The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-04-23 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 23, 2019 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Adopt Agenda 3. Approval of the March 26, 2019 regular meeting minutes 3a. Approval of the April 15, 2019 workshop meeting minutes 4. Public Hearings a. Case No. 2019-08: Variance to allow a new front foyer/deck addition to encroach into the front-yard setback area for the property located at 916 Adeline Court. Ispiri, LLC - Applicants (acting on behalf of Deanne Zarmbinski & Paul Shrewsbury – Owners) b. Case No. 2019-09: Wetland Permit to allow construction of a new deck structure for property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court. Philip & Margaret Johnson – Applicant 5. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update a. PUBLIC HEARING – re-open the hearing tabled from the previous March 26, 2019 meeting. 6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 7. 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. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 26, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Commissioner Katz publically expressed his appreciation to Community Development Director Tim Benetti who conducted his orientation before he began his term on the Planning Commission. The time spent with him, especially on where the city is with the Comprehensive Plan, was greatly appreciated. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 26, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26, 2019. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-05 NICK AND LIZ BANOVETZ, 1751 JAMES ROAD VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE-YARD SETBACK Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Nick and Liz Banovetz had requested a Variance to the side yard setback for their property located at 1751 James Road. The property is located at the centered part of what is known as the James and Douglas Road split. It is a 0.34 acre parcel with a two-story 3,594 square foot single family residence built in 1958. Mr. and Mrs. Banovetz are requesting to build an 11.5’ x 14.5’ addition off of the east side of their home. This would be a single story addition to accommodate a new living room. The current dwelling sits 35.4 feet off of the front lot line, 37.8 feet from the west lot line, 52 feet from the rear line, and 19.2 feet from the east line. The addition to the east side would encroach 2.13 feet into March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 20 the 10-foot side-yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property relative to its location within the neighborhood, images of the property itself, and the location of the proposed addition. Mr. Benetti explained that the reason for the proposed addition to not be on the rear of the home was due to an existing canopy patio and open patio space in the already limited back yard. Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide justification for any variance request: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff. Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road, were available for questions. Mr. Banovetz clarified that the request was for a dining room addition. When they purchased the property it was pretty much in disrepair. However, they fixed it up and fell in love with Mendota Heights. They would like to make this their permanent home for years to come. They received nine letters of support from neighbors, one of whom is a real estate appraiser. They also had two emails from real estate agents confirming that this addition would be an enhancement for the neighborhood and positively affect property values. Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the criteria to be met to approve a variance was that the request was not a convenience, but would meet a practical difficulty. In looking at the shape and dimensions of the proposed addition, he asked for an explanation of the practical difficulties associated with the request. Mr. Banovetz replied that there were several practical difficulties:  They are working with an award winning architect in the Twin Cities and have gone through many reiterations of trying to plan out the main living space. The common areas of the house only amount to 559 square feet. While the total square footage is high, most of it focused on bedrooms or living space that is below grade.  They would like to fit a dining table and buffet into the new dining room. If they cannot have the variance it would affect where they could put windows, and they may end up not putting any windows on the street facing side of the addition if that is where they have to put the buffet. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 20  There is currently 34 feet between their home and the neighbor’s garage; the placement of the addition would narrow that space down to 20 feet. If each property owner complied strictly with the 10-foot side-yard setback, it would result in a 20-foot separation between homes.  The topography of the land and the shallowness of the backyard also creates a practical difficulty in placing the addition at the rear of the property. Commissioner Noonan stated that it appears as if the architect had advanced various alternatives that would respect the side-yard setback; and the decision to go with the alternative presented today is just a matter of what is more suited to this family’s desire. Mr. Banovetz replied that the architect has not provided any alternatives and not believe that anything else would work. All other reiterations of the architectural design would still encroach the setback by 2 feet. Commissioner Corbett remarked that he appreciated all of the letters of support that were shared, and he believed one was from the neighbor to the opposite side. He then asked if there was a letter of support from the neighbor on the east, whose property would be encroached upon. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was included in the packet. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that they feel that the dining room expansion could not be made 9’ 2” inches. Mr. Banovetz replied in the negative, he did not feel that the expansion could be made smaller. He then asked if they had installed the patio or was it already there when they moved in. Mr. Banovetz replied that it was a little bit of both; there w as a patio there and they fixed it up. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-05 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 20 variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, thereby eliminating the need for the variance. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Commissioner Toth explained that he agreed with Commissioner Noonan statements due to the 10.5 feet; the Commission has not been given a reason why they need that 10.5 feet as a practical difficulty. They have not heard why a shorter distance of 8 feet would not work. He would like to see something, if it could be worked out, like 8.5 feet or 9.5 feet by 16.5 feet, or similar. Commissioner Mazzitello said, realizing that every variance request stands on its own and that actions of the Commission or the Council with respect to these applications do not set precedence, there was a case similar to this where someone’s addition was going to go into the side-yard setback and one of the findings of fact used for the Council’s ultimate approval of the request, was that the structure itself was not placed properly on the lot. Similar to this case, there is over 39 feet from the corner on the other side of the house. He would never advocate for someone to build a dining room on the other side of a garage so they have to pass through the garage to get to the dining room. However, that finding of fact was used. To throw all of the information on the table for the Commissions consideration, this very similar type of variance has been approved by the City Council in the past, against the Commission’s recommendation. Commissioner Petschel asked if Commissioner Mazzitello was proposing to use the center of mass relative to the center of the lot line as an indicator to the variance. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that the only thing he was saying was that the indicator was used once in the past; not saying that it should be a standard. Commissioner Noonan that this argument, if there were no alternatives for the placement or the size of the addition; the addition could be spread out to give the square footage as well. There are alternatives which provide for what the property owners want. He heard justifications for convenience sake as opposed to a practical difficulty. There are alternatives that exist that would allow the property owners to get the addition. It may not be what they ultimately desire, but it would still respect the setbacks – which are important. If setbacks were not important, then they would not be there. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would be for a mitigating circumstance. For example, if this were a non-conforming lot size where the rules were written for a 15,000 square foot lots and someone walks in with 9,000 or 10,000 square foot lot and the house is already practically violating March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 20 the setback rules. Commissioner Noonan agreed that this would be a good example. However, in this case there is not a non-conforming use. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2019-06 CHARLIE CO. DESIGN (JOHN & THERESA COSGRIFF) CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND VARIANCE - 1875 HUNTER LANE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Charlie and Co. Design, on behalf of John and Theresa Cosgriff, were requesting a Critical Area Permit to remove an existing dwelling and rebuild on the site. The property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane, just within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. For any new improvements, demolition, or heavy removals or grading projects a Critical Area Permit is required. The request also includes a Variance to the average bluff line setbacks as required under the critical area ordinance. Notices were published in the local newspaper and notices were mailed out. The Cosgriff’s have received a number of letters expressing support of this project. Notices and application materials were also sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR), who acknowledged receipt of the materials. They provided no follow-up comments or objections to the Critical Area permit and Variance applications. The subject property is located in the mid-block of Hunter lane, is approximately 1.5 acres in size, and there is currently a 4,322 square foot home on the lot with a backyard swimming pool and garden area. The home was originally built in 1948. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property with the current footprint of the dwelling, and a highlighted overlay of the proposed new structure. Essentially, the footprint would remain the same except for the addition of a three-car garage on the north side of the home. This new home would be an approximately 6,500 square foot, four bedroom, six bath home. The pool, instead of being at an angle, would be parallel to the back of the house. Critical Area Permit The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:  Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource  Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas;  Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 20 The standards to be met for a Critical Area Permit, as described by Mr. Benetti and noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District, are:  Site Planning Requirements  Development Standards  Structure Setbacks (the Variance request relates to this standard)  Height Limits  Retaining Walls  Standards for Grading/Filling  Standards for Vegetation Management  Surface Water Runoff Management Variance Request Mr. Benetti explained that whenever someone is building in a new lot or tear down between two other houses, the setback is averaged for the new home equal to their neighbors. For a Critical Area Property, this string-line rule comes into play on the backside with the bluff line. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property that included a line of the where the average setback would be between the houses to the north and the house to the south. If this setback were adhered to, the new home would be located behind the line and closer to the bluff line. Mr. Benetti continued by explaining the test questions that must be answered to provide justification for any variance request: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties He then provided the answers to those questions from the applicants and from staff. Other variables the city could consider when grant or denying a variance are as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Commissioner Petschel asked if the ordinance, in respect to the string rule, only consider the adjoining two houses. Mr. Benetti replied that the ordinance states ‘the immediately adjacent properties’. He then asked if that couldn’t include the next houses over, and the reason for his question is he was looking at the aerial photo of the three properties adjacent – and it’s a mess. They homes are all over the place. If the rule were applied, the house next to the adjacent property would not be conforming either. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, the rule applies when building a new house and then only to the adjacent properties. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 20 Commissioner Petschel noted that the ordinance does not say anything about the curvature or land features. He then provided a hypothetical example of his concern – let’s say there is a cul-de-sac and someone had the deepest lot in the cul-de-sac, clearly the string rule is not going to work because the house at the top is going to have a further setback than the two adjoining lots. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if these should be heard as two separate motions or could they be motioned together. Mr. Benetti suggested they be motioned together as they are integral to each other. Mr. Colby Mattson, Principal/Designer with Charlie & Co. made a few additional points:  They had the neighbors over from the surrounding community to present the project and to make sure they were clear on what the clients were intending to do. They had very good support and letters were provided in the packet.  The Cosgriff’s purchased this lot and property with the idea of potentially remodeling it. The lower level has 7-foot ceilings. After working with a contractor it was determined that the best course of action to get the home they were looking for ways to go to the new home concept.  If they were to abide by the string rule, it would push the new home location back approximately 47.5 feet. With that, significant excavation and retaining walls would be necessary. They plan was to minimize the impact to the lot and change no conditions for the neighbors (site lines and proximity). Commissioner Petschel asked if it would be physically possible to build a house that would conform to the rear string rule and also conform to the adjoining property’s front yard setbacks. Mr. Mattson replied that it would be a very small home. He and Mr. Benetti looked at that early on. Looking at the bluff line and looking at the era in which a lot of the homes were built, some of them are very close to the bluff line and do not necessarily abide by the rule. When looking at the feasibility of the properties, if they were to pull the home back behind the string rule line, the house to the north – based on the location of the house to their north – would have to move back approximately 20 feet, creating a trickle down affect. Chair Magnuson asked how far forward towards the road the home would have to come in order to abide by the string rule. Mr. Mattson replied that it would have to come back approximately 20 feet. The house two properties north is even further back due to the curvature of the bluff line. That house would end up having to be pulled back if it was every rebuilt as well. Mr. Mattson continued by explaining that the idea the clients were asking for – they did not want to ask for more than what is currently there. They are trying to improve upon every as pect based on the site conditions. Commissioner Magnuson stated that this was not built has a walk-out in 1948, it was actually created to be a walk-out approximately 20 years ago by two previous owners. She asked, given what has been done in the past with the excavation, if they were forced to move this house up to 47 feet and do further excavation, what kind of issue would that create in terms of dealing with what was previously excavated and try to conform that in and would that be possible to do without March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 20 creating some adverse effects close to the bluff line. Mr. Mattson replied that part of it would that, as they move further away from the bluff line, the house would presumably want to be climbing up the hill that is there. Based on one of the ordinances saying that they cannot take the first floor any higher than 12 inches above the existing first floor, would put a lot of pressure on to the lower level. In their opinion it would not be possible to be a walk-out based on the grading; or having to use significantly tall retaining walls, which are also not allowed. Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on using the current foundation or hole of the existing house. Mr. Mattson replied that the idea was that when the house was demolished there would be a little disturbance to the surrounding area as possible. They were not planning on using the existing foundation itself. It is not in great shape. The idea was to use the west face of the property as a benchmark. Generally speaking there would be a small amount of excavation just to get the proper soils for footings and everything else. The majority of the existing basement hold would be used. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, made a general comment about the critical area by pointing out that some native species are not beloved – cottonwood, box elder, sumac – but they are native and belong in the critical area. When the Commission is considering these generic comments – removal of invasive species – they should be more specific about what is meant by invasive species. Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Pilgrim if they were to reword that condition, what verbiage would she recommend. She replied that the MnDNR would have the official list of what is considered invasive. She would say that anything that is native is not by definition invasive. Commissioner Katz noted that the staff report and the narrative from the applicants says that they are not planning on removing any of trees and would be protective of the existing trees. They are planning on planting at least 50 new trees and some shrubs on the site. They also have a very good runoff management plan, including a rain garden right near the critical bluff line. John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1837 Summit Lane, reinforced that they have been very mindful of the critical area rules in designing both the house and the landscaping; the runoff controls that they have been very mindful of the intent of that rule. They hoped that what they were trying to do would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 20 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-06 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND RELATED VARIANCE FOR SETBACK STANDARDS REQUEST, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three –part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i. the proposed new single-family home is a reasonable use of the property; ii. the subject property was pre-developed with an existing home closer to the bluff line than what the neighboring (adjacent) properties have today; and the Applicants are matching closely the location of the new home with the old home. iii. approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area and bluff lines will not be affected by th e approval of the Variance; and iv. the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable new home on the subject property and well beyond the required minimum setbacks established in the Critical Area Overlay District standards, and as such, keeps the rear yard space open and intact a it was prior to e new development. The variance is also determined to not be solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 1875 Hunter Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-06, dated and presented March 26, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 20 i. Building and grading permits shall be approved by city staff prior to any demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of the new dwelling. ii. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed new dwelling within one (1) year form date of city council approval. iii. 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. iv. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the Public Works Director. v. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. vi. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities vii. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. Weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. G. The effort made by the applicant to respect the Critical Area and to implement enhancements to the Critical Area Commissioner Petschel asked if they would have a front yard string rule evaluation as well. Mr. Benetti replied that he only looked at the back line. Commissioner Petschel asked, in general if someone came to do new construction on a lot, they would have a front yard string rule evaluation. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Petschel then asked if there weren’t competing rules in this case. Mr. Benetti again replied in the affirmative because in the critical area, this rule is applicable to the bluff. Commissioner Petschel commented that to further the discussion of uniqueness that seems to be plaguing the Commission, the nature of the setback of the surrounding properties is erratic and creates a fairly clear burden on the property owner. Commissioner Noonan commented that he was coming to the same thing; the practical difficulties are the competing setbacks, string rules, and where the property is located. If they layered the rear string rule and the front string rule, they would be creating a non-developable lot. Even a manufactured house would not fit. Also, the applicant is not really changing the nature of the home; the footprint, as was pursued by Commissioner Magnuson’s question, was the same except for the garage addition. They are improving the situation, enhancing, and respecting the bluff areas. This is a testament to the applicant and to their professionals. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 2, 2019 meeting. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 20 Unfinished Business A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Chair Magnuson explained that the plan this evening was to hold, what they hoped would be, the final Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan at the Planning Commission level. Once the Comprehensive Plan moves from the Commission, it would go to the City Council and they may choose to hear additional comments on it. Community Development Director Tim Benetti would review the draft Comprehensive Plan chapter by chapter, allowing the Commissioners to make any comments they have or any changes they would want to propose. At the close of each chapter, the Commission would ask if there were any public testimony on that particular chapter. If anyone wished to testify, they were asked to keep their comments to a particular item in the chapter that was being discussed. 1) INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 2) LAND USE Commissioner Mazzitello, in light of a case they just heard, asked if the Commission would consider adding Goal 2.2, Policy 2.2.8 Low density residential development or redevelopment should avoid the creation of new flag lots, where the flag lot has less than the standard 100 feet of frontage. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the workshop meeting identified a trail that was missing on the Community Facilities & Features Map (Figure 2-1); the trail gap that was close to Highway 13, between the Summit and Lilydale Road. He requested that staff ensure that trail was added to the map. Commissioner Noonan, referencing Table 2-1: 2017 Existing Land Use, stated that at the workshop he had requested that some language be added to explain how they go from Gross Acres to Net Acres. He again requested a modest explanation be included; this would apply to Table 2- 2: 2040 Future Land Use as well. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that she had previously spoken to the Commission about the 32 blanket changes to land uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Tonight she only wished to speak to one aspect of these changes. At the previous meetings and workshop a number of residents from Augusta Shores, Lemay Shores, and Victoria Highlands spoke against changing the land use from LR – Low Residential to MR – Medium Residential. A large part of the discussion at the workshop speculated that the net density in Augusta Shores was over the 2.9 units per acre allowed in LR. She subsequently learned that County records show that the lots in Augusta Shores have a collective net density of 2.7 units per acre. Another part of the rationale for the change to MR focused on Twin Homes not being allowed in LR. Changing the land use to a higher March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 20 density than what is already there and originally approved, because of the Twin Home issue, is but one solution to addressing this discrepancy. Another possible, and likely more acceptable, solution is to amend the R-1 zoning to accommodate Twin Homes with a Conditional Use and remove these areas from the blanket changes. This would preserve the single-family character of these neighborhoods but by accommodating one shared wall between the homes. They were not aware of the rationales for initially approving these developments in LR and R-1 with Twin Homes; the answer is likely in the City minutes of these approval processes. However, she urged the Commission to consider this or other more appropriate solutions for these neighborhoods; as well as other potentially less drastic changes to land uses for other properties. Ms. Smith continued by stating that the proposed changes in density – MR from 4 units per acres to 8 units per acre, and High Density Residential from 8 units per acre to 25 units per acre – is an even more drastic change and without the transparent notification and rationale to all affected residents. These potential changes in land uses could dramatically change the character of neighborhoods and ultimately the city. She requested the Commission to consider the implications and seek a less drastic solution. Commissioner Petschel asked where the change to High Density was located. Ms. Smith replied that the change was in the general classification of HR going from 8 units per acres to 25 units per acre. Chair Magnuson asked for clarification that what she was requesting was for the Commission to allow Twin Homes in a low density residential area by a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Smith confirmed. Ms. Pat Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive, has comments very similar to Ms. Smith’s. She is concerned about the land use change in Augusta Shores from Low Density to Medium Density. When she first moved there several years ago they understood that it was zoned R-1 Low Density. She just recently discovered that, according to the ordinances, that Twin Homes must be zoned as Medium Density. She did not understand why the zoning was not changed when the development was first built. She assumed there was a Conditional Use Permit that allowed for that in the Low Density. She looked at each individual property on line, on the Dakota County records, calculated the gross square footage minus the wet land square footage, to determine what the overall square footage was. She came up with an average of approximately 2.7 units per acre. This did not include the outlots. In her mind, this is low density. Her concern was that in the future those houses could become almost double or triple the number of units that are in there today. Her second concern was the change in the definition of Medium Density and High Density; the Medium Density going from 4.35 units per acres and almost doubling to 8 units per acre, and then High Density almost tripling from 8.54 units per acre to 25 units per acre. She could not find any rationale or any explanation why that was being recommended and how it would fit into the character of the city. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 20 Mr. Keith Ostrosky, 1680 Lexington Avenue South, was confused as to why the city has been asking for open transparency and ascribed for that, but his project had gone from a 6-0 vote in favor to 6-0 against in 24 hours. Commissioner Noonan replied that this was not true. Mr. Ostrosky requested an explanation of where he is on his project. Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr. Ostrosky had filed an application for a development. Mr. Ostrosky replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Noonan noted that the only thing the Commission was considering was the land use designation. Currently, Mr. Ostrosky’s property is Low Density Single-Family. There had been discussion amongst the Commission to alter that to Medium Density. The discussion that took place at the workshop posed the question as to whether or not they wanted to continue to advance the recommendations that had been talked about before or to go back to the status quo. By a divided vote, the recommendation was to take it back to the status quo and have Mr. Ostrosky come forward with a specific application. Mr. Ostrosky stated that he would like to stay in the 20-year Comprehensive Plan because that was what, he believed, the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) had asked for; to correct all of these issues, Variances, and re-zonings so they would not have to hear about them anymore. Commissioner Noonan replied that he did not believe that the Met Council has anything to say whether or not it’s Low Density, Medium Density, or High Density. In Mr. Ostrosky’s particular case, he is zoned for Low Density. There are no problems that Commissioner Noonan was aware of other than that the Low Density designation does not allow him to advance a Medium Density development. Mr. Ostrosky noted that he is a single-family home surrounded by Medium and High Density buildings. He thought one of the goals was to make properties conform into the neighborhood and to fit in. His single family home does not fit into his neighborhood of 408 condominiums. Ms. Talaia Bowen, 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, has been working with Mr. Ostrosky and they submitted their application together since they are both on the same page. The process was put to them that if they participated in the Comprehensive Plan it would help to avoid these individual approaches and applicants and have a true sincere goal; to re-guide their own properties. That is why she and Mr. Ostrosky took the approach to really considering joining the Comprehensive Plan. If there is now a different direction they should be taking or a suggestion for them to do individual applications, they are not really getting a lot of information. The letter they received says things like ‘considered for re-guiding under the overall Comprehensive Plan’. This is totally different than what Commissioner Noonan just shared. They really need to know the next steps if they are not going to be included in the Comprehensive Plan, they need that information in writing. They placed an application in writing and paid their dues and fees to be considered a part of the Comprehensive Plan and requested the Commission provide that response or direction to them. Commissioner Petschel asked when the 6-0 vote in favor of his project took place. Mr. Ostrosky replied that it was in the summer of 2017. Commissioner Petschel continued by stating that he was not at the workshop and could not speak to what happened. His own personal feedback was, while he agreed with the project and what he was trying to do given the scope of the surrounding properties, it would be inappropriate to try to re-litigate with the City Council through the Comprehensive Plan on this particular property. As an individual property, he would like to see it back before the Commission and he would like to see Mr. Ostrosky be able to do what he wants March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 20 to do. Commissioner Petschel was unaware of any money being provided or an application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benetti clarified that Mr. Ostrosky and Ms. Bowen made an application in early 2017 via the Comprehensive Plan. That is the only application that the city has received. It was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment only. That was prior to starting the official work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. At this point, staff cannot accept an application for a new individual Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the new plan is adopted. The Met Council will not consider any individual Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications until the city officially adopts the Final 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bowen explained that this type of circular discussion is the main issue that she and Mr. Ostrosky were in attendance. Mr. Ostrosky has been doing this for over 2 years and she has been in it for a year. It is tiresome for them to keep spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops. Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification of when Mr. Ostrosky originally applied for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was denied. The reply was it was at least 2 years ago. Commissioner Corbett continued by stating that he believed this was given the due process 2 years ago, and that it was denied such that revisiting this under the scope of the Comprehensive Plan does not give it the attention it deserves or the people who denied it the chance to say why they would now approve it – if it were approved. That should be required; doing anything through the Comprehensive Plan would just cloud up the transparency of why it was denied and now approved, or denied and denied again. Ms. Bowen explained that what they are requesting is something in writing, distinct detailed information they are not getting, so they can understand what remedies they should provide. Chair Magnuson, in an attempt at clarify, explained that Mr. Ostrosky brought forth an application two years ago to the Planning Commission. The Commission voted in favor of his application at that time. However, it went to the City Council and they denied the application. There was a considerable amount of opposition voiced by many of the non-Mendota Heights neighbors. Now, there was an opportunity to try to reguide the property through the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Commission included it initially in the draft Comprehensive Plan for reguiding. Again, there was a lot of opposition raised with respect to that inclusion in the plan. Given the fact that there was opposition, given the fact that the City Council previously denied it, at the workshop the Commission concluded that this proposal probably should get an independent review. That does not preclude Mr. Ostrosky from coming forward at a later date with an application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, once it has been completed, and the Commission could consider it on its own merits and fully discuss the issues before them once again. The Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council and they have no idea what the City Council will do with it. However, the Commission did not think it appropriate to try to sort of shove this through in the Comprehensive Plan when they knew that the City Council had previously denied it. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 20 Mr. Bob Janecek, 1665 Lexington Avenue, is a 35-year resident, lives directly across the street from Mr. Ostrosky, and fully supports what he is trying to do. He explained that what we have is a bunch of deteriorating woods that look terrible. This last winter storm has caused it to deteriorate even more. In the past two years he has spent $12,000 in taking out dead trees on the back of his lots. Mr. Ostrosky has the same problem. They are the only area that is not developed on those corners. He understands all of the people in Lilydale who oppose anything being done. In the future he is going to stop maintaining the properties beyond his; he has been maintaining it for 30 years and all they tell him is that they do not have the money. For instance, one year he had a $900 water bill watering the grass on their property. Basically, he approves any kind of development in this area. He is now too old to properly maintain his own property and that is why he is going to do the same thing Mr. Ostrosky is. He is going to try to redevelop his property. Ms. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, voiced her opposition to allowing Twin Homes on single- family lots. Mr. Carol Crockett, 4890 Cook Drive, White Bear Lake was in attendance to speak on behalf of her personal opinion. Seven years ago she drove up into the driveway of 1680 Lexington Avenue, Mr. Ostrosky’s property, and wondered why he was there surrounded by condominiums as it did not fit the characteristic of the neighborhood. Speaking as a non-resident, they are not looking at taking away from the unique gem, they are looking at preserving the beautiful surroundings and allowing other to have the opportunity to live there; possibly has a condominium or town home, enjoying the unique gem. The city is lacking affordable housing to transition from a single family to a multi-leveled dwelling. Some families that have lived in Mendota and other communities, like herself, find a comfort knowing that they can stay in their neighborhood and community and possibly enjoy city living on an acreage setting. She has sat in on other meetings and several Lilydale residents have come in opposition of the property becoming medium density. Yet they live with High Density being within a couple hundred feet of this unique gem. If one were to do an aerial view of the residence, it is one house sitting with a condominium next to it with a huge driveway that someone could walk down and practically touch his. They are not looking to blocking the views, they are just looking at fitting into the characteristic of the neighborhood. Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, stated that she is not for allowing twin homes in Low Density residential. She also lives near an area that is being re-guided from Low Density to Medium Density and is concerned about the increased density in the Medium and High Density areas. She reiterated comments she has made before; changing and updating the densities and having the designations she has no problem with. However, she asked for a different solution, something like different levels of Medium and High Density so that it is capped out to what is currently on the ground. Commissioner Mazzitello asked Ms. Johnson if she had a chance to review Policy 2.2.7 under Goal 2.2. She replied in the affirmative and stated that she believed it came about at the workshop. Commissioner Mazzitello read Policy 2.2.7 “Redevelopment of exis ting MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 20 than currently exists.” Ms. Johnson stated that as long as this is legally binding in the Comprehensive Plan and City Code that is satisfactory. 3) TRANSPORTATION For the sake of expediting the meeting, Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he had no comments on the Comprehensive Plan until Chapter 10. There were no other comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 4) PARKS AND TRAILS Ms. Cindy Johnson returned and explained that she had sent an email to the Commission and staff indicating that some of the things in Chapter 4 had not been corrected. Table 4-1: there are no trails at Marie Park; there is a pond on park property at Victoria Highland Park. She was also confused by a comment on page 4-8 that reads “Mendota Heights analyzed 2.8 miles of the corridor between Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue and between Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road” – Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue are perpendicular or are they saying from that corner to Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road – when those two roads do not intersect. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he had done some investigation when she questioned him about this: Delaware and Dodd do meet all of the way up on the north end of the city – Delaware, all of the way south on Dodd, to Marie is what that is referring to. During the Highway 149 reconstruction design phase, there was a lot of talk about pedestrian facilities along that corridor. Mr. Jonathan Ehrlich, 1044 Douglas Road, referenced figure 4-2 Bicycle Facilities and Plan Map, noted that there is a green line indicating an existing paved trail along Highway 13, between Victoria and Lexington. Most of this trail has signs along it saying that bicycles are prohibited. 5) HOUSING There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 20 6) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. Jonathan Ehrlich returned to make a general comment about the Comprehensive Plan in regards to Economic Development. He stated that Economic Development of the city really is, in some ways, dependent on the ability of people to be able to afford living in the city and to be able to expand the number of people living here. He has heard people commenting that they want more restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in the city and he wanted to point out that these types of developments cannot happen without population. Has lived in Mendota Heights for 19 years, for which he is grateful because he knows that, despite for the fact that his income has increased substantially over that time, he could never afford a home in Mendota Heights any more. The value of land has increased in part because of the incredible restrictions on density and development in the city. The resistance towards multi-family development, the resistance towards lot splits, the resistance towards any increase in density in the city overall is hamstringing the quality of life within the city, hamstringing the ability for the city to develop on the public amenities that residents actually want; and locking people out of the ability to afford homes in the city. He hoped the Commission would keep these under consideration as they develop the Comprehensive Plan. 7) NATURAL RESOURCES There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 8) RESILIENCE There were no comments from the Commissioners or from the audience 9) CRITICAL AREA Commissioner Noonan made the observation that staff did a good job in terms of picking up the discussions had at the workshop and many of the items that they spent 3-hours talking about at the workshop were picked up and incorporated into the first nine chapters. 10) IMPLEMENTATION Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the Implementation chapter is divided into sections based on the preceding chapters. So each chapter in the Comprehensive Plan has its own two page write-up in the Implementation chapter. He noted that the write-ups for Chapters 2-7, the Implementation goals do not match the goals that are in the individual chapters. The Implementation summaries for chapters 8 and 9 do match the goals that are in those respective chapters. He suggested that Mr. Benetti simply copy the chapters into the tables and go from there. Mr. Benetti replied that he could do that very easily. Mr. Benetti asked if they had any comments about the priority levels or the timeframes in any of the tables. Commissioner Noonan noted that some of the actions listed to not relate to the goals; for example, 2.1 narrowly talks about updating the zoning code. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 20 Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out that Goal 2.1 in the Implementation chapter should read “The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights”; however, it currently reads “The City will update the zoning code to conform to the land use plan.” To talk about a timeframe or a priority level for one of the policies that supports that goal is not serving the goal properly. He suggested that the Council meets one more time – close the public hearing, have one more workshop to update these tables, and move it on to the City Council. Or they could leave the public hearing open if they wanted to take public testimony on priorities. Community Development Director Tim Benetti and City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that with one Councilor being out of state, the Commission has time to have another workshop meeting to nail down everything, to make sure all of the maps are clear and cut to where they need to be, all of the tables are set up, and add the narrative language that Commissioner Noonan requested. Staff would like to make sure that the recommendation settled and to the Council as soon as possible. Mr. Benetti suggested a workshop meeting sometime around May 1, 2019 when the Councilor returns. Chair Magnuson clarified that what she was hearing was that the Commission could do a workshop, discuss the priorities and the goals and the implementation plan; take this up one last time at their April 2019 meeting; possibly take public testimony on Chapter 1 0 only; and then move it on to the City Council. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Mr. Benetti stated that if the Commission had any other additions or changes they wanted to make, they could still make those later on, at the workshop, or at the following public hearing (if they continue it over) – yes, it could be done easily. Commissioner Katz expressed his agreement; as he was reviewing the tables he was counting up how many of the priority levels were actually on each table and what type of timeframe was given. Given the fact that the Commission is going to move some of the goals and update those with the action items that it would be a good idea to actually evaluate all the tables together. Commissioner Noonan, looking at the Transportation Implementation Table, noted that there was a real disconnect between the Action Item and the Goals. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE APRIL 23, 2019 MEETING, AND BETWEEN NOW AND THE APRIL 23, 2019 MEETING THE COMMISSION MEET IN A WORKSHOP SESSION TO DISCUSSION CHAPTER 10 AND HAVE CHAPTER 10 PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE IN SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. Ms. Kate Christensen returned and asked that the public have more time to look through these updates to that the Commission can get good clear input from the public. She also noted that the Implementation Plan should be actionable. For instance, the Chapter 8 Implementation Table is a one-for-one Goal, to Implementation, to Action and she was unsure that was what the public meant – it should not be the exact same copy from goal  implementation  goal  action. Mr. Benetti replied that under the chapter statements, one of the goals has the policy statement which kind of March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 20 give the actions of what they plan to do. The Implementation table is more of an implementation for staff, Commission, and Council to enact on or rely upon. It is more of a high level work plan. It is not supposed to be specific, the Comprehensive Policies provide specifics. For example, in the Natural Resources Chapter one of the recommendations is to ‘recommend the establishment of a commission’. The work of the commission would be to prepare the Natural Resources Plan. It would be premature and inappropriate for the Commission to dictate what that Natural Resources Plan should be, since that is the charge being given to them. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal review: Planning Case 2019-01 Metro Storage LLC Zoning Code Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1  The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request  City Council elected to table with the idea that they would have a tour of a facility so they could go and look at Planning Case 2019-02 ISD #197 Variance to exceed building height standards in the R-1 district  The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request  City Council also approved this request with a secondary recommendation by the Council to send the site plan back to the Planning Commission to discuss or give a recommendation on the access point onto Huber Drive Planning Case 2091-03 Julie Weisbecker, 1840 Hunter lane Lot Adjustment and Variance  The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request  City Council reversed this decision and approved the request Mr. Bruce Bobbitt, 2455 Hampshire Court, asked what kind of traffic study the school was doing for their access point onto Huber Drive. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that cameras have been set up to collect data about the existing traffic movements. Then from there they will move the passenger vehicles over to Huber Drive, show whether they would go north or south, and projecting all of the turning movements at the intersection of Huber and Mendota Heights Road, as well as the entrances in and out of the school. March 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 20 Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:54 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL 15, 2019 A workshop meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, April 15, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 6:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Also Present: Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, City Administrator Mark McNeill DISCUSS UPDATES TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter 10 Implementation Chair Magnuson called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Mr. Noonan noted the Commissioners’ receipt of the written comments which had been provided by Ultan Duggan. He said that those comments should be referred to staff, and that the City Council could consider them. Mr. Ruzek then began a discussion of the implementation steps for each chapter, as summarized in Chapter 10. Chapter 1—Introduction--No comments Chapter 2—Land Use--Mr. Noonan asked if the Commission was to provide feedback on Timeframe and Priority Levels. