on Mendota Heights Road, and reconfigure a new access and driveway
layout from the existing easterly entrance (which remains in place), and shall serve as the dedicated bus
drop-off/parking and school/truck delivery entrance only. The driveway that now leads straight back to the
staff/visitor parking lot will be cut-off.
A new entrance to serve only the staff/visitors/parents is planned off Huber Drive to the east. FHMS intends
to reconfigure the school parking lot as part of these improvements. The access drive opening will consist
of a striped 3-way turning movement entrance, with one lane for entering off of Huber Drive, and a left and
right turn lane for exiting traffic back out on to Huber Dr. The entrance is approximately 170-ft. south
(centerline-to-centerline) of Hampshire Drive to the north; and 470-ft. from the intersection of Huber Dr.
and Mendota Hts. Road to the south.
As part of this new driveway, the ball field diamond that is in the way will be relocated to the south of the
other ball diamond, and most of the trees in the southeast corner will be removed to make space available
for the playing fields.
Staff would like to point out that these new access, driveway, parking, and ball field reconfigurations do
not play a part in this variance; nor should they be factored in when considering this variance request. All
new driveway openings on to city roadways must be analyzed and approved by the City Public Works
Director; and the City Council may be consulted or asked to decide any new changes or entry additions to
roadways, and can approve/disapprove a permit if deemed appropriate.
The variance is only to allow the new gym addition to exceed the 25-ft. building height limitations in the
R-1 zone; and the emphasis of this report and discussion on this planning case should be focused on just
the building height variance.
ANALYSIS
Variance
When considering variances, the City is required to consider an Applicant’s response to certain questions,
and carefully weigh certain findings as they apply to these standards. As part of the variance application,
Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are
noted below (in italic text):
1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance;
meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter?
The height of the existing middle school gym is 31’-5”, which is the same heights at the new
gym/performance addition. The height of the existing middle school at its tallest point is 35-ft.
Staff’s response: The use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and
its continued use as a school, even with the additional gym space, is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the overall Zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s desire to construct an addition to the current
gym facility is reasonable.
2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner? .
The granting of the variance is consistent with the current circumstances unique to this existing
property. These current circumstances are that the existing gym spaces are 31’-5-3/8” tall, and the
tallest point of the existing school is 35-ft.
Staff’s response: One of the primary reasons for this recent school bond approval, was to provide
upgrades and additional space for the students that utilize these local schools, and provide effective
levels of service and spaces for the students. The plight of the landowner and restrictions on building
heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family
use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Therefore, granting a variance may be
warranted.
3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
The height of the new gym/performance space is the same height as the existing gym of the existing
middle school.
Staff’s response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the
neighborhoods, as this school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community,
and there is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable
improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students,
faculty, and the community.
ALTERNATIVES
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the variance to exceed the 25-ft. maximum allowable height of strictures
in the R-1 District, based on attached findings of facts for approval with certain conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the variance to exceed the 25-ft. maximum allowable height of structures in
the R-1 District, based on amended findings of facts for denial, which must be formulated by the
Commission; or
3. TABLE the request; direct city staff to explore other alternatives with the Applicant and provide
follow-up information; and extend the review period an additional 60-days in compliance with
Minnesota State Statute.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with the
following conditions (Alternative #1):
1. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permit for the new structure identified herein,
including any fences or electrical permits as necessary.
2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial site map
2. Planning Application, including Narrative
3. Gym Addition Elevation Plans
4. Site & Landscape Plans
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Variance Request
Friendly Hills Middle School – 701 Mendota Heights Road
Planning Case No. 2019-02
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed variance request:
1. The scale and scope of the variance needed to justify and approve the extended height of the
proposed gym addition structure are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City
Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented.
2. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for
granting of a variance to allow an the gym addition structure to exceed the normal maximum height
of single family residential structures in the underlying R-1 Zone; and it should be noted the new
gym height will match the existing gym height, and be less than the overall height of the principal
(main) school facility.
3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not
a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore
does warrant the approval or granting of said variance.
4. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the
school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is
a general accepted expectation that this gym addition improvement can be considered a reasonable
improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the
community.
2019-02300.00500.0001/11/201903/11/2019
2019-02ISD-197Friendly Hills MS
RE-ALIGNED BUSCORRAL ENTRANCEDRIVENEW ENTRANCE DRIVEOFF HUBER DRIVEDROP OFFEXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELDDROP OFFDROP OFF ONE WAYONE WAY
843.03' SETBACK396.53'SETBACK319.34'SETBACK321.36'SETBACK132.51'SETBACKSERVICE/DELIVERYPARKING/DROP-OFF(11+1 HC STALLS)NORTHPARKING LOT(119 + 5 HC STALLS)SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/ EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDPROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONSREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKSRELOCATEDSOFTBALL FIELD
RE-ALIGNED BUSCORRAL ENTRANCEDRIVENEW ENTRANCE DRIVEOFF HUBER DRIVEDROP OFFEXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELDDROP OFFDROP OFF ONE WAYONE WAY
843.03' SETBACK396.53'SETBACK319.34'SETBACK321.36'SETBACK132.51'SETBACKSERVICE/DELIVERYPARKING/DROP-OFF(11+1 HC STALLS)NORTHPARKING LOT(119 + 5 HC STALLS)SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/ EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDPROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONSREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKSRELOCATEDSOFTBALL FIELDProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOLNOTES:1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.3. SIGNAGE SHALL GENERALLY BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED.5. WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING TURF, EXISTING TURF EDGE SHALL BE CUT TO ALLOW FORA CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED OR UNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINT BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TOALLOW NEW SOD SURFACE TO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.6. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS,AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.Friendly Hills Middle School701 Mendota Heights Rd,Mendota Heights, MN 55120West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District - ISD #197THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 - One Family ResidentialEXISTING PARKING:135 + 5 HC STALLSPARKING REQUIREMENT:ONE (1) SPACE FOR EACH FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE (70 staff): 70 SPACES REQ'DPROPOSED PARKING COUNTS:STAFF, VISITOR, PUBLIC/ VOLUNTEER PARKING = 130 + 6 HC STALLSBUS PARKING = 14 Large/ 5 SPED/ 3 Vans NeededSITE STATISTICS:020 40LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED REINFORCED CONCRETE SLABPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENTPROPOSED PAVEMENT RECLAIM /NEW PAVEMENTPROPOSED PLAY AREAPROPOSED AGLIMEPROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCINGPROPOSED PAINTED CURBPROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNSIGNAGE KEY NOTEPAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION (FES)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TOARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINEA1C2.118C2.1210C2.123C2.1216C2.1217C2.1220C2.1223C2.1210C2.119C2.1111C2.1112C2.1112C2.1224C2.1214C2.1215C2.127C2.1211C2.121C2.1323C2.113C2.13NOT FOR
CONSTRUCT
ION
RE-ALIGNED BUSCORRAL ENTRANCEDRIVENEW ENTRANCE DRIVEOFF HUBER DRIVEEXISTING LACROSSE FIELD (180' x 330')EXISTING SOCCER FIELD (180' x 340')EXISTINGSOFTBALL FIELD876875874873871870870872874876869
86987
0
88
0
88
1
882879
8848838
8
4
885886883883884885886886885
8
8
0
8
8
1 868866865870875873873870879878877874876875877877876878867SERVICE/DELIVERYPARKING/DROP-OFF(11+1 HC STALLS)NORTHPARKING LOT(119 + 5 HC STALLS)SOFT PLAYAREAHARD-SURFACEPLAY/ EMERGENCYVEHICLETURN-AROUNDPROPOSEDBUILDINGADDITIONREFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANS FOR LAYOUT ANDDIMENSIONS4CO3CO3QB3PS3QM3AL2OV2QB1CO2TC2TC5AL7TC3QM3QM1AL3BR5PR3QA3QA2CK4ALSEED AND HYDROMULCHSEED AND BLANKETMINERAL SODSEED AND BLANKETSEED AND BLANKETSEED AND BLANKETSEED ANDBLANKETSOD- STAKEAS REQUIREDSEED AND BLANKETREPAIRED BUSCORRAL & WALKS883880 8748
8
4
8848
8
3 882RELOCATEDSOFTBALL FIELDProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL020 40NOTES:LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREEPROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREEPROPOSED SEED MIX #1PROPOSED SEED MIX #2 & MULCHPROPOSED NATIVE SEED MIXPROPOSED SHRUB / MULCH BEDPLANT KEY (REFER TO PLANT SCHEDULEABOVE)TOP = QUANTITYBOTTOM = PLANT SYMBOLPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.42- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. REFER TO SWPPP NARRATIVE FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING AND EROSION CONTROLREQUIREMENTS.3. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST INSPECT AND APPROVE FINISH GRADING BEFORE CONTRACTORPROCEEDS WITH SEEDING.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BEPAVED OR RECEIVE AGLIME SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED.5. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE ANACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD OR RE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS,AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.6. BEGIN TURF ESTABLISHMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATION FORPROCEDURE.7. ALL TREES TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED.8. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL RECEIVE 4" DEPTH OF CLEAN SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.9. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NO. 1 QUALITY, NURSERY GROWN AND SPECIMENS MUST BEMATCHED. ALL OVERSTORY TREES ADJACENT TO DRIVE AND IN PARKING LOT SHALL BEGINBRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'.1L1.11CONIFEROUS TREE1'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.GENERAL NOTES:xTREES SHALL BE ALIGNED AND PLUMB AFTERWATERING AND SETTLINGxPRUNE TREES AS REQUIRED AND AS DIRECTED BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERxCONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THREE STEEL POSTSWITH THREE HORIZONTALLY OPPOSED REINFORCEDRUBBER HOSE SECTIONS WITH A DOUBLE STRAND OF#11 WIRE AND FLAGGING. WRAP THE WIRE A MINIMUMOF TWO TIMES AROUND EACH POST.SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH (4" MIN. DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (4" MIN.)ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALLBE CUT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OFBURLAP. NON-BIODEGRADABLEMATERIAL SHALL BE TOTALLYREMOVED.PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.RUBBER HOSE AT BARK1'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.DECIDUOUS TREEGENERAL NOTES:xTREES SHALL BE ALIGNED AND PLUMBAFTER WATERING AND SETTLINGxPRUNE TREES AS REQUIRED AND ASDIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT/ENGINEERxCONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THREESTEEL POSTS WITH THREEHORIZONTALLY OPPOSEDREINFORCED RUBBER HOSE SECTIONSWITH A DOUBLE STRAND OF #11 WIREAND FLAGGING. WRAP THE WIRE AMINIMUM OF TWO TIMES AROUND EACHPOST.RUBBER HOSE AT BARKSET TREE AT ORIGINAL GRADESHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH(4" MIN. DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (3" MIN.)PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.FLAGGINGSHRUB BED EDGINGFINISH GRADETOPSOILEDGINGFINISH GRADEMULCH BEDCOMPACTED SUBGRADEGEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER -WRAP SIDES, TYPICAL1L1.112L1.113L1.115QB
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 1 of 6
Planning Report
DATE: February 26, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-03
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
APPLICANT: Julia Weisbecker
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1840 Hunter Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: May 28, 2019 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358 – subdivisions)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Ms. Julia Weisbecker is requesting a lot line adjustment for one of two parcels located at 1840 Hunter Lane.
Related to this lot adjustment, Ms. Weisbecker also requests a variance to permit a portion of a lot to have
lesser street width/frontage as required by City Code. In essence, to allow a flag lot.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property. Staff has not received any comments or objections related to this item.
BACKGROUND
Both parcels are located between the properties of 1836 and 1850 Hunter Lane, and are identified by Dakota
County Assessor as two separate tax identified parcels (see GIS image – below).
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 2 of 6
Staff was unable to determine when, how or why these two parcels were separated in the first place. It
appears over the course of time, the former owners of these two properties sold or transferred them as one
combined property. The properties to the north of the subject property were platted in Celia’s Addition in
1989; and the properties to the south were platted into Sun View Hills Addition in 1977. The families that
previously owned 1840 Hunter Lane apparently did not plat or become part of either plat on each side, and
they remain unplatted, separate parcels to this day.
The westerly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-032 – outlined in RED below) is a vacant, square-shaped lot, 127-
ft. wide by 171-ft. deep, with 22,390 sq. ft. of area. The easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040 - outlined
in BLUE below) is a similar square shaped lot, but 130-ft. wide by 171-ft. deep, with 25,783 sq. ft. of area.
The east parcel contains a 3,745 sf. dwelling (built in 1950), which has a single -lane bituminous driveway
that leads out on to Hunter Lane across the southern part of the westerly parcel. The survey reveals that an
existing 15-ft. wide Ingress/Egress Easement is present along the south edge of this westerly parcel, but the
physical driveway does not come close to being centered or located inside this easement space, and veers
off more to the south when travelling easterly and back towards the east parcel.
The survey also reveals this driveway encroaches slightly over the northerly property line of 1850 Hunter
Lane (to the south). The owners of 1850 Hunter Lane have stated they do not wish to participate in a similar
lot line adjustment on their private land, nor grant any permanent land rights in order to eliminate this
encroachment (due to current mortgage and other legal/title issues). However, this neighbor has agreed to
provide a 5-foot easement for driveway purposes on this northerly notched segment of their land, which
will go to the benefit of the new owner at 1840 Hunter Lane.
Today, Ms. Weisbecker seeks to sell the easterly parcel with the single-family dwelling on its own; and
sell-off the westerly parcel separately for future residential development. Since these parcels are considered
by City Code to be “Existing Lots of Record”, they can legally be owned and developed individually. The
problem exists however, that once the westerly parcel is sold off, and different ownership takes control of
each parcel, the easterly parcel potentially loses its legal access rights over and across the west parcel , as it
exists today. The new owner of 1840 Hunter Lane has requested that instead of securing an easement right
over the westerly parcel for the driveway access, he is requesting a more permanent solution.