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative, but noted that prioritization would be subject to the resources available to the City. Mr. Katz said that he had counted 23 “high” priorities, 22 “medium”, and only 3 that were “low”. He said that there may not always need to be an action step that needed to be assigned to keep it as a high priority. Mr. Corbett asked if there was progress reported on those items which have action steps. He also asked if the Airport Noise implementation had measurable goals. It was noted that the Airport Noise issues had items which were out of the City’s control; however, the City’s Airport Relations Commission monitored noise complaints and trends. Chair Magnuson said that the draft Implementation Plan document presented a “tension”—the previous draft listed action steps which didn’t always correspond with goals. She said that this version added goals, but had fewer implementation steps. She felt that if there was too much implementation, the process would have to start over. Mr. Mazzitello said that these goals were not in rank order of importance. Mr. Ruzek agreed, and said that this was a comprehensive plan, and not a work plan. He said that the Comp Plan should focus on policy, and that individual work plans would address implementation specifics. Mr. Katz asked that periods as punctuations be made consistent throughout the document. He also questioned if the airport noise issues should be reprioritized as “low”, given the City’s lack of ability to change airport policy. Mr. Mazzitello said that, given the number of people in Mendota Heights who view airport noise as a concern, he felt that it should stay as “medium”. The Commissioners agreed. Chapter 3—Transportation—Commissioners agreed to change the timeframe in 3.3 (airport noise impacts) “on-going”, instead of “long term”. In “Bonus Goal 1”, the term “near-term” was eliminated from roadway projects. Chapter 4—Parks and Trails—Mr. Mazzitello asked if “short term” for 4.1 was accurate. The consensus was to change that to “on-going”. Mr. Noonan suggested combining two of the bonus goals. Mr. Ruzek removed the bonus goal under 4.3. Chapter 5—Housing—Mr. Mazzitello suggested changing the bonus goal regarding the creation of 23 affordable housing units to “long term”. The Commissioners agreed. Chapter 6—Economic Development—Mr. Mazzitello recommended changing the priority of 6.3 (economic development tools) from “high” to “low”. The Commissioners agreed. Chair Magnuson questioned whether Goal 6.5 and Bonus Goal 2 were the same. It was agreed to drop Bonus Goal 2, adding the term “Industrial District”, and making it a “medium” priority. Mr. Mazzitello asked that “and redevelop” be added to 6.4. Mr. Noonan asked that Tim Benetti be asked whether “develop” and “redevelop” should be added to 6.4 and 6.5. Chapter 7—Natural Resources—The Commissioners discussed whether the timeframes for 7.1 should be changed to “medium” or “short term”; whether 7.2 should be “ongoing”; and 7.5 should instead be “medium” or “long term”. 7.1 remained at medium term, 7.2 was changed to ongoing, and 7.5 was changed to medium term. The Commissioners also discussed whether a future advisory body for Natural Resources should be a Committee or Commission? Chair Magnussen noted that having a Commission was important to many people who have commented. The consensus was that the narrative in Chapter 7 would reference any Natural Resources advisory body as being a committee, which could evolve into a Commission, and that the Implementation Goals, Policies, and Tables would all reference “Commission”. Chapter 8—Resilience—Mr. Noonan stated that Goal 8.2 referencing weather and climate issues should be a “long term” timeframe, rather than “medium term”. Priorities were discussed. Mr. Mazzitello felt 8.1 (infrastructure) should be a “high”, rather than “medium”. Mr. Noonan recommended changing food production (8.7) from “high”, to “low”. Mr. Petschel recommended changing 8.5 from “high”, to “low”; Chair Magnuson said that the City by itself can’t change climate change, but it can make small contributions. Mr. Noonan suggested making 8.5 (climate change goals and greenhouse gasses) “ongoing” in timeframe, and a “medium” priority. Mr. Petschel asked the same treatment for 8.4 (solar energy). Chapter 9—Critical Area—No comments from the Commissioners. Other Comments: Chair Magnuson asked for other comments. Mr. Mazzitello suggested adding an eighth policy as 2.2.8, which would read, “LR development and redevelopment should avoid the creation of new “flag lots”, where the “flag lots” has less than the standard 100 feet of frontage”. Chair Magnuson called for other comments. Audience member Leslie Pilgrim asked for clarification on the flag lot discussion, which was answered by Mr. Mazzitello. Audience member Sue Light asked for a definition between a Committee and Commission. Concerns were expressed that a Committee might not have the same impact as a Commission. The discussion referenced the earlier-referenced proposed language in Chapter 7. Audience member Cindy Johnson said that she had attended a meeting the previous weekend, and reported that of the 26 cities represented, there was a wide variety of ways in which Natural Resources advisory groups were structured. Costs of the two alternatives were discussed. It was decided that the Planning Commissioners didn’t need to make a recommendation that evening, but were in concurrence that a Natural Resources advisory group should be referred to as a Commission in the goals, but be a committee which might evolve, in the narrative. Audience member Jill Smith asked for clarification on density in 2.8. She said there should be a Low Density PUD, and asked why densities have increased—MR going from 4 to 8 units per acres, and HR from 8.5 units, to up to 25 units per acre. Mr. Mazzitello responded that all of the HR designations had developed at a higher rate, and increasing the number of units more accurately reflected what had actually been developed. He noted that Summit, and Eagle Ridge are greater than 8 units per acre. Chair Magnuson recommended to change the MR to “not to exceed” 8 units per acre. Ms. Smith stated that 8, and 25 units per acre were not much of a limitation. ADJOURN There being no further discussion, Chair Magnuson adjourned the meeting at 7:42 PM Minutes Taken By: Mark McNeill City Administrator Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: April 23, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-08 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Ispiri, LLC (on behalf of Breanna Zarmbinski & Paul Shrewsbury) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 916 Adeline Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 22, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants are seeking to build a front-entry/foyer addition to their single-family residence, which would require a variance to encroach 8.8-ft. into the 30-ft. front yard setback standard in the R-1 One Family district. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The subject property is a trapezoidal shaped parcel consisting of 0.36 acres. The property contains 4,628 sq. ft. (finished sq. ft.) one-story walk out rambler, built in 1979 (see Google Street image – below). Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 2 According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approximately 30.0 feet from the front lot line off Adeline Court. The Applicants are performing a major renovation and remodeling project of the interior and exterior elements to the existing home. As part of these renovations the owners wish to construct a new 16’ x 8’ fully enclosed foyer, which includes a 4’ x 16’ partially covered open-deck entryway. The outer edge of the deck/foyer addition is indicated with a 21.2-ft. setback off the front, curved lot line along Adeline Court. This addition encroaches 8.8-ft. into the required 30-ft. setback (see survey image – below): hence the need for a variance. Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 3 ANALYSIS Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows:  Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.  Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.  Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.  Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or who le, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text): Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 4 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: Homeowners wish to alleviate their cramped entryway and add curb appeal to the house. Construction of the addition as proposed would grant them their wish. Staff’s Response: A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed use of the property, as altered by the variance, is reasonable. With or without the addition, the overall use of the home and property will not change. The Applicant’s desire to construct a small addition on the side of the existing house, even one that requires this variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The curvature of the front property line and thusly the building setback line prohibits us from altering the front of the home without seeking a variance. Staff’s Response: The Applicant’s desire to construct a new foyer/entry space addition can logically be placed only near the front entryway to the existing residence. With the trapezoidal shaped lot and concaved front lot line, the setback limits were set when the existing home was built and placed in 1979. There does not appear to be any other area(s) to expand the home outward in any direction, except by means of a variance. The City will need to determine if this pre-development is unique enough to grant the Variance as requested. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: Granting of the variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. In fact, it would enhance the property, thereby improving the character of the neighborhood. The investment into the home would enhance neighboring home's values as well. Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is residential in character; and the new addition and extensive home renovation project represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing dwelling into a much nicer and more up-to-date residence for the owners. The new foyer/deck addition appears to be minor in size or scale to home, which in effect should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighboring properties are well shielded or screened by some mature upright arbor-vitae trees on both sides of the subject property, which should help limit or reduce any visual impacts to the neighbors. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 5 B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by: i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable use of the property; ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house; iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the Variance; and iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to the front- yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic considerations. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8-feet into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019-08). ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling. iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. iv.) 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. v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 6 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a variance to a normal setback standard is not warranted under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of this Variance request, and either make a motion to recommend Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Variance with findings of facts to support said approval with the conditions noted therein; or make a motion on Alternative No. 2, a recommendation of denial on the Variance with findings of facts supporting such decision. If the Planning Commission wishes to table or delay making a recommendation on this item for any plausible reason, then the commission should make a motion consistent with Alternative No. 3 noted above. Attachments 1. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative) 2. Aerial/Site Location Map 3. Survey/Site Plans/Floor Plans 4. Site Pictures Adam Bender lspiri, LLC 7779 Afton Road Woodbury, MN 55125 03/19/2019 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: 916 Adeline Court To Whom it may concern; It is lspiri's (Contractor) intent to remove the existing covered wood deck at the front of the home and replace it with a fully-enclosed and conditioned space which will enhance both the interior and exterior of the home. We will also construct a new poured concrete front stoop and sidewalk for access to the home. The home is a single family residence and will be occupied by Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury, a married couple (Client). Sincerely, lspiri, LLC 11 01 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55 11 8 651.452 .1 850 phone I 65 1.452.8 940 fax www.m endota-heig hts.com • ,< C I T Y OF r ,I fflj MENooTAHEIGHTs VARIANCE APPLICATION -CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM 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: CJ 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. CJ Completed Application Form(s). CJ Letter of Intent. CJ Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): CJ Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. CJ Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. CJ 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 (2019) 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. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: "practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). 0 YES 0 NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: HOMEOWNERS WISH TO ALLEVIATE THEIR CRAMPED ENTRYWAY AND ADD CURB APPEAL TO THE HOUSE. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION AS PROPOSED WOULD GRANT THEM THEIR WISH. Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of3 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? ca YES 0 NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: THE CURVATURE OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THUSLY THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE PROHIBITS US FROM AL TERINGTHE FRONT OF THE HOME WITHOUT SEEKING A VARIANCE. 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 0 YES ca NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, IT WOULD ENHANCE THE PROPERTY, THEREBY IMPROVING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE INVESTMENT INTO THE HOME WOULD ENHANCE NEIGHBORNING HOME'S VALUES AS WELL. The City Council must make affirmative findings 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 demonstrated or satisfied. Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of3 9.613.7 1 0 . 1 XXXXXXX X X X X X XXGAR. FFE=860.55 FFE=861.50 LFE=852.41 8.0 1.023.05.0 0.82.772.00 p. , 71.93 m .30.832.5BLDSB BLDSB30.025.0 Retaining Wall porch deck cant.5.8BLDSB BLDSB BLDSB BLDSB BLDSBBLDSBBLDSBBLDSBBLDSB 30.010 10 1 0 1 0 16.5 Proposed Addition 8.04.021.225.0NOTES CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NORTH ~for~INSPIRI ~of~916 Adeline Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118-3622 18.821BTI hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Minnesota License No. Dated day of 2019.11 January 41578 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY SCALE: 1" = '30BEARING DATUM: County JOB NO. 1 2 3 REVISIONS CJTDRAWN BY: 01-11-19DATE: L25-B2 E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. Professional Land SurveyorsEST. 1977 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 www.egrud.com Lot 25, Block 2, South Ridge, Dakota County, Minnesota. x DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION850.0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND LEGEND DENOTES EXISTING SANITARY SEWER> DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES GAS METER DENOTES HYDRANT > DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINEBLDSB LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 01/07/19. - Bearings shown are on an county datum. - Parcel ID Number: 27-71275-02-250 - Curb shots are taken at the top and back of curb. - This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of a current title commitment or an attorney's title opinion. - Due to field work being completed during the winter season there may be improvements in addition to those shown that were not visible due to snow and ice conditions characteristic of Minnesota winters. 3/19/2019 9:37:43 AM DNE (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (R.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (R.A.)SUBCONTRACTORS01'2'3'6'9' KEY EEEEEE EE EE EEEE E EE EEEE E T E EEE EEEEEEEE EEE EEEEEEE E E EEEEEEEE E E E E EEE EEEEEEEEEEEE EEE E E EE E E E R E R E R E R E E E E E EE E E E E R E R E R E R E E 16'-1 1/2" SHEET INDEX ISSUE RECORD ELECTRICAL KEY XX FL.X1 KEY XX FL. 01'2'3'4' 1/2" SCALE INFO1/4" SCALE INFO VAULTED VAULTED POPCORN DINING ROOM CPT. VAULTED POPCORN SUNROOM CPT. VAULTED WD. CLG. POPCORN BREAKFAST W.I.C. CPT. WD. CLG. KITCHEN CPT. C.T. WD. CLG. FAMILY ROOM CPT.VAULTEDVAULTEDWD. CLG. FOYER C.T. C P T. C.T. CPT.C.T.CPT.C.T.WD. CLG. BATH C.T.VAULTEDVAULTEDWD. CLG. BEDROOM CPT. WD. CLG. HALLWAY CPT. LINEN POPCORN LAUNDRY VINYL POPCORN POWDER VINYL GARAGE POPCORN MASTER BEDROOM COVERED PORCH WOOD DECKING DEMO LOG TRUSS ABOVE CPT. POPCORN MASTER BATH C.T. CPT.VINYL CPT C.T. DEMO DECK, INCLUDING POSTS, FRAMING AND FOOTINGS DEMO RAIL AND EXISTING STAIR DEMO SIDEWALK AS NEEDED DEMO CLOSET DEMO WALLS DEMO STONE DEMO KITCHEN REMOVE WINDOW DEMO ALL FIXTURES AND FINISHES DEMO HINGED DOOR REMOVE ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM DN SUBCONTRACTORS 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY 1 2 MAIN FLOOR AS BUILT PLAN 4 3 6 DATE 1 DESCRIPTION 5 7 * FOR CURRENT INFORMATION REFER TO LATEST PLAN ISSUE ONLY 6 AS-BUILT ISSUE (ORIGINATION DATE) SHEET INDEX 3 REV. 3/7/18 SHEET NO. 2 1 5 ISSUE 4 8 ISSUE RECORD 1. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURES & SWITCHES TO BE VERIFIED AT ELECTRICAL WALKTHRU 2. FIELD VERIFY LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL OUTLETS WITH HOMEOWNER, KITCHEN DESIGNER, INTERIOR DESIGNER PRIOR TO PLACING OR ALTERING CABINETS AT ISLAND OR CABINETRY IN GENERAL. 3. BUILD INSULATED BOXES AROUND RECESSED LIGHTS AND BATHROOM VENT FANS AT ATTIC AREAS TYPICAL. CONSTRUCT WITH 1" FOIL FACED RIGID INSULATION TAPE ALL EDGES AND TAPE CONTINUOUS WITH VAPOR BARRIER, INSULATE ABOVE BOXES TO R-38 MINIMUM. NEW TRIM ON EXIST RECESSED LIGHT * CONST. TO ONLY UTILIZE MOST CURRENT BUILD PLAN ELECTRICAL KEY NEW FLUSH MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING FLUSH MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE NEW DIMMER LIGHT SWITCH NEW RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE NEW 3 WAY LIGHT SWITCH NEW OUTLET EXISTING OUTLET NEW LIGHT SWITCH THERMOSTAT NEW UNDER CABINET LIGHTING CABLE JACK PHONE JACK/DATA SMOKE DETECTOR EXISTING HANGING FIXTURE NEW HANGING FIXTURE JUNCTION BOX WALL MOUNT FIXTURE BATH FAN XX FL.X1 KEY XX FL. 0 1'2'3'4' 1/2" SCALE INFO1/4" SCALE INFO CONCEPT PLAN5/8/18 1, 2 C P T. C.T. CPT.C.T.CPT.C.T.DEMO LOG TRUSS ABOVE BID PLAN ISSUE5/22/18 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 CPT.VINYL CPT C.T. DEMO DECK, INCLUDING POSTS, FRAMING AND FOOTINGS DEMO RAIL AND EXISTING STAIR DEMO SIDEWALK AS NEEDED DEMO CLOSET DEMO WALLS DEMO STONE DEMO KITCHEN REMOVE WINDOW DEMO ALL FIXTURES AND FINISHES DEMO HINGEDDOOR REMOVE ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM 7 9 8 MAIN FLOOR PROPOSED PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVATIONS INTERIOR ELEVS, FOUNDATION PLAN, ROOF PLAN CONTRACT PLAN ISSUE7/23/18 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ORIGINATION DATE 07 MAR 2018 REVISION DATE NONE ZARM BINSK I / SHREWSB URY DESIGN BY; ISPIRI DBR, LLC. ACB CONTRACTTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR CONCEPT ONLY.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLIENT:916 ADELINE COURTMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118ZARMBINSKI /SHREWSBURYBREANNA & PAUL11 P: (651) 578-0122F: (651) 731-9112www.ispiri.comMN Lic # BC627402© 2018 Ispiri, LLC This plan and the design representedhereon is protected under thecopyright laws of the United States.Any reproduction or use of theseplans without written permissionfrom Ispiri is strictly prohibited. PROJECT:FRONT ENTRY ADDITION;MAIN LEVEL RENOVATIONCLIENT INITIALS:SHEET NO.7779 Afton Rd.Woodbury, MN 55125www.ispiri.com1 MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DNE (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) NEW (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)36" RANGEPOTFILLERE (S.A.)E (S.A.) E (S.A.) E (S.A.)E (R.A.)NEW 8X7 O.H. DOOR (VERIFY SIZE) NEW 8X7 O.H. DOOR (VERIFY SIZE) EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING PATIO DOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN REPLACE SASH W/ TEMPERED GLASS EXISTING GABLE WALL WINDOWS TO REMAIN REPLACE SASHES WITH TEMPERED GLASS NEW 2068-2 NEW 2468NEW 2468 NEW 2868POCKETNEW 3068-2 EXIST. PKT. EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING WINDOWTO REMAINEXISTING PATO DOOR TO REMAIN NEW CSMT WINDOW TO MATCH OPPOSITE SIDE MARVIN CUCA 3256 TEMPERED GLASS NEW 3068-2 DOUBLE ENTRY DOOR EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN SUBCONTRACTORS 01'2'3'6'9' KEY N FIX E OPG N FIX E OPGNNNNEEEEEEEE EE N E E E NNNNNNN N N N NN FIX E OPG E E T ENNNNN EEEE EEE EEEEE N E EEEEEEE NNNN EE NNNNEEN EEE NR N R N R N R N N R N R N R N R N N NRNRNRN N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N N N N N FIX E OPG N N N N N R N R N R N R N E E E E NC6 NCAT 6C6 NCAT 6C6 NCAT 6EEN 8'-1" 3'-0 1/4" 1'15'-0 1/2"10'-2 1/4"14'-1 3/4" 3'-6"2'-4 1/2" 7' 5'-10 1/2"4'-8"7'-4 1/8"3'-5"16'-3 7/8"5'-9 1/4"7'-8 3/8"2'-11 5/8"11" 4'5'2'-5" 15'-1 1/2"9'-2"3'-4"10'-2 1/4"8'4'1'-6"3'-7 1/4"4'-5 3/4"9'-8 1/4"3"4'-10"6"4'-10"6"4'-4"6"4'-4"3"6"10"6"6" 3'2'-1 1/2"2'-1 1/2"10' 2'-6" 16'-2"4'SHEET INDEX ISSUE RECORD ELECTRICAL KEY XX FL.X1 KEY XX FL. 01'2'3'4' 1/2" SCALE INFO1/4" SCALE INFO VAULTED VAULTED NEW K.D. DINING ROOM NEW L.V.P. VAULTED NEW 60" X 30" TUB / SHOWER W/ TILED SURROUND TO 96" NEW WOOD CLG. KITCHEN NEW L.V.P. VAULTED RELOCATE ATTIC SCUTTLE HOLE NEW K.D. OWNER'S CLOSET NEW CPT. EXIST. WD. CLG. EXIST. WD. CLG. GREAT ROOM NEW L.V.P.VAULTEDVAULTEDNEW K.D. CLG. FOYER NEW L.V.P. POWDER 12" BENCH NEW STAIR TO CODE 14 TREADS 15 RISERS 10" TREAD NEW C.T.VAULTEDEXIST. WD. CLG. NURSERY NEW CPT. EXIST. WD. CLG. HALLWAY NEW L.V.P. 42" HIGH HALF WALL FRAMELESS GLASS ENCLOSURE TO 84"24" WIDE X 9" DEEP OPEN CABINET ON COUNTERTOP FULL HEIGHT LINEN CABINET 21" DEEP COFFERED CLG. IN HALLWAY W/ CROWN MOULDING DBL. HANG DBL. HANG GARAGE NEW K.D. LONG HANG MASTER BEDROOM DBL. HANGLONG HANG DBL. HANG NEW CPT. SOFFIT TO CONCEAL LOG TRUSS NEW K.D. CLG. MASTER BATH NEW C.T.SHELF & RODCPT C.T. NEW DROPPED STRUCTURAL BEAM BUILT IN WOOD BENCH NEW HEAT-N-GLO 6000 42" GAS FIREPLACE NEW THIN STONE TO EXISTING MANTLE EXISTING RAISED HEARTH WITH NEW THIN STONE UNDERCOUNTER BEVERAGE FRIG. MEDIA CENTER 15" DEEP TALL PANTRY CABINETSNEW WALL 84" HIGH W/ WOOD CAP NEW STRUCT. DROP. HEADER ROLLING LADDER BENCH W/ WOOD TOP NEW K.D. CLG. MUDROOM NEW L.V.P.36"REFRIG.D.W. TRASH PULL-OUT EXIST. WD. CLG. COFFEE CENTER EN-SUITE NEW L.V.T. COUNTER OVER LAUNDRY MACHINES NEW PLANTER BOX TO FIT IN EXISTING BRICK CUTOUT RECESSED NICHE IN HALF WALL VERIFY OPTIMAL PLACEMENT OF NEW EXHAUST FAN VERIFY LOC. OF EXHAUST FAN NEW IRON-AWAY A-42 RECESS INTO WALL VERIFY EXACT PLACEMENT 2X6 WALL D.W.R&SR&SWOOD BENCH BOARD & BATTEN WAINSCOTING THIS ROOM OPEN BELOW CABINET FOR DOG BOWLS ELEC IN-FLOOR WARMING EXISTING TRAY VAULT SOFFIT EXISTING TRAY VAULT VAULTED VAULTED EXISTING DROPPED HEADER CLOSE IN OPENING FOR EQUAL RETURNS ON GREAT ROOM SIDE NEW FALSE DROP. HDR. 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 NEW ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. 1 4 1 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 4 1 5 1 5 1 8 1 8 2 8 2 8 4 6 4 6 2 7 2 7 4 7 4 7 1 7 1 7 9 6 9 6 8 6 8 6 1 6 1 6 5 5 5 5 5 7 5 7 3 6 3 6 7 6 7 6 3 5 3 5 2 5 2 5 4 5 4 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 3 7 3 7 2-2X10 HDR. 2 6 2 6 RE-JAMB AND CASE TWO EXISTING WINDOWS AS NEEDED 8" CMU FOUNDATION WALL 16" X 8" FOOTING 6" CMU FOUNDATION FOR STOOP SUPPORT EXISTING CMU FOUNDATION WALL WITH BRICK LEDGE CRAWL SPACE ACCESS THRU EXISTING WALL IN CLOSET UNDER STAIR 2" RIGID FOAM INSUL. NEW TESLA CHARGING OUTLET - VERIFY PLACEMENT WITH HOMEOWNER WOOD TOP OVENORIGINATION DATE 07 MAR 2018 REVISION DATE NONE DESIGN BY; ISPIRI DBR, LLC. ACB CONTRACTTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR CONCEPT ONLY.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLIENT:916 ADELINE COURTMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118ZARMBINSKI /SHREWSBURYBREANNA & PAULP: (651) 578-0122F: (651) 731-9112www.ispiri.comMN Lic # BC627402© 2018 Ispiri, LLC This plan and the design representedhereon is protected under thecopyright laws of the United States.Any reproduction or use of theseplans without written permissionfrom Ispiri is strictly prohibited. PROJECT:FRONT ENTRY ADDITION;MAIN LEVEL RENOVATIONCLIENT INITIALS:SHEET NO.7779 Afton Rd.Woodbury, MN 55125www.ispiri.com2 11 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 5' GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXIST. BRICK GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXIST. BRICK EXISTING ROOFING TO REMAIN PAINT EXISTING WOOD FASCIA & SOFFIT EXISTING WINDOW NEW 14" LOUVER SHUTTERS NEW PLANTER BOX NEW DORMER W/ SHED ROOF MAXIMIZE PITCH APPROX. 2.5 / 12 NEW OVERHEAD DOORS NEW OVERHEAD DOORS GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXISTING BRICK NEW 1X4 DOOR & WINDOW TRIM FRONT ONLY NEW 1X6 CORNER BOARDS, FRONT ONLY NEW ENTRY SYSTEM NEW MARVIN CUAWN 1818 - 2 WIDE STATIONARY 12 4 NEW ROOFING TO VALLEYS 1X4 AND 1X10 R.S. CEDAR FASCIA TO MATCH EXIST. 1X6 CORNER BOARDS EXISTING SIDING TO REMAIN NEW DORMER SHED ROOF BEYOND PAINT EXISTING SOFFIT & FASCIA, ENTIRE PERIMETER GERMAN SCHMEAR OVER EXISTING BRICK NEW CORNER BOARD NEW ROOF EXISTING ROOF NEW ROOF EXISTING ROOF ORIGINATION DATE 07 MAR 2018 REVISION DATE NONE DESIGN BY; ISPIRI DBR, LLC. ACB CONTRACTTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR CONCEPT ONLY.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCLIENT:916 ADELINE COURTMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118ZARMBINSKI /SHREWSBURYBREANNA & PAULP: (651) 578-0122F: (651) 731-9112www.ispiri.comMN Lic # BC627402© 2018 Ispiri, LLC This plan and the design representedhereon is protected under thecopyright laws of the United States.Any reproduction or use of theseplans without written permissionfrom Ispiri is strictly prohibited. PROJECT:FRONT ENTRY ADDITION;MAIN LEVEL RENOVATIONCLIENT INITIALS:SHEET NO.7779 Afton Rd.Woodbury, MN 55125www.ispiri.com3 11 PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 33 PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"22 PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Planning Report-Case #2019-08 Page 7 SITE PICTURES 916 ADELINE COURT Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: April 23, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-09 Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Philip & Margaret Johnson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2458 Bridgeview Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the replacement of an older deck with construction of a new 685 sq. ft. deck structure off the back of the home. The subject property is located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, and is situated adjacent to an established Type III wetland (fresh water pond). A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND The property has a 4,288 sf. single-family residential structure, built in 1992. The platted lot consists of 0.68 acres, part of which lies within the back pond (water) area. The applicants currently seek to remove and replace the old deck, with a newer 685-sf. curvilinear style deck in the same location. EXISTING DECK NEW DECK DESIGN Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-6; any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city. The following activities require a permit: 1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 2 of 7 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. The current back edge (corner) of the house and existing deck structure measure approximately 50-ft. and 65-ft. respectively from the wetland edge (see image below). ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential dwelling qualifies as a permitted use in the applicable zoning district, subject to full city approvals; and should remain compliant with the current 2030 Plan and the expected 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.  Wetlands Permit Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100- feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 3 of 7 5. Ensure safety from floods. City Code Title 12-2-7 provides a list of standards and conditions for the granting of a Wetland Permit within the City. These standards are appended to the bottom of this report. It appears all major construction related to the building of the new deck should have little, if any effect upon the adjacent wetland. The existing rear yard buffer space (from structure to wetland edge) will remain virtually the same. The new deck will be supported by either existing concrete frost piers or new ones as needed. There are no plans for any new or major grading work as part of this deck project. Any excavation or digging of posts will be require silt-fence protection all around the work area prior to any construction in or around this wetland area. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) provides certain guides and suggested standards for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The LSWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any fertilizer/chemical runoff from the lawn areas. The subject properties and neighboring properties appear to have this buffer in place. The scope and scale of this proposed new home project fits in nicely with the overall size of the property; and due to the proximity of the wetland and adjacent lake, most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area in and around where the old deck exists today. Due to this relatively minor scale of the project on this large parcel, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 4 of 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to Philip and Margaret Johnson, and for the property located at 2458 Bridgeview Court, which would allow the construction of a new deck structure on the rear portion of the home, based on the attached findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed. Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 5 of 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit for 2458 Bridgeview Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems. 3. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 4. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands, due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from the wetland. Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 6 of 7 TITLE 12-2-7: STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF [WETLANDS] PERMIT: A. Specific Standards: No permits shall be issued unless it is determined that the proposed action within a W district complies with the following requirements: 1. Dredging and/or filling shall be located in areas of minimal vegetation. 2. Dredging activities shall not significantly reduce the water flow characteristics or ponding capacity. 3. The size of the dredged material shall be limited to the absolute minimum and said limits designated on the dredging/grading plan. 4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not result in a significant change in the current water flows, ponding, or in destruction of vegetation, fish spawning areas, or in pollution of water. 5. Earthwork will not be performed during the breeding season of waterfowl or the fish spawning season. 6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large scale development or PUD. In other residential developments, dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of boat channels and marina by two (2) or more adjacent property owners. The width of a boat channel to be dredged shall be no more than the minimum required for the safe operation of boats at minimum operating speeds. 7. No part of any septic tank system or any other sewage disposal system requiring on land or in the ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than fifty feet (50') from the edge of a W district boundary, unless it can be shown that no effluent can reach the wetland because of existing physical characteristics of the site. On-site sewage disposal systems shall be permitted only if they meet state and city regulations. 8. Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity. 9. No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area. 10. W district lands may not be used for disposal of organic refuse or garbage material typically disposed of in a landfill. No part of a wetland should be used for a sanitary landfill. 11. Lowest floor elevation of buildings located within the W district must be at least three feet (3') above the highest known water level. 12. No development shall be allowed in the W district which will endanger the health, safety, and welfare of persons or which will result in unusual maintenance costs to road and parking areas or the breaking or leaking of utility lines. 13. Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter. 14. Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property. 15. The proposed action will not cause storm water runoff to take place at a rate which would exceed the natural rate of runoff occurring from a rainstorm of a twenty four (24) hour duration and a once in two (2) year frequency. 16. Any increase in runoff due to the proposed action will be detained on the site for infiltration through the soil to the water table. Detention of water shall be calculated on the basis of 100- year frequency rainfall published by the U.S. weather bureau. Planning Report Case #2019-09 Page 7 of 7 17. The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain undisturbed by the development of the site. a. Drainage water shall be directed in such a manner as to travel over natural areas rather than across contaminated surfaces. b. Treatment of runoff prior to release to natural drainage shall be provided for parking areas and land uses which manufacture products likely to contaminate ground water. c. No portion of any septic tank drain field shall be located closer than four and one-half feet (41/2') from the highest known water table on the site or underlying bedrock. 18. Land shall be developed in the smallest practical increment at any one time and for only the shortest practical period of time, not to exceed a single construction season. 19. Sufficient control measures and retention facilities shall be put in place prior to commencement of each development increment to limit gross soil loss from the development site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year. 20. Existing wetlands shall not be used as sediment traps. 