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 3 of 6
The lot line adjustment will take place only on the westerly (unassigned) parcel. The adjustment creates a
20.18-ft. to 23.51 ft. wide parcel strip along the south edge of this westerly parcel, which parcel will then
be combined to the easterly parcel for a new permanent (fee title) access strip for the easterly 1840 Hunter
Lane parcel (see close-up image – below).
Once this strip parcel has been created and is combined or added to the east parcel, it essentially creates a
“flag-lot” design, which is something the city allowed at one time (as evident throughout the city), but no
longer. City Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet (lot width) along a public
roadway frontage. To accommodate the new owner’s request for a permanent access/driveway strip, M s.
Weisbecker seeks a variance to the 100-foot wide standard as part of this lot line adjustment.
ANALYSIS
Lot Line Adjustment
City Code Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations, Section 11-1-5 allows the subdivision of parcels through a
lot line adjustment, provided the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and
the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with
this title or the zoning ordinance.
In most cases of lot line adjustments, two property owners typically work out an agreement for one to secure
added legal rights to another neighboring owner property, usually a side-yard or rear-yard area. This case
is somewhat unusual, in that the adjustment creates or leaves a narrow strip, which is then intended to be
combined to the land-locked property to the rear.
As noted previously and as illustrated on the Applicant’s survey, the adjustment creates a new “access strip”
20.18-ft. wide along Hunter Lane, which tapers out slightly to 23.51-ft. wide on the back end and abuts to
the easterly parcel. This results in the westerly parcel having 107-ft. of frontage along Hunter Lane and
171.25-ft. of depth. The survey also illustrates the far west edge of the westerly parcel legally extends out
into Hunter Lane ROW; and the Applicant is proposing to dedicate a 14-ft. even strip of land to the City of
Mendota Heights for permanent road ROW, thereby reducing the lot width to 157.25 ft. The west parcel is
then left with 16,825 sf. of land area for development. The width and area still keep the adjusted westerly
lot legal and conforming to City Code (R-1 One Family Zone) standards.
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 4 of 6
Variance
As noted previously, as a result of this lot line adjustment, an approximate 20+ ft. wide strip parcel will be
created and combined with the easterly land-locked parcel, thereby creating a new “flag-lot” design. City
Code requires that all single-family parcels have at least 100-feet (lot width) along a public roadway
frontage.
When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to consider
an Applicant’s response to certain questions, and carefully weigh certain findings as they apply to these
standards. As part of the variance application, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own
responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text):
1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance;
meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter?
Ms. Weisbecker proposal will continue to facilitate use of the property in a reasonable manner because
its use as a residential lot will not change. The property is zoned R-l, which allows for single family
dwellings. There is currently a single family dwelling located on the property and the property will
continue to be used as a single family dwelling. If a variance is not granted, the property will not have
unambiguous, permanent access, will be unmarketable and cannot be put to any reasonable use.
2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner? .
If the variance is not granted, 1840 Hunter Lane will be effectively land locked due to circumstances
beyond Weisbecker's control. The lot split which created the unassigned parcel, thereby extinguishing
access to 1840 Hunter Lane, was approved by the City before the ordinance prohibiting "flag lots" was
passed. At the time of the approval of the lot split, the City approved the unassigned lot as a separate,
buildable lot from 1840 Hunter Lane. If the variance is not granted, the lot split approved by the City
will be effectively nullified.
3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
If the lot split, combination of parcels and variance are granted, both 1840 Hunter Lane and the
unassigned parcel will fit with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is zoned R-l and
consists of single family dwellings. There is an existing single family dwelling on 1840 Hunter Lane
and Weisbecker expects to sell the unassigned parcel to be developed as a single family dwelling. In
addition, there are at least two "flag lots" currently in the neighborhood at 1827 Hunter Lane and 1889
Hunter Lane.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment with the requested variance for reduced lot width
standard, based on the attached findings of fact with conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance based on amended findings of fact that
the proposed lot line adjustment and variance are not consistent with the City Code, Comprehensive
Plan or other justifiable and stated reasons: or
3. Table the applications, pending additional information from city staff or the Applicant.
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 5 of 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment and variance, based on the attached findings
of fact and with the following conditions:
1) The Applicant shall combine and attach the new access strip parcel to be created under the lot line
adjustment to the easterly parcel (PID # 27-02700-08-040).
2) The Applicant must provide proof of a private easement for driveway purposes from the owners of
1850 Hunter Lane (to the south).
3) Should the new owner(s) of 1840 Hunter Lane ever decide to reconstruct the driveway leading back
to the property, it must be re-centered and placed within the approximate 20-ft. wide access strip.
4) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Location/Site Map
2. Letter of Intent from Homeowners
3. Planning Application w/ Variance Responses (from homeowners)
4. Surveys with Legal Descriptions
Planning Case 2019-03 (Weisbecker) Page 6 of 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment & Variance
1840 Hunter Lane
Planning Case No. 2019-03
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City
Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the request is to provide a permanent (fee title) access right to the easterly parcel,
which will better serve said parcel instead of an easement right.
3. The existing conditions of the two parcels, with one essentially being land-locked, was not created
by the current property owners; and this lot adjustment and variance to lot width standards is a
reasonable request, the issue of the land-locked parcel does create some practical difficulty in
providing legal access rights to the site; and the requests do not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
6 66666666666
6666666666666666666666
66
6 6
³³³³!
³
³
³
³
"""
"
"
""66666666 6 666666666!!2 !!2 !!2
!!2 111110221171157
150149136
131130129141
84
11575
455
408
155
10060
139
194
404
30 23124
20185175916
90185150100
13120157
171
15730
100100
171
157 301851140
1850
1154
1840
1830
1836
1835
1845
1831
1855
1175 1151
1819
1155
1827
1145
11451171
HUNTER LNORCHARD PL
375'250'237'269'138'
Dakota County GIS
1840 Hunter Lane(J. Weisbecker Properties)City ofMendotaHeights080
SCALE IN FEETDate: 1/22/2019
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.
January 23, 2019
LETTER OF INTENT
City of Mendota Heights
e 1101 Victoria Curv
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
ttn: Tim Benetti A
timb@mendota‐heights.com
e: nce Request R Lot Split/Property Co
1840 Hunter Lane, Me
File No.: 6639‐2
mbination and Varia
ndota Heights, MN
Our
Dear Tim:
Julia Weisbecker owns 1840 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 and an unassigned
parcel immediately West of 1840 Hunter Lane and adjacent to Hunter Lane (referred to
hereinafter as the “Unassigned Parcel”). The Unassigned Parcel was the result of a lot split
approved by the City prior to Ms. Weisbecker’s ownership of the property. Ms. Weisbecker
recently entered into a purchase agreement to sell 1840 Hunter Lane. She will continue to
own the Unassigned Parcel and expects to sell the unassigned parcel for development as a
single‐family, detached dwelling.
A recent survey has disclosed that there is an approximate three (3) foot gap between 1840
Hunter Lane and 1850 Hunter Lane and also between the Unassigned Parcel and 1850
Hunter Lane. Ms. Weisbecker is in the process of commencing a quiet title action to
eliminate the gap(s) and establish ownership of the gap property. The relief being
requested in the quiet title action is that Ms. Weisbecker be declared the owner of the gap
between the Unassigned Parcel and 1850 Hunter Lane and the owners of 1850 Hunter Lane
be declared the owners of the gap between their property and 1840 Hunter Lane.
Contingent on final judgment being entered in the quiet title action, Ms. Weisbecker is
requesting a lot split of the Unassigned Parcel, severing the south 24 feet (approximately)
of said parcel. The parcel that is severed will be conveyed to the purchaser of 1840 Hunter
Lane and combined with 1840 Hunter Lane. The lot split and combination with 1840
Hunter Lane is requested to provide unambiguous, permanent access to 1840 Hunter Lane.
In connection with the lot split and combination with 1840 Hunter Lane, Ms. Weisbecker is
also requesting a variance for 1840 Hunter Lane from the City’s zoning ordinances, which
City of Mendota Heights
January 23, 2019
Pg. 2
require properties located within the R1 zoning district to have front yard lots 100 feet
wide and prohibiting “flag lots.”
If Ms. Weisbecker’s request for a lot split/combination of property and variance is denied,
the lot split approved by the City which created the Unassigned Parcel, and which was
elied upon by Weisbeceker, will effectively be nullified and 1840 Hunter lane will be r
unmarketable.
The survey referenced above also shows that the West boundary line of the Unassigned
Parcel extends to the center line of Hunter Lane. There is no easement of record for Hunter
Lane over the Unassigned Parcel. In connection with the request for a lot split/combination
nd variance, Ms. Weisbecker is willing to assist the City in resolving this issue by granting
ed Parcel for Hunter Lane.
a
an easement over the Unassign
nclose p
E
d lease the following:
1.Planning Application;
Application;
Application; and
2. Lot Split
3.Variance
4. Survey.
Ms. Weisbecker will submit the required fees under separate cover. Please contact Ms.
eisbecker directly or through her real estate agent, Paul Dorn, with regard to payment of W
the fees.
f you require additional information or have any questions, please contact Mike Orme or
igned. Thank you for your assistance.
I
the unders
Sincerely,
ana K. Nyquist
t@ormelaw.com
D
dnyquis
DKN
c: ‐mail)
:jlf
C Julia Weisbecker (via e
Paul Dorn (via e‐mail)
M ENDOTA HEIGHTS !!!:I< CI TY OF
1101 V1ctorliJ Curve I Mendota Heights. MN 55118
651.452.1850 pl1one i 651.452.8940 fax
www mendota -heights.corn
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City's website
or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete
applications will not be put on the agenda.
Office Use Only:
Case#: ----------
App Ii cant: ________ _
Address: ----------
The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City
Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there
are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical
difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please
consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
• Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the
current application submittal schedule.
• Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
~ Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights).
NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required to complete the project.
~ Completed Application Form(s).
~ Letter of Intent.
~ Required Plans.
APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL
Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary):
~ Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and
proposed structures.
6'I Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request.
D Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners
of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the
Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 1 of 3
variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in
question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such
consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet
(100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested.
0 If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic
contours shall be submitted.
0 If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the
applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction.
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 2 of 3
Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request.
You may fill-in this form or create your own.
1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
@ YES D NO
Why or why not?
See Exhibit A
2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you).
See Exhibit A
3. In your opm1on, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the
neighborhood?
Ga YES D NO
Why or why not?
See Exhibit A
The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in
order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show
that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied.
Variance Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
1. Ms. Weisbecker's proposal will continue to facilitate use of the property in a
reasonable manner because its use as a residential lot will not change. The property is
zoned Rl, which allows for single family dwellings. There is currently a single family
dwelling located on the property and the property will continue to be used as a single
family dwelling. If a variance is not granted, the property will not have unambiguous,
permanent access, will be unmarketable and cannot be put to any reasonable use.
2. If the variance is not granted, 1840 Hunter Lane will be effectively land
locked due to circumstances beyond Weisbecker's control. The lot split which created the
unassigned parcel, thereby extinguishing access to 1840 Hunter Lane, was approved by the
City before the ordinance prohibiting "flag lots" was passed. At the time of the approval of
the lot split, the City approved the unassigned lot as a separate, buildable lot from 1840
Hunter Lane. If the variance is not granted, the lot split approved by the City will be
effectively nullified.
3. If the lot split, combination of parcels and variance are granted, both 1840
Hunter Lane and the unassigned parcel will fit with the character of the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is zoned Rl and consists of single family dwellings. There is an existing
single family dwelling on 1840 Hunter Lane and Wisebecker expects to sell the unassigned
parcel to be developed as a single family dwelling. In addition, there are at least two "flag
lots" currently in the neighborhood at 1827 Hunter Lane and 1889 Hunter Lane.
Planning Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
ZONING/GUIDED:
ACTION DEADLINE:
February 26, 2019
Planning Commission
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Planning Case 2019-04
Lot Split (Subdivision) & Combination
Mark Morin
963 Chippewa Avenue
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
May 28, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. Mark Morin is requesting approval to subdivide a residential developed parcel located at 963 Chippewa
Avenue. Upon completion of the split, the residential dwelling at 963 Chippewa will have a smaller (but
legal) residential parcel; while the remaining parcel created by the split will be combined into Mr. Morin’s
property, located immediately to the west.
This request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by
Dakota County.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels. There have been no inquiries or objections received by city staff.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a corner lot, located the southwest corner of Chippewa Avenue and Simard Street.
The property consists of two original platted lots (Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe Heights Addition).
Staff assumes the two lots were combined many years ago, with have been assigned a single parcel
identification number and assessed as one larger parcel for property tax purposes.
The subject property has 205-feet of frontage along Chippewa, and 120-ft. along Simard, and consists of
26,193 total square feet of area. The property also contains a 1,925 sq. ft., one-story single family rambler
style home built in 1955, with a 3-car attached garage. The overall property is generally flat and even with
no noticeable elevations or grades. The area north of the home is relatively wide open, with very little trees
Planning Report: Case #2019-04 Page 2
or landscaping one large evergreen tree near the corner and most of the site vacant/open grass yard. (see
Google Street image – below).
The site is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district, and is bordered to the north, south, east and
west with existing and similar style single family homes.
ANALYSIS
Project Description
As stated in the Applicant’s letter of intent, they propose to keep the existing single-family home intact,
and subdivide the lot into two (2) separate parcels, one for the home and one to be combined with Mr.
Morin’s own property to the west, located at 530 Simard Street.
Parcel A: the northern area of the subject property will be subdivided off to create a new 86-ft.
wide by 120-ft. deep parcel, containing 10,915 sf. (0.25 acres) of land area.
Parcel B: the southerly part of the subject property will be subdivided to create a new 119-ft. wide
by 133.4/150.26-ft. deep parcel, containing 15,278 sf. (0.35 acres) of land area.
Zoning Information
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. Below is a table that
reflects the R-1 District standards and those proposed for each parcel:
Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B
Lot Area 15,000-SQ. FT. 26,193-SQ. FT.
(0.60 AC.) 10,915-SQ. FT 15,278 SQ. FT.
Lot Width 100-FT. 205-FT. / 120-FT. 86-FT. 119-FT.
As shown in the table above, the proposed Parcel B will be compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and
width standards, and the home meets the 10-foot minimum side-yard (and other) setback standards for
single-family structures in this area.
Planning Report: Case #2019-04 Page 3
Parcel A however, does not meet the minimum lot width standards of 100-feet (along Chippewa Avenue);
nor the 15,000 sf. lot area minimum standard required in the R-1 Zone. However, the primary reason and
stated objective by the Applicant for splitting this property is to provide an opportunity to divide this this
lot into two separate parcels; sell-off the existing family home with a newer (but smaller) lot; and the
remaining non-conforming lot will be added or combined to his own personal property next door at 530
Simard Street. For this reason, city staff determined there was no need to process a variance with this
subdivision application.
Approval of this lot split however, will include a condition that the new Parcel A to be considered under
this request must be added or combined with the immediate neighboring residential property of 530 Simard
Street; and under no circumstances will separate single-family development be allowed on this parcel.
Furthermore, any approvals granted under this subdivision request does not create any special or unique
circumstances, nor any hardship argument for allowing this newly created (vacant) parcel to be individually
developed in the future.
The survey shows that there is a small split-rail, wooden fence along the outer perimeter of the proposed
Parcel A. Part of this fence appears to encroach slightly into the Simard Street right-of-way to the north.
The Planning Commission may wish to decide (make a condition) if this fence needs to be relocated out of
the ROW, or allow the fence to remain in place. City staff has determined this fence does not impact any
local utilities or snow storage, and is not significant enough to call for its immediate removal.
Easements
As stated previously, the subject property was originally platted as Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Guadalupe
Heights Addition (1890). The plat does not depict or include any perimeter drainage and utility easements
within the lots; so therefore the vacation of any easement (due to the re-establishment of new lot lines
between both parcels) is not required.
However, the city normally requests Applicants to dedicate any missing drainage and utility easements
when necessary; and the only areas the city can request these easements are along the front, rear and shared
(dividing) line between both parcels. The city will request 10-foot wide easements along the front, rear and
the shared parcel line.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the lot split application based on the attached findings of fact and
conditions of approval as noted herein;
OR
2. Recommend denial of the lot split application based on revised or determined findings of fact;
OR
3. Table the lot split application, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant.
Planning Report: Case #2019-04 Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and
development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the
following conditions:
1) The newly created parcel identified and described as “Parcel A” on the attached survey map
prepared by Frank A. Cardarelle (dated Jan. 29, 2019) shall be combined with the property
identified as 530 Simard Street (PID No. 27-31300-02-042).
2) The applicant shall dedicate, by recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota
County, a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the north and east property lines of
Parcel A; a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the west and east property lines, and
a 5-foot wide easement along the south property line of Parcel B; and a 5-foot wide easement on
each side (10-ft. total) of the shared line between Parcels A and B.
3) Approval of this lot split does not in any way provide a special or unique circumstance, or hardship
for the Applicant or future owners of Parcel A in claiming a right to develop a new single-family
dwelling development on said Parcel A.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Split – Subdivision Request
for
963 CHIPPEWA AVENUE
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot split meets the spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood.
3. The two lots resulting from the lot split will keep a single-family development intact; while the new
non-conforming lot to be created by this split will be combined with the neighboring property only,
thereby eliminating the need for a variance for a reduced lot size or lot width standard for properties
located in the R-1 District.
6666666 6 6666666666 666666666666666 6
6666 6 6 6 6
6 6
666666!
"
"³
³
"
"
³
!
!
*
³
"
³
"
³66666666666666 6 6 6
6
66
6
6
6
6
6
6
66
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
1791721701631
4
4
90
115
80
120
12
1
78110
75 10710570100656160
119
1
3
5
56
55
1481
9
3
5049 149155 140434130
29117
25
20
19
8197 15510
6130
119
5100140120120
107
100
1403060 5080120
60
60
119
55
78140107
60
119
60
6080 12050
30
530
963
537541
975
529531
546
550
968
969
547 945525537
985
959
953
947
532
554
544
545
983
940
549
987
MIRIAM ST
SIMARD ST
CHIPPEWA AVEDIEGO LN351.6'
351.2'238'235.5'107'327.5'332.7'107.4'85.9'Dakota County GIS
963 Chippewa Avenue530 Simard Street)Mark & Kris Morin
City ofMendotaHeights075
SCALE IN FEETDate: 2/20/2019
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.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-1
2
Land Use
Although Mendota Heights is almost completely developed, there are substantial
areas of public and private open space, wetlands, lakes, bluff and wooded areas
that give the feeling of very low density of development in much of the community.
The land use pattern is well established, with strong residential neighborhoods
throughout the City, business and industrial development in the southwest corner,
several major institutional uses (cemeteries, schools, golf courses), and protected
natural areas (Dodge Nature Center, bluffs and ravines along the river). The City
of Mendota Heights has identified the specific locations, and type of natural areas,
open space, and recreation areas located within and around Mendota Heights, as
illustrated in the Community Facilities Map - FIGURE 2-1.
Attention will also be given to protecting the high quality natural and built
environments which is addressed in many of the goals of this Plan. The intent is
to continue to protect the quiet, secluded feel of its mature neighborhoods by
preserving natural features and the environment, promoting high quality and well-
functioning developments, and continuing to work to decrease airplane noise over
the City.
GOALS and POLICIES
GOAL 2.1: The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use
decisions in Mendota Heights.
Policies:
2.1.1 Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use,
housing, transportation, parks and other community facilities.
2.1.2 Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure
consistent development policy in current and future development
decisions.
2.1.3 Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan.
2.1.4 The Land Use Plan will be updated to reflect changing priorities and
conditions or as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
2.1.5 Balance land use designations to meet projected growth demand.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-2
GOAL 2.2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed
residential environment and character of the community.
Policies:
2.2.1 Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and
building design.
2.2.2 Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general
aesthetic level in community development and building.
2.2.3 Parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance
of all residential areas.
2.2.4 Encourage development and planning of land that provides for
reasonable access to surrounding properties.
2.2.5 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.
2.2.6 Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance of non-conforming
properties to become less burdensome.
Goal 2.3: Support industrial and commercial development in
designated areas.
Policies:
2.3.1 The City will use available resources to meet redevelopment needs.
This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan
Council to achieve redevelopment objectives.
2.3.2 Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially
incompatible land uses.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-3
Goal 2.4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community.
Policies:
2.4.1 Increase public participation and representation through the Noise
Oversight Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC).
2.4.2 Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff
procedures and corridor compliance.
2.4.3 Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul
(MSP) airport Comprehensive Plan.
2.4.4 Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational
changes and advanced technology.
2.4.5 Encourage establishment of a physical capacity for the Mendota
Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer of general aviation use to other
reliever airports.
2.4.6 Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace
obstructions are encountered.
2.4.7 Consider aircraft noise and safety issues in applicable land use and
zoning decisions.
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALEPICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA
RI
VE
R
ROGERS LAKE
LAKE
AUGUS
TA
L
A
K
E
L
E
M
A
Y
GUN CLUB LAKE
SOMERSETGOLF COURSE(PRIVATE)ISLAND REGIONAL TRAILFortSnellingStateParkRESURRECTIONCEMETERY
CITY HALL\POLICE
PUBLICWORKS
FIRE STATION
MENDAKOTA GOLF COURSE(PRIVATE)
ST. THOMASACADEMY VISITATION
HENRYSIBLEYSENIORHIGH
MENDOTAELEM.
FRIENDLY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL
PAR 3 (PUBLIC)
ACACIA PARKCEMETERY
VENTO'S VIEW(WILDLIFE VIEWING STATION)
ÊÚ
SCENIC OVERLOOK(DAKOTA COUNTY)
ME
N
D
O
T
A
B
R
I
D
G
E
SOMERSETELEM.
OLIVIA T. DODGENATURE CENTER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PROPOSED NORTH URBAN REGIONAL TRAIL
BIGRIVERSREGIONALTRAIL14
13
15 LILYDALE-HARRIETDODD RDÊÚ
ÊÚÊÚ
ÊÚ
PILOT KNOBPRESERVATION
BUS GARAGEÊÚ DODD RDDELAWARE AVEMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR
S
I
B
L
E
Y
MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRLHUNTER LNORCHARD PL
VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE
Community FacilitiesCity of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2016
Off Street BituminousTrail (6' to 8' wide)
Proposed North Urban Regional Trail(Dakota County)
Wide Shoulders/On Street
Parks
Cemetery
City Park
State Park
Golf Course
Nature Preserve
Municipal Facility
School
Open Water
Wetland
1) Friendly Hills Park 2) Friendly Marsh Park 3) Hagstrom King Park 4) Ivy Hills Park 5) Kensington Park 6) Marie Park 7) Mendakota Park 8) Rogers Lake Park
9) Valley Park10) Victoria Highland Park11) Wentworth Park12) Valley View Heights Park13) Copperfield Ponds14) Sibley Park15) Civic Center Ball Park
February 26, 2019
Figure 2-1
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-5
EXISTING LAND USE
The following table illustrates how the existing land use is distributed within the City of
Mendota Heights, illustrated on the Existing Land Use Map - FIGURE 2-2. Note that
these categories are not the same and do not correspond to the Future Land Use
categories noted and identified later in this chapter.
Table 2-1: 2017 Existing Land Use
2017 Existing Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres
Rural Residential 147.36 115.86
Low Density Residential 1,792.12 1,727.75
Medium Density Residential 63.79 59.80
Medium Density Residential - PUD 14.17 14.17
High Density Residential 127.19 126.52
High Density Residential - PUD 6.42 6.42
Business 21.78 21.78
Limited Business 98.38 96.71
Mixed Use - PUD 38.66 37.20
Industrial 386.17 384.76
City Facilities 37.79 31.99
Schools (Public Private) 288.06 282.21
Churches Synagogues 32.59 30.53
Cemetery 239.67 238.47
Parks/Open Space 1,032.68 526.46
Golf Course 292.47 281.95
Right-of-Way 1,222.47 1,202.42
Open Water 591.03 551.02
Wetland 0.00 696.80
Total 6,432.81 6,432.81
Non-Conforming Single-Family Uses
The City recognizes there are certain areas of the city where single-family lots are generally
smaller, and have less than the minimum lot size standard of 15,000 square feet per Zoning
Code. Moreover, many structures in these areas do not meet current setback standards.
These smaller lots were developed before current zoning standards were in place, or in some
cases, residences were built with or without regards to meeting setback standards. Over the
course of time, when the City adopted updates to its Zoning Ordinance, many of these single-
family parcels became legal non-conforming lots, which in terms of size and reduced
setbacks can pose problems and legal hurdles when homeowners want to improve or expand
their dwellings, and in some cases run into setback or lot coverage issues.
The City supports updating the Zoning Ordinance, as part of the Implementation Plan, and
will provide mechanisms for assisting these legal non-conforming uses. The City intends to
offer certain [reduced] standards or allowances, which would essentially permit said uses to
be improved, updated or expanded without extraordinary measures, such as a variance.
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA
RI
VE
R
ROGERS LAKE
LAKE
AUGUS
TA
L
A
K
E
L
E
M
A
Y
GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR
S
I
B
L
E
Y
MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL
VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE
Existing Land UseCity of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
City Boundary
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential - PUD
High Density Residential
High Density Residential - PUD
Business
Limited Business
Mixed Use - PUD
Industrial
City Facilities
Schools (Public Private)
Churches Synagogues
Cemetery
Parks/Open Space
Golf Course
Right-of-Way
Open Water
Wetland
Figure 2-2February 26, 2019
Source: City of Mendota Heights, 2017
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA
RI
VE
R
ROGERS LAKE
LAKE
AUGUS
TA
L
A
K
E
L
E
M
A
Y
GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR
S
I
B
L
E
Y
MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL
VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE
Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land UseCity of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Dakota County, 2016
City Boundary
Lot Size < 5,000 sqft
Lot Size 5,000-7,500 sqft
Lot Size 7,500-10,000 sqft
Lot Size 10,000-12,500 sqft
Lot Size 12,500-15,000 sqft
Lot Size 15,000-20,000 sqft
Lot Size 20,000-30,000 sqft
Lot Size > 30,000 sqft
Open Water
Figure 2-
February 26, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights,
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-7
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES
RESIDENTIAL
Single family housing is the predominant land use in the City, although in recent
years there has been an increase in the development of multi-family housing.
Eight percent (8%) of the residentially-designated land in the City is utilized for
multiple family homes or medium to high-density development, as opposed to one
percent (1%) in 1979 and five percent (5%) in 2002.
The Land Use Plan identifies six categories of residential uses: rural, low density
in three ranges, plus medium density and high density.
RR – Rural Residential
This land use is generally located in the east central part of the City. This
designation is intended for large lot single family residences with and without
City sewer. The Residential Estate areas are planned with a density not to
exceed 1.45 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is
R-1A (One Family Residential).
LR – Low Density Residential
This land use is the most prevalent land use category in the City and provides
for single family development. This designation is intended for a density not to
exceed 2.9 units per acre, corresponding to the R-1 district minimum lot size
of 15,000 square feet and lot width of 100 feet.