21. Sediment yield from construction sites adjacent to streams and lakes shall not exceed two (2) tons per acre per year. 22. The person seeking the development permit shall be required to demonstrate that after the development is completed the conditions on the site will be stabilized such that the yearly soil loss from the site will not be greater than 0.5 tons per acre. 23. Development of woodlands shall not reduce the existing crown cover by more than fifty percent (50%). The removal of trees seriously damaged by storms or other act of God, or diseased trees shall not be prohibited. (1981 Code 402 § 7) 2458 2464 701 701 2458 2450 2480 2455 2470 2461 2464 2480 BRIDGEVIEW C T Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights040 SCALE IN FEETDate: 4/9/2019 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. 2458 Bridgeview CourtPhilip & Margaret Johnson(Planning Case No. 2019-09 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT 04-23-2019 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Staff Mark McNeill, City Administrator Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Lorri Smith, City Clerk Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director Bobby Crane, Engineering Technician Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Director Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Sharon Deziel, Communications Coordinator City Council Neil Garlock, Mayor Ultan Duggan, Council Member Jay Miller, Council Member Joel Paper, Council Member Liz Petschel, Council Member Planning Commission Litton Field, Jr., Chair (2018) Mary Magnuson, Commission Member/Chair (2019) Michael Toth, Commission Member Patrick Corbett, Commission Member Brian Petschel Commission Member John Mazzitello, Commission Member Michael Noonan, Commission Member Andrew Katz, Commission Member (2019) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 A-2 Park Commission Members Pat Hinderscheid, Chair (2018) Steve Goldade, Commission Member/Chair (2019) Ira Kipp, Commission Member Stephanie Brod Levine, Commission Member (2018) Nissa Tupper, Commission Member (2018) David Miller, Commission Member Bob Klepperich, Commission Member Daniel Sherer, Commission Member (2019) Stephanie Meyer, Commission Member (2019) Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission David Sloan, Chair Sally Lorberbaum, Commission Member William Dunn, Commission Member Gina Norling, Commission Member James Neuharth, Commission Member Kevin Byrnes, Commission Member Arvind Sharma, Commission Member Stantec Consulting Phil Carlson, AICP Katrina Nygaard, AICP Beth Elliott, AICP Hongyi Duan Joe Polacek Residents & Stakeholders The City of Mendota Heights wishes to acknowledge and give special recognition to the enormous effort, countless hours, and assistance from all of the residents who participated and contributed to the volunteer citizen advisory groups. The City is also grateful to the many residents and business owners who participated in the various open house events, surveys, and public meetings. THANK YOU! Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1-1 Vision / Mission Statement .................................................................................... 1-1 Plan Organization .................................................................................................. 1-2 Setting .................................................................................................................... 1-2 Process .................................................................................................................. 1-5 Key Planning Issues .............................................................................................. 1-6 Regional Planning Designation ............................................................................. 1-8 Community History .............................................................................................. 1-12 Development History ........................................................................................... 1-15 Community Facilities ........................................................................................... 1-21 Socio-Economic Profile ....................................................................................... 1-24 Growth Trends .................................................................................................. 1-24 Population ........................................................................................................ 1-26 Household Growth Trends ............................................................................... 1-26 Household Size ................................................................................................ 1-27 Household Type ............................................................................................... 1-28 Age Distribution ................................................................................................ 1-29 Education ......................................................................................................... 1-30 Employment ..................................................................................................... 1-31 Income .............................................................................................................. 1-32 2 LAND USE .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................... 2-4 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................... 2-5 Non-Conforming Single-Family Uses ...................................................................... 2-5 Future Land Use Categories ................................................................................... 2-8 Future Land Use .................................................................................................... 2-11 Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 Comp Plans ............................................. 2-14 Focus Areas .......................................................................................................... 2-20 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-2 3 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................. 3-1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................. 3-2 Transportation Analysis Zones .............................................................................. 3-2 Functional Classification System ........................................................................... 3-4 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 3-6 Transportation Issues ............................................................................................ 3-6 Previous Studies .................................................................................................... 3-6 Study Intersections ................................................................................................ 3-7 Existing Traffic Control Operations ........................................................................ 3-8 Existing Traffic Control Intersections ..................................................................... 3-8 Future Conditions .................................................................................................. 3-9 Traffic Forecasts .................................................................................................. 3-10 Multimodal Considerations .................................................................................. 3-13 Access Management ........................................................................................... 3-14 Bicycles and Pedestrians .................................................................................... 3-15 Transit Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-16 Aviation Plan ........................................................................................................ 3-20 Aviation Related Goals and Policies ................................................................... 3-22 Freight Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-26 4 PARKS AND TRAILS ............................................................................................... 4-1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................. 4-1 Previous Development .......................................................................................... 4-3 Existing City Park Facilities and Types .................................................................. 4-3 Trail Facilities ......................................................................................................... 4-6 Future Park and Trail Needs ................................................................................. 4-8 State, Regional, and Private Parks and Open Spaces .......................................... 4-9 5 HOUSING ................................................................................................................. 5-1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................. 5-1 Assessment of Housing Stock ............................................................................... 5-3 Housing Affordability .............................................................................................. 5-6 Strategies to Promote a Diverse Housing Stock ................................................... 5-7 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-3 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 6-1 Regional Context ................................................................................................... 6-1 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................. 6-2 Economic Overview ............................................................................................... 6-4 Redevelopment and Business Development ........................................................ 6-5 Education and Workforce ...................................................................................... 6-7 Economic Information, Monitoring, and Strategic Initiatives ................................. 6-9 7 NATURAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 7-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7-1 Protect, Connect, Restore and Manage Ecosystems ........................................... 7-2 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 7-2 Mendota Heights Natural History & Landscape .................................................... 7-8 Rivers, Streams, Lakes, and Wetlands ............................................................... 7-11 Watersheds ......................................................................................................... 7-17 Significant Vegetation .......................................................................................... 7-19 Site Classifications and Natural Resources Issues ............................................. 7-21 City-Wide Natural Resources Issues and Natural Resources ............................. 7-22 Surface Water Quality ......................................................................................... 7-24 Issues and Opportunities ..................................................................................... 7-25 8 RESILIENCE ............................................................................................................. 8-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 8-1 Hazard Mitigation & Emergency Response ........................................................... 8-2 Climate Action ....................................................................................................... 8-2 Population Vulnerability Assessment & Climate Adaptation Framework ............... 8-4 Goals and Policies – Hazard Mitigation & Climate Action ...................................... 8-5 Resilient Energy .................................................................................................... 8-6 Goals and Policies – Resilient Energy .................................................................. 8-9 Resilient Food System ......................................................................................... 8-11 Goals and Policies – Resilient Food System ....................................................... 8-13 9 CRITICAL AREA ...................................................................................................... 9-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 9-1 MRCCA in Mendota Heights ................................................................................. 9-2 MRCCA Districts .................................................................................................... 9-5 MRCCA with Future Land Use and Zoning ............................................................ 9-7 Goals and Policies ................................................................................................. 9-9 Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) .................................................................. 9-10 Floodplains and Wetlands ................................................................................... 9-11 Natural Drainage Ways ....................................................................................... 9-14 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-4 Bluff & Impact Zones ........................................................................................... 9-15 Native Plant Communities & Significant Existing Vegetative Stands .................. 9-17 Cultural & Historic Properties .............................................................................. 9-19 Public River Corridor Views ................................................................................. 9-19 Views Toward the River from Public Places ........................................................ 9-19 Goals and Policies – Primary Conservation Areas .............................................. 9-21 Primary Conservation Areas – Implementation Actions ........................................ 9-21 Priorities for Restoration ...................................................................................... 9-22 Goals and Policies – Restoration ........................................................................ 9-24 Surface Water Uses ............................................................................................ 9-25 Water Oriented Uses ........................................................................................... 9-25 Open Space & Recreational Facilities ................................................................. 9-26 10 IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................. 10-1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................. 10-1 Chapter 2: Land Use ........................................................................................... 10-2 Land Use Implementation Table ................................................................... 10-3 Chapter 3: Transportation .................................................................................... 10-4 Transportation Implementation Table ........................................................... 10-5 Chapter 4: Parks and Trails ................................................................................. 10-6 Parks and Trails Implementation Table ........................................................ 10-7 Chapter 5: Housing .............................................................................................. 10-8 Housing Implementation Table ..................................................................... 10-9 Chapter 6: Economic Development ................................................................... 10-10 Economic Development Implementation Table .......................................... 10-11 Chapter 7: Natural Resources ........................................................................... 10-12 Natural Resources Implementation Table .................................................. 10-13 Chapter 8: Resilience ........................................................................................ 10-14 Resilience Implementation Table ................................................................ 10-15 Chapter 9: Critical Area ...................................................................................... 10-16 Critical Area Implementation Table ............................................................. 10-18 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-5 LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES  Figure 1-1: Community Designation Map for Mendota Heights (Met Council) ......... 1-8  Table 1-1: Public School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2015-16 School Years ............................... 1-22  Table 1-2: Private School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2015-16 School Years ............................... 1-22  Figure 1-2: Mendota Heights & Dakota County: Population, Household, & Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970-2040 ................................................... 1-24  Table 1-3: Mendota Heights & Dakota County: Population, Household, & Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970-2040 ................................................... 1-25  Figure 1-3: Mendota Heights & Dakota County Communities: Population Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 ....................................................... 