MR – Medium Density Residential
This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at
urban densities of up to 8 units per acre. New areas of Medium Density
Residential are added in this update to include existing townhouse and duplex
projects that were previously designated Low Density and zoned R-1. The
corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-2 (Medium Density
Residential District) and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit
Development).
HR – High Density Residential
This land use provides for multi-family and apartment development at densities
of up to 25 units per acre, which might be allowed to increase within a planned
unit development (PUD). Most of this land use is in a few large apartment
projects. The corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-3 (High
Density Residential District) and HR-PUD (High Density Residential Planned
Unit Development).
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-8
COMMERCIAL
Commercial land uses are typically divided into two general categories; (1) office
and (2) retail. The office category includes land uses generally considered to be of
a limited business nature, typically a daytime office use. The Land Use Map
identifies these areas as “LB - Limited Business”. The corresponding zoning
district classifications are B-1 (Limited Business), B-1A (Business Park) and B-2
(Neighborhood Business). The second category of commercial uses expands the
uses to include retail, restaurants, hotels and other commercial uses. This
includes neighborhood type convenience stores and shopping centers. The Land
Use Map identifies these areas as “B - Business”.
LB – Limited Business
There are presently four locations where most Limited Business uses in
Mendota Heights are currently located or planned:
In the southwest quadrant of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue;
Either side of Mendota Heights Road, between I-35E and Dodd Road;
On the south side of South Plaza Drive, east of Dodd Road near the
Mendota Plaza area; and
On the south side of Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) at the
northern city boundary, east of I-35E.
B – Business
There are two locations where most Business uses are planned:
In the southeast quadrant of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue;
North of I-494 between Highway 55 and I-35E, although Commercial land
uses share much of this area with Industrial guided uses.
The largest concentration of commercial or business uses in the City is not
guided Business, but rather Mixed Use, at Highway 62 and Dodd Road, in the
Mendota Plaza and Village of Mendota Heights developments.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-9
MU – Mixed Use
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine
residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned
development project. This land use designation is located both north and south
of the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection, the City’s only significant retail
area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a
mixed use center known as The Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast
corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen
renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s
pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a
4-story 139-unit apartment project developed by Paster Properties and At
Home Apartments.
INDUSTRIAL
I – Industrial
The Industrial land use category is concentrated in the City’s industrial and
business park in the southwest part of the City, north of I-494. The vast
majority of the 400-plus acres of Industrial land is west of Highway 55, with a
portion east of Highway 55 and west of I-35E. This land use includes
manufacturing, office, and warehousing uses, but also hotels, and other
commercial uses.
PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE
P/S – Public/Semi-Public
The Public/Semi-Public land use designation includes various land uses that
are generally outside the commercial, industrial and residential categories.
Among these are city buildings, such as City Hall, public works and fire
stations; schools, both public and private; churches and synagogues; and
cemeteries.
P – Park & Open Space
The Park and Open Space land use designation includes City parks, State
parks, golf courses and nature preserves.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-10
Future Land Use
The following table summarizes future land use for the City of Mendota Heights:
Table 2-2: 2040 Future Land Use
2040 Future Land Use Gross Acres Net Acres
RR - Rural Residential 218.88 176.62
LR - Low Density Residential 1,781.10 1,712.03
MR - Medium Density Residential 187.64 179.66
HR - High Density Residential 65.57 65.27
LB - Limited Business 143.86 142.09
B - Business 30.87 30.83
MU - Mixed Use 47.41 45.05
I - Industrial 401 400.33
P/S - Public/Semi-Public 515.51 502.56
P - Park & Open Space 1,227.47 727.13
Right-of-Way 1,222.47 1,202.42
Open Water 591.03 552.02
Wetland 0.00 696.80
Total 6,432.81 6,432.81
The following pages contain the City’s previous 2030 Planned Future Land Use
Map - FIGURE 2-3, followed by the 2040 Future Land Use Plan - FIGURE 2-4.
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKERELLAKEMISSISSIPPIRIVERM IN N E S O T A R IV E R
ROGERS LAKELAKEAUGUSTALAK
E
L
E
MAY
GUN CLUB LAKE DODDRDDODDRDDELAWAREAVESIBLEYMEMORIALHWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS R DLEXINGTONAVE LILYDALERDPILOTKNOBRDHUBER DR
SI
BLEYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLERAVE
WAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTERLNORCHARDPLVICTORIARDSIVYFALLSAVE
2030 Planned Future Land Use
City of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Dakota County, 2016
Residential:
Commercial:
Industrial:
Other:
HR-PUD
LB-PUD
MR-PUD
HR - High Density Residential
B - Business
MR - Medium Density Residential
I - Industrial
LB - Limited Business
LR - Low Density Residential
LR-II
RR - Rural Residential
Water
MU-PUD - Mixed Use
SP - State Park
P - Park
CS - Churches & Synagogues
GC-S - Small Golf Course
PS - Private School
S - School
CC - City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall
CEM - Cemetery
GC - Golf Course
NP - Nature Preserve
Figure 2-3
February 26, 2019
Source: City of Mendota Heights,
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKERELLAKEMISSISSIPPIRIVERM IN N E S O T A R IV E R
ROGERS LAKELAKEAUGUSTALAK
E
L
E
MAY
GUN CLUB LAKE DODDRDDODDRDDELAWAREAVESIBLEYMEMORIALHWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTONAVE LILYDALERDPILOTKNOBRDHUBER DR
SI
BLEYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLERAVE
WAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTERLNORCHARDPLVICTORIARDSIVYFALLSAVE
2040 Planned Future Land Use
City of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Dakota County, 2017
City boundary
RR - Rural Residential
LR - Low Density Residential
MR - Medium Density Residential
HR - High Density Residential
LB - Limited Business
B - Business
MU - Mixed Use
I - Industrial
P/S - Public/Semi-Public
P - Park & Open Space
Open Water
LR 9 - Low Density Residential
LR 5 - Low Density Residential
Figure 2-4
February 26, 2019
Source: City of Mendota Heights,
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-13
LAND USE CHANGES FROM 2030 TO 2040
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
The designated future land use for a number of properties in the City have changed
between the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (in 2008) and this 2040 Comprehensive
Plan (adopted in 2019). Below is a summary of these changes, illustrated on the
2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with Planned Land Use Change
from 2030 to 2040 – FIGURE 2-5.
1) 340 D Street. This parcel was left blank on the 2030 Plan is guided Industrial
in the 2040 Plan to reflect its current use. Dakota County records show an
active homestead also listed for the parcel.
2) Acacia/Pilot Knob Parcels. This area consists of several parcels totaling over
32 acres in the west central part of the City, south of Highway 55 and either
side of Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13. The westernmost parcel is owned
by the Minnesota DNR, the others by the City. In the 2030 Plan the DNR
parcel was guided Right-of -Way and the City parcels were guided Parks &
Nature Preserve. That land use category has been replaced with the
designation Park & Open Space, hence the change between the 2030 and
2040 Plans. The existing and intended use of all the parcels is consistent
with the designation Parks & Open Space.
3) Valencour Circle. Two residential parcels on Valencour Circle, fronting
Highway 55 north of Acacia Boulevard, were guided Medium Density
Residential in the 2030 Plan, but being single family residences they have
been changed in the 2040 Plan to Low Density Residential.
4) Highway 13 & Acacia Drive. Several parcels on the east side of Highway 13
housed a nursery business and a motel which have recently been
redeveloped as apartments. The 2030 Plan guided the properties as
Business, the 2040 Plan guides then as High Density Residential, reflecting
their current use.
5) Augusta Shores. The Augusta Shores twin-home development was guided
Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but as twin-homes it is more
appropriate as Medium Density Residential, which is what the actual homes
are guided in the 2040 Plan. There are also several parcels within that
development owned in common by the homeowners association as
permanent open space, so identifying them as Park & Open Space is
appropriate.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-14
6) Lexington & Centre Pointe Curve. The City owns a vacant 1.2-acre parcel in
the southwest quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Centre Pointe Curve,
backing up to Highway 62. It was guided Parks & Nature Preserve in the
2030 Plan, but as a City-owned parcel is guided P/S Public/Semi-Public in
the 2040 Plan.
7) Veronica Lane. There are two City-owned parcels at the end of Veronica
Lane totaling 1.2 acres that were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030
Plan but are now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their
actual use as permanent open space.
8) Lexington & Marie. The City owns two parcels in the southeast quadrant of
Lexington Avenue and Marie Avenue that are permanent open space. They
were guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided
Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use.
9) Kingsley Estates. The Kingsley Estates townhomes on Lexington Avenue
and Kingsley Circle occupy about 8.3 acres and were guided Low Density
Residential in the 2030 Plan, but have been designated Medium Density
Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use and density.
10) Lexington & Highway 13. Three single family parcels in the southeast
quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Highway 13 are located on the bluff and
are surrounded on three sides by townhouse or apartment development. The
2030 Plan guided them Low Density Residential, but the owners have
requested a designation of Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan.
11) Caren Road. The City owns four parcels on Caren Road where it meets
James Road and Lilac Lane, totaling about two acres. They were guided
Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Park & Open
Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use as permanent open space.
12) Victoria Highlands. The Victoria Highlands townhomes on the north side of
Marie Avenue at Victoria Road occupy about 10 acres. They were guided
Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Medium
Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use.
13) Eagle Ridge. The Eagle Ridge townhomes in the southeast quadrant of Marie
Avenue and Victoria Road occupy about 210 acres. They were guided Low
Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided Medium Density
Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use.
14) Valley View Heights Park. This small park at the corner of Cullen Avenue and
Timmy Street was guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but is
now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as
a City park.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-15
15) Rogers Lake Park. This 2.3-acre parcel is part of Rogers Lake Park and had
been guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but is now guided Park
& Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as a City park.
16) Wagon Wheel Trail at Rogers Lake. The 3-acre City-owned parcel on the
south side of Wagon Wheel Trail as it crosses Rogers Lake was guided Low
Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Park & Open Space
in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space
17) Condon Court. The six residential parcels on Condon Court totaling 1.7 acres
were guided LB Limited Business in the 2030 Plan, but have since been
reguided and rezoned and are shown in the 2040 Plan as Medium Density
Residential, reflecting their current use.
18) Dodd Road at Lake Drive. Two privately-owned residential parcels totaling
1.2 acres were shown in the 2030 Plan as highway right-of-way but are
shown in the 2040 Plan as Low Density Residential, their intended use.
19) Mendota Woods. The Mendota Woods single family development on Arbor
Court south of Mendota Heights Road was guided HR-PUD in the 2030 Plan,
but is appropriately guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan,
reflecting the actual use.
20) Kensington PUD Townhomes. The Kensington PUD townhome
development, south of Mendota Heights Road at Concord Way and
Lockwood Drive, was guided HR-PUD in the 2030 Plan, but is appropriately
guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting the actual
use.
21) Kensington PUD Single Family Homes. The Kensington PUD single family
development, in the southwest quadrant of Mendota Heights Road and
Delaware Avenue, was guided MR-PUD in the 2030 Plan, but is appropriately
guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting the actual use.
22) MnDOT Right-of-Way on Decorah Lane. A small triangular 0.76-acre parcel
on MnDOT right-of-way fronting on Decorah Lane east of Dodd Road was
guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Right-of-
Way in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual ownership.
23) Friendly Marsh Park. A one-acre triangular parcel at the end of Apache Street
is part of Friendly Marsh Park, but was guided Low Density Residential in the
2030 Plan. It is now guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting
its actual use.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-16
24) Old Fire Station Property. Three City-owned parcels totaling 0.5 acres
fronting on Dodd Road south of Mendakota Drive were guided Low Density
Residential in the 2030 Plan. These parcels were an old fire station, but are
now vacant and are bordered by Business uses to the south and single family
residential to the north and east. They are guided Business in the 2040 Plan,
reflecting their potential for redevelopment to commercial uses.
25) Dodd Road & Market Street. A 2.8-acre City-owned parcel between Highway
62 and Market Street in the Village of Mendota Heights development was
guided Mixed Use PUD in the 2030 Plan, but is guided Park & Open Space
in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space.
26) Somerset Area, Southwest Part. A large area in the southwest part of what
was designated the Somerset Area Focus Area in the 2030 Plan was guided
Rural Residential. It is actually developed as single family residential on
sewered lots and is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan.
27) Somerset 19 Condominiums. The two-building condo project at Dodd Road
and Wentworth Avenue on 8.1 acres was guided Low Density Residential in
the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Medium Density Residential in the 2040
Plan, reflecting its actual density and use.
28) 723 3rd Avenue. The 3-acre privately-owned single family parcel at 723 3rd
Avenue was guided Parks in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Low Density
Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual ownership use.
29) City Parcel, Highway 13 at Ivy Falls. A narrow 2.6-acre parcel of City-owned
land fronting Highway 13 on the bluff where Ivy Falls drains toward the river
between Wachtler Avenue and Sylvandale Road was guided Low Density
Residential in the 2030 Plan. It is now guided Park & Open Space in the
2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space.
30) Ivy Keep Condominiums. The Ivy Keep condo and townhome project,
consisting of about 19 acres at Dodd Road and Ivy Hill Drive, was guided
Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Medium Density
Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual density and use.
31) Lilydale Regional Park, St. Paul Parcel. A 0.7-acre parcel at the far northern
edge of the City on the west side of Highway 13 is owned by the City of St.
Paul and is within the Lilydale Regional Park. It was guided Low Density
Residential in the 2030 Plan but is now guided Park & Open Space in the
2040 Plan, reflecting its actual ownership and use.
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKERELLAKEMISSISSIPPIRIVERM IN N E S O T A R IV E R
ROGERS LAKELAKEAUGUSTALAK
E
L
E
MAYGUN CLUB LAKE DODDRD19
20DODDRD DELAWAREAVESIBLEYMEMORIALHWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTONAVE LILYDALERDPILOTKNOBRDHUBER DR
SI
BLEYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLERAVE
WAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTERLNORCHARDPLVICTORIARDSIVYFALLSAVE
5
2
9
21
12
28
138
22
27
4
29
16
26
31
30
10
15
6
3
7
24
23
18
17
32
11
14
25
1
2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties
with Planned Land Use Change from 2030 to 2040
City of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Dakota County, 2017
City boundary
LR - Low Density Residential
MR - Medium Density Residential
HR - High Density Residential
B - Business
I - Industrial
P/S - Public/Semi-Public
P - Park & Open Space
Open Water
Right-of-Way
Figure 2-5
February 26, 2019
Source: City of Mendota Heights,
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-18
FOCUS AREAS
In the City’s previous comprehensive plans, a number of specific properties in the
City were mapped that were either vacant, under-developed, or identified as either
potential infill or redevelopment areas. Infill means that the property has the
opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. The City is not
recommending any land use or rezoning changes on these sites at this time or as
part of this plan. A summary of these sites are provided below, along with the
Focus Area Map – FIGURE 2-6.
1) Mendota Heights Dog Park. This 9.1-acre site is bounded by Pilot Knob
Road on the west, Acacia Boulevard on the north, and Highway 55 on
the east. The site is owned by the City and used as an off-leash dog park
but is in the industrial park and guided for future Industrial use.
2) 2359 Pilot Knob Road. This area consists of a 3.1-acre property currently
used as a single family residence plus a 0.4-acre site owned by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission. Both are guided Industrial and might
be developed someday for industrial uses.
3) Lloyd’s Barbeque. This 5-acre site is bounded by Highway 13 on the
west, and an unnamed extension of Perron Road right-of-way on the
north. The property is currently vacant and owned by the adjacent Lloyd’s
BBQ business to the south but is potentially developable. Access would
be via the street right-of-way on the north side if developed separately.
Guided Industrial.
4) Highway 55 and Northland Drive. This 2.2-acre site is vacant and guided
industrial, one of very few such vacant parcels in the industrial park.
5) Bourn Lane Site. This 14.8-acre area on Bourn Lane and LeMay Lake
Road consists of nine separate parcels owned by the City – a former
commercial use on the larger parcel and eight smaller former residential
parcels. The City is actively seeking a business or commercial user for
the site.
6) 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. This 3.6-acre site is one of two vacant parcels
in the Centre Pointe Business Park. It is guided for Limited Business.
7) Centre Pointe Curve & Lexington. This 2.1-acre site is currently vacant
and is on the south frontage road to Highway 62.
8) Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road. This 6.3-acre site is vacant and guided
for Low Density Residential.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-19
9) Lexington & Highway 13. Three single family parcels totaling 3.1 acres
are surrounded on three sides by multi-family development and have
been recommended for Medium Density Residential.
10) 2015 & 2021 Vitoria Road South. Two large single family parcels totaling
3.5 acres on the north frontage road to Highway 62 have the potential to
develop more intensively.
11) 1026, 1032, & 1036 Dakota Trail. Three single family parcels totaling 2.5
acres on Dakota Trail, the south frontage road to Highway 62, are
adjacent to commercial parcels and have the potential more intensively.
12) Lexington Avenue & Wagon Wheel Trail. Bounded by Lexington, Wagon
Wheel Trail and I-35E, and adjacent to the Lexington Heights
Apartments, these three single family parcels plus a vacant parcel total
5.6 acres. They have the potential to develop more intensively.
13) Patterson Companies. This 2.4-acre vacant parcel on Mendota heights
Road and I-35E also fronts I-494. It is guided for Limited Business.
14) Visitation Parcel. The Sisters of the Visitation Monastery own this 28.1-
acre vacant parcel on Mendota Heights Road and I-494 just west of Dodd
Road. It is one of the largest vacant parcels in the City and is guided as
Public/Semi-Public. It has excellent access and visibility to the regional
highway system and would be ideal for office or business uses.
15) Friehl Property. This property consists of two parcels (one vacant/one
developed) containing 7.2 acres of total land area in the Friendly Hills
neighborhood. Both are located behind residences on Mohican Lane and
Pagel Road. The property is guided for Residential development.
16) 2455 Delaware Avenue. This is a 2.5 acre, single-family (developed)
parcel had explored possible replatting into more single-family lots at one
time.
17) Dakota County CDA. This area consists of two separate parcels totaling
11.9 acres owned by Dakota County, part of former reserved highway
right-of-way that was never used. The property is guided for Low Density
Residential use.
18) Mendota Plaza South Parcel. This 2.1-acre parcel on South Plaza Drive
and South Plaza Way is one of two remaining vacant parcels in the
Mendota Plaza area south of Dodd Road and Highway 62. Guided for
Mixed Use like much of land around this intersection.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Land Use
2-20
19) Mendota Plaza East. This 2-acre parcel at the end of South Plaza Drive
is one of two remaining vacant parcels in the Mendota Plaza area south
of Dodd Road and Highway 62. It is owned by the Dakota County CDA
and is guided for Mixed Use like much of the land the around this
intersection.
20) Maple Street Parcel. This area consists of three parcels totaling 1.7-acres
owned by the City, but known as the Maple Street parcel. It is the last
remaining vacant parcel in the Village of Mendota Heights development
north of Highway 62. The City has been actively marketing the property
as a site for high density residential or Mixed Use development.
21) Wachtler & Wentworth. This 2.7-acre residential property in the NE
quadrant of Wachtler and Wentworth Avenues adjacent to Wentworth
Park is guided for Low Density Residential development. There is a home
on the property now, but it could be developed more intensely.
22) Somerset Area. This area has been referred to as the “Superblock” due
to its collection of large residential lots. It consists of over 20 separate
parcels on approximately 90 acres located directly south of Somerset
Country Club and Golf Course. The area is developed with single family
homes on large lots with private septic systems. The neighborhood is
bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north by Wentworth
Avenue, and the south and west by smaller single family lots. The
neighborhood contains significant wetlands and woodlands making it
very rural in quality. The area is guided Rural Residential. Due to the
existing large lot configuration, parts of the area have the potential to be
further subdivided provided public sewer, water and road systems would
be extended to the area.
23) 1170 Dodd Road. This property is identified as the Hella Mears Estate
site, and consists of approximately 3.7 acres. The property is guided Low
Density Residential.
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKERELLAKEMISSISSIPPIRIVERM IN N E S O T A R IV E R
ROGERS LAKELAKEAUGUSTALAK
E
L
E
MAY
GUN CLUB LAKE DODDRDDODDRDDELAWAREAVESIBLEYMEMORIALHWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS R DLEXINGTONAVE LILYDALERDPILOTKNOBRDHUBER DR
SI
BLEYMEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLERAVE
WAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTERLNORCHARDPLVICTORIARDSIVYFALLSAVE
14
8
5
17
22
3
6
2 15
9
4
7
1
21
12
16
10
13
23
18 1911
20
Focus Areas
City of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
Dodd/Highway 110
Somerset Area
Dakota County CDA
Convent of the Visitation
Infill Sites
City Boundary
Open Water
Infill/Redevelopment Areas
Figure 2-6
February 26, 2019
Source: Dakota County, 2016, City of Mendota Heights 2018
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-1
7
Natural Resources
The City of Mendota Heights is fortunate to have a wide variety of Natural
Resources. These natural resources are an important recreation, aesthetic, and
ecological asset to the community of Mendota Heights. During the City’s
developing stages, a strong emphasis was placed on preserving high quality open
spaces and woodland areas. Residents enjoy numerous lakes, streams, wetlands,
open spaces, parks, trails, and the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. These
natural areas provide tremendous benefits to the community and its residents and
are an important focal point of Mendota Heights.
GOALS and POLICIES
GOAL 7.1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural
Resources Management Plan for City-wide natural areas and natural
resources.
Policies:
7.1.1 Develop capabilities to monitor and implement the Natural Resources
Management Plan through City Staff expertise, as well as through
partnerships with community groups, volunteers, and adjacent
communities and agencies, thus recognizing the interconnectedness of
ecosystems.
Photo courtesy of Rachel Quick
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-2
7.1.2 Implement a formal Natural Resources Management and Sustainability
Commission to aid in the execution of the strategic Natural Resources
Plan.
7.1.3 Develop site-specific management plans that identify and prioritize
opportunities to enhance and protect the City’s high-quality areas and
address significant issues, such as: vegetation plans, tree planting
plans, tree inventories, green infrastructure, surface waters, roadside
restoration, wildlife management, tree diseases, pests, and invasive
species.
7.1.4 Establish and continually update priorities for sites, including public
parks and open space, and management activities.
7.1.5 Develop and continually maintain tracking of management activities,
using frameworks such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to
gather, manage, and analyze data.
7.1.6 Develop and implement City strategies to increase tree canopy, during
existing operational, new development, and redevelopment activities.
7.1.7 Seek partnerships and grant opportunities to help implement natural
resources goals.
7.1.8 Work with Dakota County and other agencies to maintain and/or
acquire. Where feasible, natural greenway corridors to foster
ecosystem continuity.
7.1.9 Protect steep slopes, bluffs, and other sensitive areas from erosion and
other threats, specifically throughout the development process.
7.1.10 Encourage and promote the use of conservation design principles.
GOAL 7.2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas,
wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, for high ecological quality and
diversity of plant and animal species.
Policies:
7.2.1 Monitor new developments for restoration and invasive plant
management.
7.2.2 Monitor tree disease and pest outbreaks (i.e. Emerald Ash Borer) with
the implementation of control and replanting programs, such as an
Integrated Pest Management program, for current tree diseases as well
as emerging diseases and pests.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-3
7.2.3 Continue to partner with outside agencies and community groups to
monitor and control invasive species and noxious weeds.
7.2.4 Restore areas throughout the City with pollinator-friendly or native
species to protect and enhance habitat for native pollinators and birds
in accordance with City Resolution 2015-79.
7.2.5 Monitor wildlife populations and address over-population as needed.
7.2.6 In new development and redevelopment, retain mature trees that have
high ecological value, replace lost trees, and plant additional trees if not
present originally.
7.2.7 Explore the development of ordinances and or policies that establish
minimum soil standards for development and redevelopment that can
support turf, plantings, and/or healthy turf alternatives.
7.2.8 Look for opportunities to reduce or minimize impervious cover City-
wide.
7.2.9 Emphasize the use of, and identify areas including public open space
and park land, that could be restored to include native species,
pollinator plants, wildlife habitat, or turf alternatives.
7.2.10 Prior to approval of landscape and development plans, work with
applicants to encourage the preservation and installation of high
ecosystem value communities.
7.2.11 Encourage avenues for homeowners to take on ownership of, and
responsibility for, boulevard trees where the location of the tree is
considered appropriate as well as an overall community benefit.
7.2.12 Implement the strategic planting of trees to avoid monoculture plantings
and choose tree species identified as most resilient to changing climate
and weather patterns.
GOAL 7.3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the City’s
water resources with emphasis on the improvement of stormwater
management.
Policies:
7.3.1 Explore and develop operational and procedural modifications to better
enhance and support the thriving of the natural environment.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-4
7.3.2 Work with partners to implement projects and develop and support
programs that encourage infiltration, to reduce stormwater runoff and
pollution to water-bodies.
7.3.3 Work with partners to monitor Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS). Set goals
for AIS removal and management, and reintroduction of native species.
Educate lakeshore owners and residents about AIS.
7.3.4 Identify areas within the City, including public and private land that are
lacking adequate stormwater treatment, and other stormwater BMPs.
Implement projects to establish functioning stormwater treatment in
order to protect and improve the City’s water resources.
7.3.5 Implement the City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP)
through the use of ordinances, policies, and development standards.
7.3.6 Carry out steps toward meeting the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency’s (MPCA) Swimmable, Fishable, Fixable water quality
standards.
7.3.7 Manage public riparian areas to be resilient to stormwater runoff.
7.3.8 Improve the process for review and inspection of native planting and
permanent stormwater Best Management Practices on development
projects to increase successful establishment.
GOAL 7.4: Enhance and provide public education and understanding of
nature, natural systems, and environmental issues by providing programs,
materials, and information; while promoting a culture of stewardship on
public and private lands.
Policies:
7.4.1 Educate adults, families, schools, community groups, and staff on
natural resources topics, improving compliance and understanding of
environmental regulations and requirements.
7.4.2 Continue to develop, improve, and expand audiences through the use
of diverse methods of education and outreach including: programs,
field trips, brochures, exhibits, signage, articles, website, video, social
media, service learning, and community gatherings and events.
7.4.3 Collaborate with other agencies, such as Watershed Districts,
Watershed Management Organizations, and surrounding County and
Metropolitan Cities to share information and ideas regarding natural
resources.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-5
7.4.4 Develop and promote stormwater educational outreach programs,
using available programs offered through outside agencies, and
utilizing volunteer groups such as Master Gardeners, Master Water
Stewards, and Master Naturalists.
7.4.5 Implement, encourage, and sustain collaborative City programs such
as residential curb-cut raingardens and green infrastructure, throughout
road re-construction projects.
7.4.6 Educate homeowners, commercial and institutional property owners,
and City Public Works Staff, on turf management Best Management
Practices (BMPs), as well as lawn alternatives, to reduce the amount
of traditional turf throughout the City.
7.4.7 Develop a Natural Resources webpage on the City’s website that offers
City resources, community updates and activities, volunteer
opportunities, links to useful resources, and other topics as they relate
to natural resources.
7.4.8 Provide education and training on tree care for private landowners.
7.4.9 Engage residents in the strategic planting of trees in order to encourage
a more diverse, native community forest.
7.4.10 Develop material (print as well as electronic media) to teach property
owners environmentally friendly ‘backyard’ practices, including but not
limited to: sustainable lawn care, native plantings, drought-tolerant
landscaping, rain gardens, proper disposal of yard and animal waste,
and composting.
7.4.11 Educate residents, developers, and others on the impact of noise, and
other forms of pollution (i.e. light, air quality, heat, etc.).
7.4.12 Provide programs to support residents in their stewardship efforts.
Explore innovative ideas and opportunities to serve the community in
stewardship efforts such as grant and rebate programs, curb-side
buckthorn pick-up program, City-sponsored tree sale, etc.
7.4.13 Develop and implement City-led initiatives to engage citizens in the
stewardship and care of natural areas and infrastructure through
programs such as Adopt-a-Park, Adopt-a-Roadside Pollinator Planting,
Adopt-a-Boulevard, Adopt-a-Tree, and Adopt-a-Storm Drain.
7.4.14 Implement, evaluate, or enhance citizen participation in monitoring
programs such as the Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP),
State and Metropolitan Council water monitoring programs, as well as
other Citizen Science monitoring programs that monitor vegetation,
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-6
aquatic invasive species, as well as those programs that monitor
wildlife such as birds, bats, bees, aquatic wildlife, and insects
7.4.15 Encourage citizen engagement in the City’s annual Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit meeting and process, and use this
as a forum to share concerns, discuss proposed community initiatives,
and offer suggestions concerning stormwater.
GOAL 7.5: Address issues that impact air quality, light pollution, and noise
pollution, such as vehicle emissions, traffic flow, air traffic, lighting, and
street design.
Policies:
7.5.1 Evaluate proactive solutions to air quality issues such as the installation
of an electric vehicle charge stations, and mass transit options.
7.5.2 Consider taking an advocacy role to encourage the MPCA and the
Minnesota Department of Health to address air quality issues and
improve air quality.
7.5.3 Strive to monitor and limit community exposure to excessive noise
levels and review and evaluate current City policies and ordinances
regarding noise.
7.5.4 Develop ordinances that proactively and effectively deal with noise
pollution and its impact on all facets of the community, including human,
ecological, safety, security, and energy.
7.5.5 Encourage use of research-based systems, such as Backlight-Uplight-
Glare (BUG) that reduce light pollution and provide guidelines for
effective control of unwanted or unhealthy light for residents, as well as
wildlife.
7.5.6 Develop ordinances that proactively and effectively deal with light
pollution within the city and work with neighboring communities to
coordinate lighting solutions and address its impact on all facets of
community: human, ecological, safety, security, and energy.
7.5.7 Increase efforts to provide healthier lighting solutions for residents and
the preservation of the City’s natural assets.
7.5.8 Address lighting prior to development or redevelopment by ensuring
compliance with lighting ordinances.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-7
Protect, Connect, Restore, and Manage Ecosystems, Plant
Communities and Species
The quality of life for the community of Mendota Heights highly depends on how it
manages its natural resources—the air, minerals, land, water, and biota that form
the foundation to life in the City. This Chapter is a guide for managing the City’s
natural resources in a sustainable way. It will help protect and enhance residents’
quality of life for current and future generations by suggesting strategies to protect,
connect, restore and manage ecosystems, plant communities, and species.
Purpose
The environmental benefits provided by the community’s natural resources are
essential for human life. Protecting and preserving these natural resources require
preventing, and providing treatment for, potential harmful pollutants that can
adversely affect the health of our air, water, and soil. Some of the strategies for
addressing pollutants include, but are not limited to: stormwater infiltration and
treatment, providing flood control, providing and preserving healthy soil for plants,
and providing and preserving habitat for pollinators and wildlife. Natural resources
can also provide economic value, recreation, health benefits, and aesthetic beauty.
Healthy natural resources help ensure that Mendota Heights has a high quality of
life that can be sustained far into the future.
Mendota Heights Natural History and Landscape
General Topography and Drainage
The City of Mendota Heights is located near the confluence of the Minnesota and
Mississippi Rivers in northern Dakota County. The topography of the City of
Mendota Heights varies greatly, from floodplains of the Minnesota and Mississippi
Rivers to the primary and secondary bluffs of these rivers. The topography of
Mendota Heights includes rolling to hilly terrain interspersed with poorly drained
depressions that form many ponds and small lakes. Steep slopes occur along the
Minnesota and Mississippi river bluffs on the western and northern borders of the
City. The majority of the City is dominated by relatively flat terrain at an elevation
approximately 200 feet above the river. Mississippi and Minnesota River floodplain
also exists on the City’s western border. Elevation in the City ranges from
approximately 690 feet along the Minnesota River to approximately 1,030 feet
along the City’s northern border with West St. Paul, as illustrated in the
Topography Map – FIGURE 7-1.
The surficial geology of Mendota Heights consists of glacial and alluvial (outwash)
deposits which cover most of the City. The City of Mendota Heights is within the
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-8
Twin Cities Formation of the Eastern St. Croix Moraine geomorphic area. This
area was formed at the southern extent of the Superior and Rainey glacial lobes
as they flowed side by side as a single lobe and then terminated to form the St.
Croix Moraine. As the glacier retreated and melted, it left behind areas of outwash
and till deposit formations. The area of outwash formations that is located in the
western portion of the City is comprised of silt, sand, and gravel that were carried,
sorted, and deposited by glacial melt-water. The area of till formations located in
the eastern two-thirds of the City is composed of unsorted clay, silt, sand, and
boulders transported and deposited by glacial ice. Silt and sand lenses are
interspersed throughout this formation.
The original terrain and vegetation of the area were mainly altered for purposes of
farming when the area was first settled. Marshes and wetlands were left relatively
undisturbed except for a few ditching projects. More detailed information on the
drainage system of the City can be found in the City’s 2018 Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP).
Soils
The Soil Conservation Service has identified the following soil associations within
the City of Mendota Heights:
Nearly Level Soils on the Floodplains. This area is on the floodplains of the
Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, mostly located in the Fort Snelling State
Park. The area consists of mixed Alluvial sand and some Sawmill soils. Colo
soils, Riverwash, and Peat Muck are also present.
Light Colored, Rolling to Hilly Soils. This general area is in the Morainic part
of the County. It is characterized by steep slopes and numerous poorly
drained depressions. The soils are extremely variable in depth, texture, and
productivity. The major soils include Scandia Kingsley, Hayden, and
Burnsville series. Included are soils of the Freer and Adolph series.
Light Colored to Moderately Dark Colored, Rolling to Loose Hilly Soils on Till.
In topography and texture, this soil association is mostly the light colored
rolling high soils described above. Most of the soils develop from calcareous
materials. The major soils in the area include the Hayden, Burnsville, Lester
series.
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA
RI
VE
R
ROGERS LAKE
LAKE
AUGUS
TA
L
A
K
E
L
E
M
A
Y
GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR
S
I
B
L
E
Y
MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL
VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE
900'850'
8
0
0
'750'950'700'1000'750'900'
900'850'850'850'900'900'
900'
9
5
0
'900'8
5
0
'
750'900'850'
900'850'850'800'900'900'7
0
0
'900'900'900'
8
5
0
'850'850'850'900'950'900'850'900'950'850'900'8
5
0
'900'900'900'
850'950'900'850'9
0
0
'850'700'900'700'8
5
0
'
850'
900'900'950'900'850'900'1000'900'950'700'850'750'
800'
900'
9
0
0
'
8
5
0
'700'8
5
0
'900'900'
850'900'900'900'
850
'
TopographyCity of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
50' Contour Lines
Elevation up to 700'
Elevation 700' - 750'
Elevation 750' - 800'
Elevation 800' - 850'
Elevation 850' - 900'
Elevation 900' - 950'
Elevation 950' - 1,000'
Elevation above 1,000'
City Boundary
Land Parcel Line
Open Water
Dakota County, 2016
Figure 7-1
February 26, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights,
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-10
Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands
The City of Mendota Heights has many water resources available for the use and
enjoyment of its residents. These include rivers, lakes, wetlands, and streams that
are important surface water resources within the community. Many of these major
water resources are State of Minnesota Public Waters and are protected as such.
Additional and more comprehensive information regarding the City’s surface water
resources, and surface water resources related issues; including impaired waters,
assessments, and subsequent action steps can be found in the City’s 2018
Surface Water Management Plan (attached as APPENDIX – B of this plan).
Lakes
Lake Augusta
Lake Augusta is a Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) public water, identified as
Public Water 81P. It is a land-
locked lake, with a maximum depth
of 33 feet, a median depth of
approximately 18 feet, and an area
of approximately 44 acres. The
area of its watershed is
approximately 410 acres, giving a
watershed to lake-ratio of 9.3 to 1.
Lake Augusta is included in the
State’s Impaired Waters List for
Nutrients Impairment, and as a result has been approved for a Total Maximum
Daily Load Study. The City has partnered with the Lower Mississippi Water
Management Organization to conduct a feasibility study for Lake Augusta, to
potentially address the issues of erosion, nutrients, and the possibility of creating
an outlet.
Lemay Lake
Lemay Lake is a Minnesota DNR Public Water, identified as Public Water 82W,
and is located in the upper reaches of the Industrial Park drainage district. It is a
Source: Dakota County GIS
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-11
shallow lake with a maximum depth
of approximately 13 feet. Shallow
lakes are typically dominated by
wetland habitat that provide critical
resources for fish and wildlife.
Lemay Lake has a watershed of
98.5 acres with a surface area of 30
acres, giving a watershed to lake-
ratio of 3.3 to 1. The Lake drains via
an outlet that extends under Hwy
55.
Gun Club Lake
Gun Club Lake and the stream that
serves as its outlet are DNR public
waters, identified as Public Water
78P. The lake resides within the
floodplain of the Minnesota River,
and is located in the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed District.
The lake discharges to an unnamed
stream that flows to the Minnesota
River. Although Gun Club Lake
resides within city limits, it is
managed by Fort Snelling State Park.
Rogers Lake
Roger’s Lake is a DNR Public Water
(80P). It is a shallow lake, with a
maximum depth of 8 feet. Its surface
area is approximately 114 acres, with
a watershed of approximately 366
acres, giving it a watershed to lake-
ratio of 3.2 to 1. The lake discharges
to the City’s storm sewer system
along Wagon Wheel Trail.
Source: Dakota County GIS
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-12
Friendly Marsh and Copperfield Ponds
This lake consists of three separate
basins referred to as the Copperfield
Ponds, which contain the two upper
basins; and Friendly Marsh, which is
the lower basin, and has a normal
water level of approximately two feet
lower in elevation than the two upper
basins. The upper two basins are
separated by a narrow isthmus, and
connected by a culvert. These three
basins are identified as Minnesota
DNR Public Water 103P. Given the
differences in normal water level
elevations for each of these three
basins, the hydrologic model
considers these three separate
basins.
Streams and Rivers
Interstate Valley Creek
Interstate Valley Creek is an intermittent stream
that begins near the intersection of Highway 62
(formerly 110) and Highway 149 (Dodd Road) at
the outlet of Friendly Marsh. The creek flows
northward, and generally parallels Interstate 35E.
A portion of the creek is identified as a DNR Public
Water, and is also on the State’s Impaired Waters
List for the pollutant E-coli. A Total Maximum Daily
Load Study has been approved for this creek as a
result. Interstate Valley Creek has the single
largest watershed within the City of Mendota
Heights. Its watershed also includes areas within
the cities of Inver Grove Heights, Sunfish Lake, and
West St. Paul.
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-13
Ivy Falls Creek
Ivy Falls Creek is an intermittent stream that begins within the Somerset Golf
Course and flows northwest, discharging to Pickerel Lake in the City of Lilydale.
The gradient of the creek is steep; dropping 180 feet in elevation from Dodd Road
to Highway 13, and flows over a 50-foot waterfall before terminating in Pickerel
Lake. This steep gradient makes the creek susceptible to erosion.
Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers
The Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers are Minnesota Public Waters within the City
of Mendota Heights, but the
shorelines of these rivers
are under the jurisdiction of,
and managed by, Fort
Snelling State Park.
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-14
Wetlands
Wetlands are an important surface water resource and significant asset to the City
and its residents. They provide a variety of benefits and functions including filtering
stormwater pollutants, providing flood protection and storage, and providing
wildlife habitat and recreational enjoyment. The City contains many wetland areas
that vary in quality. Most are impacted by stormwater runoff, with some receiving
direct input from storm pipes. Wetland areas are protected under the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Minnesota Rule 8420. The City Council is
also the Local Government Unit for Mendota Heights, and is responsible for
administrating the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) within the City. In accordance
with State Rules and the Minnesota WCA, the City has adopted and maintained a
Wetlands Systems Ordinance under City Code Title 12-2-1 and provides for
Wetland Protection under City Code Title 14-1-9, all of which help ensure the
preservation and enhancement of the functions and values of its wetlands.
It is anticipated that the Wetland Management Plan, through wetland inventorying,
will provide a planning tool for the City to use for future projects that may affect
wetlands. The inventory of wetlands will allow the City to identify restoration areas
within public lands, enhance wetland value for wildlife, provide and enhance
recreational values of wetlands, designate wetland restoration or enhancement
opportunities, protect wetlands and adjacent resources that provide valuable
ecological support, and provide stormwater protection.
The City is also an active participant in the Wetland Health Evaluation Program
(WHEP), which engages citizens in evaluating and monitoring the health of
wetland areas throughout the City.
The City’s Wetland Map - Figure 7-2 is included herein and also included as part
of the City’s 2018 Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). More detailed
information on the City’s wetlands can be found in the 2018 SWMP.
Floodplain
Although the City of Mendota Heights is located in close proximity to the
Mississippi River and the Minnesota River, floodplain does not exist within
developed areas of the City. As the Floodplain map portrays, there is floodplain
on both sides of the Mississippi River and Minnesota River, within the cities of St.
Paul, Lilydale, Mendota, and Eagan. This floodplain makes up the majority of the
northwest boundary of the City.
),*85(
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-16
Watersheds
Mendota Heights is part of two watersheds: The Lower Mississippi and Lower
Minnesota River watersheds, which are illustrated on the Hydrography Map –
Figure 7-3.
The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO)
encompasses 50 square miles in Dakota and Ramsey Counties. Other
surrounding communities include: Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, St. Paul, South
St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul. The LMRWMO was established by a
Joint Powers Agreement in 1985. The watershed contains well-drained soils with
many small depressions and steep slopes. Issues of concern include water quality,
erosion control, wildlife habitat and water recreation.
The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) is located in the
southwest part of the Twin Cities metropolitan area along the Minnesota River.
The district boundaries encompass an area of 64 square miles of Carver,
Hennepin, Dakota, Scott, and Ramsey counties, which includes the Minnesota
River Valley from Fort Snelling, at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi
rivers, upstream to Carver, Minnesota. The width of the district includes the bluffs
on both sides of the Minnesota River within this reach of the river. The City of
Mendota Heights entered into an agreement with the Lower Minnesota River
Watershed District in 2005. Issues of concern include dredging, spoil site
acquisition, and bank erosion control. Below is a list and brief summary of the
major surface water resources in the City:
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA
RI
VE
R
ROGERS LAKE
LAKE
AUGUS
TA
L
A
K
E
L
E
M
A
Y
GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDCAPITOL REGIONWATERSHED DISTRICT
DODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR
S
I
B
L
E
Y
MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL
VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
EAGAN-INVER GROVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZTION
LOWER MINNESOTAWATERSHED DISTRICT
HydrographyCity of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
City Boundary
Watershed Boundary
Open Water
Wetland
100-Year Floodplain
500-Year Floodplain
Dakota County, 2018
Figure 7-3
February 26, 2019 Source: FEMA, City of Mendota Heights,
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-18
Significant Vegetation
The City of Mendota Heights contains a wide variety of forested areas including a
large amount of floodplain forest along the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers.
There is a large area of altered, non-native deciduous forest on the east side of
Gun Club Lake. The Significant Vegetation Map – FIGURE 7-4 illustrates the
location of wooded and forested areas throughout the City.
A Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) search was performed
for the areas below the bluffs. The bluffs themselves are upland areas. The
MLCCS Summary Table below (City of Mendota Heights 2018 SWMP, Section
2.6) provides a list of the land cover types below the bluffs and the area of each
type that falls within the Mendota Heights City limits. Of special note is the
presence of a calcareous seepage fen prairie. The Lower Minnesota River
Watershed District considers calcareous fens to be high priority areas for wetland
preservation and restoration.
MLCCS Summary of Areas Below the Bluffs for Mendota Heights
Land Cover Description Total Area (acres)
Oak (forest or woodland) with 11-25% impervious cover 1.9
51% to 75% impervious cover with deciduous trees 18.0
Pavement with 91-100% impervious cover 2.5
Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils 10.2
Short grasses on upland soils 5.5
Oak forest 3.9
Floodplain forest 209.8
Lowland hardwood forest 6.1
Aspen forest - temporarily flooded 1.5
Mixed hardwood swamp - seasonally flooded 7.2
Altered/non-native deciduous woodland 2.8
Altered/non-native dominated temporarily flooded shrubland 0.8
Willow swamp 3.3
Medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 12.8
Temporarily flooded altered/non-native dominated grassland 2.0
Calcareous seepage fen prairie subtype 37.0
Mixed emergent marsh - seasonally flooded 62.5
Mixed emergent marsh 106.4
Mixed emergent marsh - intermittently exposed 57.2
Mixed emergent marsh - permanently flooded 22.1
Grassland with sparse deciduous trees
- altered/non-native dominated vegetation
3.4
River mud flats 3.6
Slow moving linear open water habitat 139.3
Limnetic open water 145.1
Palustrine open water 41.6
?ÞA@
%&c(
%&f(
?ØA@
?±A@
?ØA@
%&c(
MENDOTA
LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA
RI
VE
R
ROGERS LAKE
LAKE
AUGUS
TA
L
A
K
E
L
E
M
A
Y
GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDDODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DR
S
I
B
L
E
Y
MEMORIALNORTHLAND DR
WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL
MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL
VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE
Significant VegetationCity of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
City Boundary
Open Water
Wetland
Altered/Non-Native Deciduous Forest
Altered/Non-Native Deciduous Woodland
Altered/Non-Native Mixed Woodland
Aspen Forest
Floodplain Forest
Lowland Hardwood Forest
Maple-Basswood Forest
Oak Forest
White Pine-Hardwood Forest
Mesic Prairie
Figure 7-4
February 26, 2019
Source: Dakota County MLCCS, 2013
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-20
A variety of vegetation also surrounds Lake Augusta and Lemay Lake, including
the following: altered/non-native deciduous forest, altered/non-native deciduous
woodland, oak forest, native dominated disturbed upland shrubland, and aspen
forest.
The east side of 35E within the City of Mendota Heights, just before entering
Lilydale, contains a variety of vegetation, from altered/non-native deciduous forest,
altered/non-native deciduous woodland, altered/non-native mixed woodland, oak
forest, floodplain forest, and lowland hardwood forest. There are also pockets of
a variety of forests and woodlands between 35E and the boundary with West St.
Paul and Sunfish Lake, especially surrounding the water features.
Site Classifications and Natural Resources Issues
Natural areas abound in Mendota Heights on public as well as on private lands.
The City manages natural resources at both the site level and by broad, City-wide
natural resource issues, through City policies and ordinances, collaboration with
other agencies and citizen groups, and the use of adopted plans and guidance
documents.
Parks and Trails
Some of Mendota Heights’
Parks have areas of woodland
or naturalized landscapes.
Park natural areas with high
ecological quality should be
prioritized and actively
managed.
Open Spaces
There are many other City-owned natural areas that are not part of Mendota
Heights’ Park System. Many of these contain wetlands or steep slopes. Some
have high quality oak woodlands. Open spaces provide habitat, natural resource
connections, stormwater management, and visual interest. Some open space
sites have moderate to high ecological quality and should be inventoried and
identified on an ecological overlay as part of the City GIS mapping and asset
inventory. Active management is needed to sustain these high quality resources.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-21
City-wide Natural Resources Issues and Natural Resources
Trees and Urban Forest
Mendota Heights’ urban forest includes
boulevard trees, park trees, woodlands,
and trees on private property. The
City’s forestry program includes:
trimming and removal of trees on City
property, tree planting on City property,
diseased tree inspection and
management when feasible, and
education and outreach.
In 2017, Emerald Ash Borer was
documented for the first time in
Mendota Heights. The City began ash
tree removals on City property in
December 2017, and will continue
management into the future. The City
anticipates it will lose most of its ash
trees to this invasive insect.
Given the proximity of Mendota Heights to the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers
and accompanying tree-lined bluffs, the City has an opportunity and responsibility
to protect and enhance native species of trees in the City. The management,
removal, and replacement of invasive trees and shrubs with native species helps
sustain the City’s natural resources, the river bluffs, critical areas, ecological
communities, as well as quality of life for the community.
Urban Wildlife
Large areas of contiguous habitat are needed for healthy, diverse wildlife. The
City’s approach to wildlife management is on providing habitat for wildlife. While
the City does not manage for particular species, it does strive to manage for and
increase native plant diversity to provide higher quality habitat for native
pollinators. The City became a Pollinator Friendly City in 2016 (see Pollinator
Resolution 2016-01, dated January 5, 2016, within the Appendix). In accordance
with that policy, and best practices for protecting and increasing native pollinators,
the City will continue its efforts to protect native pollinators as well as other
beneficial insects.
Urban wildlife can sometimes become a nuisance by damaging gardens,
congregating in yards, or creating public safety issues. The City has a deer
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-22
management program in Valley Park which monitors deer population and uses
annual bow-hunt removals. The City does not have removal programs for geese,
turkey, beaver or other wildlife.
Meadows and Prairies
Historically, Mendota Heights had
several areas of native grassland
prairie. Much of that has been lost to
development, although there may be
some small fragmented areas that
remain within the City as illustrated on
the Significant Vegetation Map –
FIGURE 7-4.
Prairies and meadows are beneficial to
native pollinators and other wildlife such
as non-migratory and migratory birds,
as well as for stormwater infiltration,
filtration, and interception.
Reestablishing native meadows and prairies throughout the City will help create
contiguous pollinator corridors, provide sustainable management practices, and
cost savings measures.
Private Property
Private, residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses are an integral part
of the City’s overall ecosystem and play an important role in the health of birds,
pollinators, wildlife, water quality, and more. The City will engage in outreach
activities, various collaborative opportunities for home and business owners (e.g.,
curb-cut raingardens with road reconstruction projects), and educational forums,
in order to enhance knowledge, encourage environmentally sustainable behaviors,
build community, and enhance the overall health of the City’s ecosystem.
Invasive Vegetation
Invasive vegetation is vegetation that is non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem
under consideration; and whose presence or introduction causes, or is likely to
cause, economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Controlling
invasive vegetation before it becomes widespread is more effective and less costly
than managing it after widespread establishment. The City has a responsibility to
control or eradicate species on the State Noxious Weed list.
Source: City of Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-23
Surface Water Quality
The City has a diverse collection of surface water resources within its boundaries
including lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands. Protecting these resources
requires ensuring that the storm water that enters these surface waters does not
degrade, or further degrade, the health of the City’s surface water resources and
the aesthetic, ecological, and recreational benefit they provide. The City utilizes a
variety of strategies to monitor and protect its surface water resources including:
Collaboration with other government agencies, community groups, and
citizens to help monitor and protect these resources.
The City uses its current Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as a
guide to conserve, protect, and manage the City’s surface water resources.
The City of Mendota Heights holds a required National Pollution Detection
and Elimination System (NPDES Phase II) Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) permit (see the SWMP, within the Appendix) with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, that includes an evaluation of the
City’s stormwater system, and a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), that identifies Best Management Practices, goals, and actions
for implementation.
The City works in conjunction with Watershed Districts, Watershed
Management Organizations, and other government agencies to establish
strategies for addressing its impaired waters. Surface waters are
designated as impaired if they do not meet State standards for their
designated use due to a specific pollutant or stressor. Impaired Waters
within Mendota Heights include the Minnesota River, Interstate Valley
Creek, and Lake Augusta.
The City also has adopted water resources management ordinances and
policies that include Title 14, Chapter 1 of City Code: Stormwater
Management, Illicit Discharge, Soil Erosion, and Sedimentation, which
establishes standards and specifications for conservation practices and
planning activities to protect and enhance water quality.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Natural Resources
7-24
Issues and Opportunities
The City of Mendota Heights finds it critical to prioritize projects to protect and
manage the most important sites to make the best use of funding and staff time.
The science of managing natural systems continues to evolve. The City will
continue to cultivate strong partnerships with other agencies, non-profits, and
citizen groups to seek expertise in the management of its natural resources.
Additionally, the City will strive to educate residents on environmental issues and
foster stewardship and volunteerism.
Grants for enhancing natural areas that are available through State, County, and
other agencies should be vetted on an ongoing basis by City staff. The City should
inventory and track natural resource assets such as open space sites, public trees,
and permanent stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). This will provide
an opportunity to better manage these resources. The City should also manage
all of its surface water resources using scientifically based, common sense
approaches that meet or exceed regional, state, and federal regulatory
requirements.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-1
8
Resilience
Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover from difficulties – the ability to
return to a sense of normalcy. Preventing disasters is the first priority but
responding effectively to disasters is also essential to be resilient.
Between 2012 and 2018 alone, Mendota Heights faced three serious
emergencies, two of which were weather-related, the other infrastructure related.
To be resilient Mendota Heights needs to anticipate disasters and be ready to
respond to catastrophic events. In the wake of climate change, our community’s
resiliency will likely be challenged, since extreme weather is likely to continue with
increased frequency. This chapter outlines reactive strategies for handling
emergency services in the event of disaster as well as proactive strategies for
mitigating the effects of climate change.
The world’s climate is changing, and the growing frequency and large-scale impact
of severe weather events demonstrates the importance of building a foundation of
resilient systems to meet ordinary and extraordinary circumstances.
Resilience is not a required element for the 2040 comprehensive plans in the
region, but Mendota Heights is committed to investing in resilience. Supporting
resilience strategies will protect local and regional vitality for future generations by
preserving our capacity to maintain and support our region’s well-being and
productivity. Considerations of vulnerabilities in resilience strategies, and
response to those vulnerabilities, will strengthen community preparedness and
response to climate impacts.
The Resilience update for Mendota Heights primarily focuses on goals and policies
related to:
1) Hazard mitigation and emergency response;
2) Climate action;
3) Resilient energy; and
4) Resilient food systems.
Additional chapters within the Mendota Heights 2040 plan also contribute to
building resilience in Mendota Heights, which include Land Use; Natural
Resources; Parks and Trails; Transportation; and Economic Development.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-2
Hazard Mitigation & Emergency Response
Dakota County Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2016, Dakota County developed an All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan
incorporated numerous cities and townships in Dakota County and was developed
to identify and prepare for a variety of hazards such as flooding or tornadoes
before they occur. The purpose of the plan is to reduce the loss of lives and
property damage in the event of a hazard occurring in the area. The All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan includes a list of goals, objectives and strategies for the county to
better prepare and coordinate efforts for disasters. The goals of the plan include:
1) Reduce Hazard Risks and Impacts;
2) Build on Existing Efforts; and
3) Share Information and Raise Awareness.
This plan serves as a framework for managing public and private investment in
the face of a changing climate and more severe storm events.
Mendota Heights Emergency Operation Plan
The Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was written to ensure a coordinated,
effective response by elected officials and city staff to disasters that create
significant disruption and stress to community resources. The plan was written per
state and federal law to describe proper management of a given emergency or
disaster. The purpose of the plan is to:
1) Maximize the protection of life and property;
2) Stabilize incidents;
3) Effectively respond to an emergency or disaster;
4) Ensure the continuity of government and continuity of services; and
5) Provide recovery and restoration of services
This framework is intended to account for resources and procedures that will allow
for the effective response to an emergency or disaster.
Climate Action
Minnesota, Dakota County, and the City of Mendota Heights are already
experiencing the impacts of a changing climate. Climate trends suggest that in
the next 50 years we will experience increased precipitation, hotter summers,
warmer and wetter winters, and more severe weather events. These changes can
damage infrastructure, disrupt essential services, drain resources and impact a
City’s capacity to respond to citizen’s needs.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-3
These climate changes are also expected to have substantial impacts on public
health and emergency responders as a result. Direct impacts include increases in
injuries and deaths attributed to extreme heat events, extreme weather events
(e.g., floods), air pollution, and vector-borne and other infectious diseases (see
Figure 8-1 below). Climate resilient communities can prevent the worst public
health and economic impacts of climate change by effectively adapting the built
environment to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to
mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Figure 8-1
Source: Health Effects of Climate Change, 2016. Minnesota Department of Health.
www.health.state.mn.us/divs/climatechange/climate101.html
Many of the solutions to reducing impacts are already a part of our municipal
government expertise. In many instances, responding to climate change does not
require large scale changes to municipal operations, but simply requires adapting
existing plans and polices to incorporate knowledge about changing levels of risk
across key areas such as public health, infrastructure planning and emergency
management. Strategies which strengthen resilience in time of emergency also
help communities thrive even more during good times.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-4
GOALS and POLICIES – Hazard Mitigation & Climate Action
GOAL 8.1: Protect and maintain infrastructure and constructed
systems that provide critical services.
Policies:
8.1.1 Assess public buildings and sites for vulnerabilities to extreme weather
and make improvements to reduce or prevent damage and sustain
function. Increase the resilience of natural and built environment to
more intense rain events and associated flooding.
8.1.2 Improve the reliability of back-up energy for critical infrastructure.
Support well-planned improvements to the private utility and
communications networks that provide efficiency, security and needed
redundancy.
8.1.3 Continue to explore and incorporate new and emerging technologies to
construct, rehabilitate, maintain and manage public assets and
infrastructure in an efficient, cost effective manner.
8.1.4 Increase tree canopy in areas with low coverage, areas with high heat
vulnerability and areas exposed to more vehicle exhaust.
GOAL 8.2: Proactively maintain public health and safety during
extreme weather and climate-related and other unforeseen events.
Policies:
8.2.1 Continue to work with Dakota County in updating the All-Hazard
Mitigation Plan and partner to ensure essential needs of all residents
are met during an emergency.
8.2.2 Investigate funding opportunities to support the City’s resilience efforts.
8.2.3 Conduct a Population Climate Vulnerability Assessment to outline
priority vulnerabilities and identify available resources to strengthen
community capacity to respond.
8.2.4 Designate appropriate facilities that will be made available to the public
as community safe shelters and arrange for adequate provisions and
backup power.
8.2.5 Coordinate with emergency dispatch and first responders to address
the specific concerns of residents who may be more vulnerable in each
type of event.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-5
GOAL 8.3: Promote social connectedness and build an engaged
community of resilience.
Policies:
8.3.1 Strengthen working relationships with community organizations to
support the most at-risk residents.
8.3.2 Promote education and outreach with the community on the health
impacts and risk mitigation of air pollution, longer allergy seasons,
extreme heat, water quality changes, and vector-borne disease.
8.3.3 Promote and report on the City’s sustainability and resilience projects
and initiatives.
8.3.4 Review ordinances with respect to recreational fires and particulate
emissions and update as needed to protect and maintain healthy air
quality.
Resilient Energy
Local renewable energy resources are abundant and readily available for
economic capture. Renewable energy resources currently available in Mendota
Heights include solar, with the potential to incorporate wind, biomass, geothermal,
and efficiency resources (e.g. building improvements for energy efficiency). All of
these resources should be evaluated for use at residential, private and community
scale. Mendota Heights must set goals and policies that treat sustainable local
energy resources as an economically valuable local resource. Strategies to
reduce energy consumption including alternative modes of transportation must be
initiated.
Renewable Energy Efforts in Mendota Heights
The City of Mendota Heights is committed to a resilient future, including promoting
renewable energy where feasible. The City has existing code language supporting
residential rooftop and ground-mounted solar development throughout the
community. Although solar energy systems are allowed in all zoning districts,
systems must be accessory to the primary land use. Large-scale commercial solar
farms or gardens are not currently allowed in Mendota Heights. The ordinance also
addresses building-integrated solar systems and passive solar energy systems.
As stated in the goals for this chapter and emphasized in their code of ordinances,
Mendota Heights supports the development of solar energy systems that result in
a net gain in energy and do not have negative impacts on surrounding uses and
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-6
surrounding solar access. This Plan also includes information on gross solar
resources to provide data context to these recommendations.
Gross and Rooftop Solar Resources
The Metropolitan Council has calculated the gross and rooftop solar potential for
the City of Mendota Heights to identify how much electricity could be generated
using existing technology. The gross solar potential and gross solar rooftop
potential are expressed in megawatt hours per year (Mwh/yr), and these estimates
are based on the table in FIGURE 8-2 (below):
Figure 8-2
Developed areas with low building heights and open space areas have the highest
potential for solar development in the City. Many of the developed neighborhoods
and some natural areas in Mendota Heights do not have high gross solar potential
due to existing tree cover. This gross development potential is illustrated on the
Gross Solar Potential Map – Figure 8-3
35E
Mendota
Heights DODD RDWENTWORTH AVE W
HIGHWAY 110
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVE SONEILL RD DELAWARE AVEPILOT KNOB RDHIGHWAY 13MARIE AVE W
55
55
62
High : 1276135
Low : 900001
Solar Potential under 900,000 watt-hours per year
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Wetlands and Open Water Features
Gross Solar Potential
Source: University of Minnesota U-Spatial Statewide Solar Raster.
ANOKA
DAKOTA
HENNEPIN
RAMSEY
SCOTT
WASHINGTON
CARVER
Extent of Main Map
0 1 20.5
Miles
12/22/2016
City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Gross Solar Potential
(Watt-hours per Year)
MENDOTA
LILYDALE
Gross Solar Potential
City of Mendota Heights
µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet
City Boundary
35EMendotaHeights DODD RD
WENTWORTH AVE WHIGHWAY110
MENDOTA
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
R
DLEXINGTON AVE S
ONEILL
R
D DELAWARE AVEPILOT KNOB RDHIGHWAY 13MARIE AVE W
55
55 110
High : 1276135
Low : 900001
Solar Potential under 900,000 watt-hours per year
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Wetlands and Open Water Features
Gross Solar Potential
Source: University of Minnesota U-Spatial Statewide Solar Raster.
ANOKA
DAKOTA
HENNEPIN
RAMSEY
SCOTT
WASHINGTON
CARVER
Extent of Main Map
0 1 20.5
Miles
12/22/2016
City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Gross Solar Potential
(Watt-hours per Year)
Figure 8-3
February 26, 2019
Source: Metropolitan Council
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-8
The City is committed to demonstrating and providing solar development within the
community and on city-owned properties. In 2017 through 2018, the city worked
with a solar energy consultant group to provide up to 140-KW of solar energy
production at various city-owned sited, including a 40-KW solar field at City Hall, a
60-KW rooftop system at the Public Works facility, and two smaller 20-KW rooftop
systems at the Par 3 Gold Course and Fire Station facility, respectively. Images
of the City Hall field and rooftop system at Public Works are shown below:
Alternative Transportation
In our daily lives, a large portion of the energy we consume is a result of the way
we move through our community. The mode of transportation in which we chose
impacts the amount of energy we use. By supporting alternative modes of
transportation, the City helps to enable its citizens to make choices that reduce
energy consumption. The utilization of modes of transportation that require less
energy than single-occupancy automotive vehicles reduces dependency on finite
resources and reduces emissions of greenhouse gasses. See the Transportation
Chapter for specific goals and policies.
GOALS and POLICIES - Resilient Energy
GOAL 8.5: Continue to support, plan for, and encourage the use of
solar energy as a renewable energy source.
Policies:
8.5.1 Consider modification of existing ordinances to protect access of direct
sunlight to rooftops of all principal structures.
8.5.2 Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the
development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems.
8.5.3 Encourage the installation of solar energy system options, for space
heating and cooling and hot water heating in residential, commercial
and industrial buildings.
City Hall Solar Field
Public Works Facility – Rooftop Solar Panels
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-9
8.5.4 Consider a site-specific solar energy capacity study for industrial and/or
commercial sites to identify the most beneficial placement for solar
Photo-Voltaic (PV) development.
8.5.5 Provide information on grants and incentives for alternative energy.
GOAL 8.6: Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independence
goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Policies:
8.6.1 Explore and investigate means to track city vehicles and facility
emissions to formulate a baseline and establish greenhouse gas
reduction goals every 5 to 10 years to assure progress in City emission
reductions.
8.6.2 Explore collaborating regionally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
8.6.3 Begin the application process to the Minnesota Green Step Cities
Program.
8.6.4 Encouraging alternative fuel stations, electric vehicle charging
stations, and supporting infrastructure at commercial sites, office
sites, parking ramps and residential sites.
GOAL 8.7: Support long-range planning efforts to build the
community’s renewable energy capability and maximize the benefits
of renewable energy development.
Policies:
8.7.1 Regularly review renewable energy policies and programs, including
the alternative energy systems ordinance (§12-1D-18).
8.7.2 Support mass transit goals as detailed in Transportation Section 3.
8.7.3 Consider housing options along transit corridors as a strategy for
reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.
8.7.4 Prioritize infrastructure improvements that support walking and biking
as an integral part of the transportation system.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-10
Resilient Food System
The well-being of our residents is vital to long-term sustainability and prosperity of
our community. Income, education, transportation, jobs and economic
development, housing, land use, and the environment all influence our ability to
access a healthy diet. Despite Minnesota’s reputation of being a diverse and rich
agricultural state, not everyone has access to healthy and affordable food.
Minnesota ranks 7th lowest in access to healthy foods and is second only to Texas
for the worst access in rural areas.1 Reliable access to affordable, healthy food
can help reduce rates of preventable diseases, improve health, foster community,
and support economic development (refer to Figure 8-3 below).
Figure 8-3: Factors of Community Health
Source: Food Access Planning Guide, 2014. MN Food Charter. http://mnfoodcharter.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/FAPG_PlanGuide_D9_LINKS_LR.pdf
Local planning policies can reduce or reinforce structural barriers that prevent our
food supply from being as healthy, equitable, affordable, and resilient as we would
like it to be. By prioritizing policy initiatives at a local level that support a robust
food infrastructure (see Food System Figure 8-4 below), Mendota Heights can
help improve the quality of life for its residents and leave a legacy of health for
future generations.
Figure 8-4: What is the Food System?
Source: Food Access Planning Guide, 2014. MN Food Charter
________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Healthy Food Access: A View of the Landscape in Minnesota and Lessons Learned from Healthy Food
Initiatives; Federal Reserve Bank MN & Wilder Research – April 2016; E. Rausch & P. Mattessich.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-11
Small Scale Food Production in Mendota Heights
The City of Mendota Heights has an opportunity to build from established food
system policy efforts, currently including:
Keeping Chickens: The City of Mendota Heights permits residents to keep
up to six female chickens for the purpose of individual egg production (§12-
1D-3). The City’s code specifies coop and run requirements as well as
guidance on proper care and the permitting process for domestic chickens
on residential lots.
Farming Operations: Existing farms are permitted in the City, with the
exception of animal farming (§12-1D-8). Farmers may also sell products
produced at an on-site farm stand.
Access to Food Markets
There are no grocery stores or supermarkets within the City of Mendota Heights.
Although such markets exist in neighboring municipalities, access to those stores
is largely dependent on the automobile. As the population ages, access via
automobile may become problematic.
Disposal of Food Waste and Organic Recycling
The City of Mendota Heights participates in Dakota County’s curb-side recycling
program and residents can opt-in to participating in the County’s organics drop off
program in West St. Paul. Businesses are also eligible to participate in recycling
programs with the County to further reduce waste in the City. As technology
advances, the City will study the feasibility of introducing curb-side organic
recycling programs as has been done in other municipalities in efforts to reduce
waste.
Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan February 2019
Resilience
8-12
GOALS and POLICIES – Resilient Food System
GOAL 8.8: Explore opportunities to support land use guidance and
regulations to support practices that integrate healthy food
production in residential settings and support food-related
businesses and activities.
Policies:
8.8.1 Review and update regulations governing food processing businesses,
such as commercial kitchens, flash freezing businesses, and small
scale home kitchen businesses.
8.8.2 Support the development of a Mendota Heights Farmers Market as an
accessible and reliable source for local, healthy food.
8.8.3 Support innovative local food production solutions such as aquaponics,
hydroponics, indoor agriculture, backyard gardening and composting,
community gardens, and urban farming, where appropriate.
8.8.4 Encourage edible and pollinator-friendly landscapes on residential
properties.
8.8.5 Support innovative practices such as mobile food markets and mobile
food pantries/food shelves that can bring food closer to under-
resourced residents.
GOAL 8.9: Promote responsible waste disposal and study feasibility
of improving systems that encourage residents to make responsible
decisions.
8.9.1 Promote use of County Organics drop-off station.
8.9.2 Study feasibility of organics pick-up in the years to come as technology
advances and is more readily available.
8.9.3 Educate on and support back-yard composting in efforts to reduce
waste.