1-26  Figure 1-4: Mendota Heights & Dakota County Communities: Household Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 ....................................................... 1-27  Figure 1-5: Average Household Size Mendota Heights & Dakota County: 1970-2040 ..................................................................................... 1-27  Table 1-4: Mendota Heights Household Types 2000 & 2010 ............................... 1-28  Figure 1-6: Mendota Heights Age Distribution 2000, 2010, & 2014 ....................... 1-29  Figure 1-7: Mendota Heights Age 45+ 2000, 2010, & 2014 ................................... 1-31  Figure 1-8: Educational Attainment – Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Metro Area & Minnesota ......................................................................................... 1-31  Table 1-5: Occupation of Residents in Mendota Heights ...................................... 1-31  Figure 1-9: Median Household Income 2000 & 2014 ............................................. 1-32  Figure 2-1: Community Facilities Map ....................................................................... 2-4  Table 2-1: 2017 Existing Land Use ......................................................................... 2-5  Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use Map ........................................................................... 2-6  Figure 2-7: Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map ..................... 2-7  Table 2-2: 2040 Future Land Use ......................................................................... 2-11  Figure 2-4: 2030 Planned Future Land Use Map .................................................... 2-12  Figure 2-5: 2040 Planned Future Land Use Map .................................................... 2-13  Figure 2-6: 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Parcels with Land Use Change from 2030 Plan to 2040 Plan ..................................................................... 2-19  Figure 2-7: Focus Areas Map .................................................................................. 2-23  Figure 3-1: Traffic Analysis Zones with Metropolitan Council Projected 2040 Population and Employment .................................................................................... 3-3  Figure 3-2: Transportation Systems Map ................................................................ 3-5  Figure 3-3: Existing Transit Map ........................................................................... 3-17  Figure 3-4: MSP Airport Safety Zones, Noise Contours , Height Limits ................. 3-20  Figure 3-5: Metropolitan Freight System ............................................................... 3-23  Figure 3-6: Twin Cities Freight Railroads .............................................................. 3-24  Table 4-1: Mendota Heights Parks & Facilities Table ............................................. 4-5 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-6  Figure 4-1: Parks and Trails Map ............................................................................ 4-7  Figure 4-2: Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Landscape Plan: Issues and Opportunities Key Map ....................................................................... 4-11  Table 5-1: Housing Type by Units in Structure ........................................................ 5-3  Figure 5-1: Age of Housing Stock Map .................................................................... 5-4  Table 5-2: Median Housing Values in and around Mendota Heights ...................... 5-5  Table 5-3: Median Rent in and around Mendota Heights ....................................... 5-5  Table 5-4: Affordable Housing Stock in Mendota Heights ...................................... 5-6  Table 5-5: Housing Cost Burdened Households ..................................................... 5-6  Table 5-6: Affordable Unit Allocations for Mendota Heights ................................... 5-7  Figure 6-1: Industrial Comparison Areas ................................................................. 6-5  Figure 6-2: Office and Industrial Context ................................................................. 6-8  Figure 7-1: Topography Map ................................................................................. 7-10  Figure 7-2: Wetlands Map .................................................................................... 7-16  Figure 7-3: Hydrography Map .............................................................................. 7-18  Figure 7-4: Significant Vegetation Map ............................................................... 7-20  Figure 8-1: Change in Our Atmosphere Lead to Health Effects ............................ 8-3  Figure 8-2: Gross Solar Potential Table ................................................................ 8-7  Figure 8-3: Gross Solar Potential Map .................................................................. 8-8  Figure 9-1: MRCCA Boundaries in and Around St. Paul Area Map ...................... 9-3  Figure 9-2: MRCCA Boundaries in and Around Mendota Heights Map ................ 9-4  Figure 9-3: MRCCA Boundaries with 2040 Land Use Map ................................... 9-8  Table 9-1: MRCCA Category Comparisons .......................................................... 9-9  Figure 9-4: Shoreland Impact Diagram (Typical) ................................................ 9-10  Figure 9-5: MRCCA Floodplains & Wetlands Map .............................................. 9-12  Figure 9-6: FEMA Floodplain Map ....................................................................... 9-13  Figure 9-7: MRCCA Natural Drainage Ways Map ............................................... 9-14  Figure 9-8: MRCCA – Bluff Impact Zones ........................................................... 9-16  Figure 9-9: MRCCA Native Plant Communities & Vegetation Map ..................... 9-18  Figure 9-10: MRCCA Vegetation Restoration Priorities Map .............................. 9-23 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Table of Contents Page-7 APPENDICES Appendix – A : List of Public Information Meetings; Public Hearings; Presentation Materials; and Feedback Appendix – B: Background Report: Market and Development Context- Tangible Report (dated December 2016) Appendix – C: Surface Water Management Plan – July 2018 Appendix – D: Resolution Declaring Mendota Heights to be a Pollinator Friendly Community (adopted January 5, 2016); and Native Plant List Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has a long history and commitment to planning, resulting in unique residential living environments and business centers. The City’s first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1960, many years before the Metropolitan Land Planning Act went into effect, which required communities to incorporate regional policies and guidelines into their plans. The City has used its Comprehensive Plan to guide decisions since the 1960’s; and the community looks much like it was envisioned in 1960, with an emphasis on high quality residential neighborhoods, open space and parks, and well-planned commercial and industrial areas. The community is almost fully developed and is enjoying the fruits of its long-range vision and development policies. Infill properties will continue to be built out, following the community’s successful development philosophy, and redevelopment is now happening in select areas, also following the City’s commitment to provide a high quality of life for its residents and businesses. The City understands its role as part of the greater Metropolitan Region and will continue to plan accordingly. The City has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to guide planning and development: Vision Statement Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family- oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city. Mission Statement Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-2 Plan Organization This 2040 Comprehensive Plan is organized in chapters similar to the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but with new chapters on Economic Development and Resilience, arranged as follows: 1 Introduction & Background 2 Land Use 3 Transportation 4 Parks & Open Space 5 Housing 6 Economic Development 7 Natural Resources 8 Resilience 9 Critical Area (Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area) 10 Implementation Goals and policies for each chapter are included within that chapter and also as one combined set in the Appendix. Surface Water Management Plan (July 2018) will also be appended. Setting Mendota Heights is located in northern Dakota County, bordering the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The City of Lilydale and the City of Mendota border the City on its northwest side. Across the rivers are the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Fort Snelling and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The east is bordered by Delaware Avenue and the cities of West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. Interstate 494 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-3 divides Mendota Heights from Eagan to the south. Interstate I-35E crosses the City north to south. Despite being near to these major business centers, much of the community maintains a natural, open appearance. The river bluffs, rolling topography, and wooded areas have provided an excellent setting for residential development. The topography has led to the creation of a curvilinear local street system and allowed for intimate residential neighborhoods to be nestled amongst mature wooded settings, lakes, wetlands, nature preserves, and the Mississippi and Minnesota River bluffs. Mendota Heights is a premier suburb, offering high-quality residential and business areas. Per capita income and property values are among the highest in the area, but homes in more moderate price brackets are also available. The residents of Mendota Heights enjoy close proximity to an extensive system of regional and local parks, and convenient access to the regional highway system, international airport, and metropolitan employment centers. These factors have helped make Mendota Heights an attractive place to live. While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights achieved its successful business community and exceptional residential neighborhoods by following the comprehensive plans set forth many decades ago. Innovative and forward thinking on the part of community officials has resulted in a planned Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-4 community, which affords a high-quality lifestyle for its residents while providing a full array of services and employment opportunities. The community has preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional character of the City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. The community set out early in its incorporated history to create attractive residential neighborhoods by planning for aggressive protection and wise use of its abundant environmental assets. The rich abundance of woods, wetlands, and open space areas that provide the natural feel of the community today, are a testament to the forethought and planning of Mendota Heights’ forefathers. As the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown up around it, Mendota Heights has actively pursued its objective of preserving open spaces, which have made the community one of the region’s most attractive places to live. Whether these efforts have been concentrated in active or passive uses, the environment has played a central role in the City’s land use planning. Mendota Heights has many spacious, green neighborhoods Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-5 Process The process of updating the Comprehensive Plan for Mendota Heights was initiated in late 2016 when Stantec, the City’s planning consultant, began updating background information and demographics for the Plan. Stantec also worked with Tangible Consulting, which prepared a report analyzing the market and development context of the City. A background report was shared with the Planning Commission in early 2017. The City held three public information meetings at the local schools; and provided a “hands- on” display at the city’s annual Fire Station Open House in 2017. In a series of meetings later that year, the Planning Commission reviewed and adopted the draft Vision, Mission, and Goals & Policies for the Plan. This material was shared with the Parks Commission and with the larger community in four community open house meetings in the fall of 2017. There was also an online survey and an invitation for comments on the City website and Facebook page. Discussion at a community open house Facebook was used to share information and invite comments on the planning process Participation at the Fire Station Open House event Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-6 Key Planning Issues The initial discussion with the Planning Commission, grounded in the background information and analysis, was condensed into seven key planning issues:  Character, Natural Feel, Design Mendota Heights is open, spacious, green, and natural. The character and design of our community is important to maintain our quality of life. The environment and green space is essential to this character.  Commercial/Retail Options Many people wish there were more restaurant and shopping options in Mendota Heights.  Development & Redevelopment Sites The City is almost fully developed, but there are a few sites where new development or redevelopment can occur and there is keen interest in how to maximize their potential.  Housing Mendota Heights is mostly high-end and mid-range valued single-family homes, but the City also needs a range of housing choices to provide life- cycle opportunities for people of all generations and stages of life, and work force housing to support people working in a wide range of careers.  Vikings Facility The Vikings football team has built its new headquarters and practice facilities nearby in Eagan, within a 200-acre mixed use development featuring offices, retail, and housing. Many are concerned about traffic impacting Mendota Heights. The mixed use are anticipated to be developed in the future. On the business side, the Vikings development could be competition for City businesses or an opportunity for Mendota Heights businesses to support activities there.  Airport The MSP Airport is conveniently located nearby across the river, but also poses a nuisance with aircraft noise. The key planning issues are interrelated Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-7  Infrastructure Like many communities, Mendota Heights’ roads, bridges and other infrastructure is aging and in need of maintenance. The City must plan for this in order to preserve quality of life and safety. Community Input There were over a hundred comments and stories offered in the various open house meetings and the online survey at the beginning of the planning process. Resident comments, SWOT analysis, survey results and presentation boards are noted and summarized in attached Appendix-A. The comments have been grouped into eight topics as illustrated below in the blue boxes: Character, Environment, etc. These topics relate strongly to the Key Planning Issues identified above, as indicated by the arrows connecting similar ideas. Taken together, these issues and topics represent the ideas that will be the guiding force shaping the Comprehensive Plan Update. These issues are reflected in the Goals and Policies in the Plan as well. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-8 Regional Planning Designation The following narrative and policies (in gray italic type) are excerpted and paraphrased from the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 Plan: The regional planning area designation and related policies identify the Metropolitan Council’s expectations for the amount, location, and standards for development. A community’s planning area designation is based on its location, amount of developable land, existing development patterns, planned land uses and availability of infrastructure. The Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 Plan designates Mendota Heights as “suburban.” Suburban communities experienced continued growth and expansion during the 1980s and early 1990s, and typically have automobile-oriented development patterns at significantly lower densities than in previous eras. Figure 1-1: Community Designation Map for Mendota Heights (Metropolitan Council) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-9 Developed Communities Community designations are intended to guide regional growth and development for areas that have urban infrastructure in place and the capacity to accommodate development and redevelopment and establish land use expectations including overall densities and development patterns. The Metropolitan Council forecasts that “Suburban” communities will account for 22 percent of the region’s population growth, 27 percent of its household growth, and 43 percent of employment growth over the next three decades. The 2040 Thrive MSP policies for Suburban communities are available on the Metropolitan council website, and include the following:  Orderly and Efficient Land Use o Plan for new growth at overall average densities of 5 units per acre1 o Look for development and redevelopment opportunities that link jobs, housing and transit o Plan local infrastructure to accommodate future growth  Natural Resources Protection o Integrate natural resource conservation and restoration into the comprehensive plan and ordinances o Identify contaminated land for reclamation. o Plan for restoration of natural features and functions 1 The Met Council policy only applies to new residential development in the City and does not affect existing development or neighborhoods. All new single-family, medium density and high density residential development combined is expected to be 5 units/acre or more. Existing residential of all kinds in the City is currently about 2.3 units/acre. Metropolitan Council policies for Suburban communities: https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/ Publications-And- Resources/Thrive-MSP-2040- Plan- (1)/7_ThriveMSP2040_LandUseP oliciesbyCD.aspx Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-10  Water Sustainability o Implement BMPs to control and treat stormwater in redevelopment  Housing Affordability and Choice o Support the community’s share of the region’s affordable housing need o Plan for a mix of housing affordability o Use various sources of funding and financing tools to facilitate the development of lifecycle and affordable housing, including the needs of multigenerational households  Access, Mobility, and Transportation Choice o Focus growth, if possible, around regional transit o Support improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation o Consider policies that reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles o Adopt Complete Streets policies Lemay Lake Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-11  Economic Competitiveness o Identify appropriate areas for business and industrial expansion o Support the cleanup and reuse of contaminated land o Preserve the industrial base for higher-intensity employment and new industries o Protect sites for highway-, river-, and rail-dependent manufacturing and freight transportation needs o Plan for land uses that support the growth of businesses that export goods and services outside the region o Preserve locations for employment, manage growth, and minimize land use conflicts  Building Resilience o Identify potential vulnerabilities in local infrastructure as a result of severe weather o Participate in programs that incentivize wind and solar power o Consider a property-assessed clean energy (PACE) program for conservation and renewable energy o Promote community solar gardens o Encourage travel demand management (TDM) policies and ordinance o Consider development standards that increase vegetative cover and increase the solar reflective quality of surfaces. o Participate in urban forestry assistance programs Mendota Office Center Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-12 Community History Mendota Heights has a long and rich heritage, which serves as a source of identity for the community. Mendota Heights is located near the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. The Dakota people knew and referred to this place as “Mdo’–te” or “the junction of one river with another.” French explorers and traders who settled the area in the late 1600’s named the Minnesota River “Sans Pierres” because the river was silty, but had few rocks. British explores and traders who arrived a few years later misunderstood the French name, calling the river Saint Peter’s. Native Americans view the area as an important meeting place. The current Pilot Knob site (now City-owned property) overlooks the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. It was considered sacred by the Dakota who called it Oȟéyawahe, or “the hill much visited.” Pilot Knob was named by riverboat pilots as the landmark overlooking Fort Snelling, the first American fort. Fort Snelling was constructed in the 1820s; and the name of the area was later changed to Mendota, which in Dakota means, “meeting of the waters.” Taoyateduta, chief of the Mdewakanton Dakota, ca. 1850 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-13 In 1852, the territorial legislature changed the name of the river to Minnesota, a version of its Dakota name. Fur traders established a trading post in the early 1830’s within what is now Mendota Heights. The trading post, coupled with Fort Snelling located across the river, formed the basis for one of the first settlement areas in Minnesota. During the period from 1837 to 1858, the Dakota ceded large tracts of land to the United States, which was then deeded to settlers who tilled the land and operated dairy farms. Gradually, individual homes began to appear along the St. Paul border in the north and in the hills above Mendota Township in the west. Between them were farms, country schools, and estates. The population of Mendota Township in 1860 was 454. The area grew slowly to 1,360 at the start of World War II. St. Peter’s Church was built in 1853 atop the bluff overlooking the rivers and is the oldest church in continuous use within Minnesota. Several trails crossed the area, including the Mission Trail. It connected the river to the Dakota Village at Kaposia, located in present-day South St. Paul. Dodd Road, the first military road through the region, was completed in 1849 and connected the community to St. Peter. Dodd Road currently bisects the City and continues to provide a north-south travel artery throughout the community. The Old Mendota Road, which is now Highway 62 (formerly Highway 110), provided for east-west travel through the area. The Minnesota Central, the first Dakota County railroad, later the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, ran through Mendota Township, crossing the Minnesota River, and carried supplies to Fort Snelling. The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Omaha Railway was also an early railroad in the area. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha railroad depot in Mendota, ca. 1890 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-14 Following World War II, farmers began to sell lots for individual homes and acreage for residential subdivisions. Home construction increased rapidly, particularly in the northern section of the township and by 1950, the population totaled 2,107. The Township of Mendota was established in 1858, and was eventually divided into two separate towns. Mendota was chartered in 1887 and incorporated in 1936. The remainder of the township was incorporated as Mendota Heights in 1956. Interstate 494 comprises the southern border of Mendota Heights. Its intersection with Interstate 35E acts as a primary “gateway” into the community, as does Highway 55 as it crosses the Mendota Bridge. Other gateways include the Interstate 35E/Mississippi River crossing and Highway 62, as it enters the community from the east. Minnesota Highway 13 traverses the west and northwest edge of the City near the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. Steep bluffs along those rivers include the natural open spaces of Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and Lilydale Regional Park. These together with the Dodge Nature Center provide a greenbelt that surrounds and infiltrates Mendota Heights. The location of these features is illustrated on the Community Facilities map. The natural and open space areas, when combined with the 770+ acres of community parks, three golf courses, Rogers, Augusta, and Lemay Lakes, and with the naturally rolling terrain and mature woodlands, create the appealing “natural open” setting of the City. These features and spaces are located adjacent to the major roadways and as such, create a unique, natural setting for intimate neighborhoods. The views of the River Valleys from adjacent bluffs and bridge crossings are nothing less than spectacular. The predominance of scenic, natural vistas and corridors within a community located so close to the core of the Twin Cities is truly unique within the Metropolitan Region. This being the case, the City of Mendota Heights considers it paramount to protect and enhance the natural living environment for its residents. Rogers Lake in Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-15 Development History Early History The river topography and landscape of bluffs, ravines, views, lakes, and wooded areas have provided attractive settings for residential settlement. Mendota Heights was a part of Mendota Township until the Village of Mendota Heights was incorporated in 1956. 1957 to 1977 The first Land Use Plan for Mendota Heights was adopted in 1959. Its purpose was to guide public and private development to achieve balanced residential and commercial/industrial growth, in order to assure the availability of tax funds for schools and public services. At that time, 21% of the land (exclusive of golf courses and cemeteries) was developed. The City’s history of early land planning established a clear and well-defined pattern for future land uses. The 1959 Plan identified the following needs:  The need for additional east-west thoroughfares;  The need for community connections across future I-35E;  The designation of a business/industrial area in the southwest corner of the City;  The desire to limit commercial “strip” development; and  The decision to continue the semi-rural character of the residential areas. Many of the major objectives of the 1959 Plan came to fruition as the Plan was largely followed over the ensuing years. In the twenty-year period from the late 1950’s to the late 1970’s, St. Thomas and Visitation schools were established (1955-56); Fort Snelling State Park was established (1961); the I-35 bridge into St. Paul was built (1965); Henry Sibley High School was built (1971); and in 1974, Mendota Heights became a city. Overall, an additional 40% of the land area was developed, most of it to establish new residential areas. 1977 to 1997 The land use pattern initially laid out by early comprehensive plans was clearly established along with several transportation improvements. Both I-35E and I-494 were built during this period. I-35E was extended in both directions, into downtown St. Paul and south into Burnsville. Interstate 494 was constructed along the southern border of the City and replaced Highway 110 (now Highway 62) as the primary east-west route. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-16 In this period, United Properties began the development of the Mendota Heights Business Park, and several areas designated as residential were developed throughout the City. The availability of the Interstate routes did relieve local roadways of some traffic, particularly in the cases of Highway 62 and Highway 149. The accessibility of the Interstate routes also more clearly established distinct neighborhoods in the community. The 1959 Land Use Plan emphasized the importance of east-west routes and planned crossings at Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights Road, and Wagon Wheel Trail, all of which were built more than 20 years later. Aircraft traffic noise from flights over Mendota Heights dramatically increased in this period as well, due to the growth and expansion of the airline industry and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The increasing number of flights, larger aircraft, and expanded use of the runways over the Mississippi River corridor, continue to impact the land use and living environment of the southern part of the community. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) actually bought out one neighborhood and created a flight path corridor, near Acacia Cemetery, within Mendota Heights. Homes were removed and the area was re-developed for industrial uses. Other residential areas were part of the Part 150 Sound Insulation program, receiving funds to upgrade windows and insulation in existing homes. New residential neighborhoods have been built with additional sound insulation and modified building techniques. Total operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) increased from 230,793 in 1972 to 483,013 in 1998, more than doubling. This increase in flights, along with expansion of the flights over the new residential areas and outside of the flight corridor, has adversely affected many neighborhoods of the City. MSP International Airport, located across the Minnesota River west of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-17 The City put forth considerable time and effort to reduce aircraft noise and operations over the City, establishing an Airport Relations Commission (ARC), participating in the Dakota County Airport Relations Commission (DCARC), and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and adopting a Noise Attenuation Ordinance. 1998 – 2007 From 1998 to 2006, the City issued 436 residential building permits; and of those, 259 were for single family homes. In 2003, the City saw the most development during this period, with a total of 125 residential permits issued during that year. A number of significant projects reshaped Mendota Heights during this time. The most visible is the Village at Mendota Heights, a mixed-use development at the northeast intersection of Highway 62 and Dodd Road. The City acquired the property to create an urban town center that includes a senior residential facility, townhomes, condominiums, boutique-like retail center, and an open space plaza. A second significant change is the Summit of Mendota Heights, a mixed residential development consisting of townhomes and a multi-story condominium. This facility is located on the former site of the Ecolab research building at Sibley Memorial Highway and Wachtler Avenue. Another residential project is the Hidden Creek development, a residential plat of generally one-acre lots. Two other projects have showcased the City’s desire to preserve and retain existing open space. The Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course had operated as a privately-owned facility for many years, until the owners proposed to close the 17- acre facility and develop the property into approximately 30 single family lots. After a successful referendum, the City purchased the golf course and is now operating the facility as a municipal course. The Village at Mendota Heights Source: City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-18 Perhaps the most important project also involves the City’s decision to spend public dollars to preserve the Pilot Knob area, just off the Mendota Bridge between Acacia Cemetery and Highway 55. The City joined with other public entities, including Dakota County and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and purchased a number of large parcels totaling 25.5 acres. The land will be retained as open space, and is currently being restored to its pre-development environment. The property has historical and cultural significance on many levels, including as a sacred site for native people, a nearby gathering area for the 1862 transfer of the Minnesota Territory lands to the U.S. government, and the “Pilot Knob” landmark for steamboats approaching the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. 2008-2018 Since the last Comprehensive Plan was prepared, a number of significant developments have taken place in Mendota Heights. The economic recession from 2007 to 2012 impacted development cross the Twin Cities, including Mendota Heights and there was little development activity during those years, but coming out of the recession there was some significant activity. The Mendota Plaza Shopping Center at Highway 62 and Dodd Road saw a major renovation during this period, with a 15,000-square-foot Walgreen’s pharmacy added in 2012; and White Pine Senior Living in 2014, a 50-unit assisted living and memory care facility. Also at Mendota Plaza, a new 4-story 139-unit apartment project called The Reserves at Mendota Village were completed in 2018 by At Home Apartments. It is the first new market-rate project in Mendota Heights in thirty years. The project will also include 11,000 square feet of commercial space in two buildings sharing the site with the apartments. The Reserves at Mendota Village (Mendota Plaza Source: At Home Apartments Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-19 A new market rate apartment project began development in 2018 by Michael Development on the site of the former Mendota Motel and Larson Garden Center at Highway 13 and Acacia Drive. Phase I will provide 70-units of market rate apartments, with underground and surface parking. Phase II will provide between 64-68 units of senior (aged 55+) units of housing. Both phases are expected to be completed by late 2019 to mid-2020. The Vikings football team’s new headquarters and surrounding development in nearby Eagan has generated considerable discussion and will affect Mendota Heights with traffic, noise and light, but also with potential increases in economic activity and property values. Located just off the southeast edge of Mendota Heights, it will include the teams’ corporate offices, practice facilities, 6,500-seat stadium, athletic clinic, team Hall of Fame, and ancillary offices, hotels, retail, restaurants and housing on the 200-acre site. Vikings facility in Eagan -2017 (photo: Leila Navidi) Mendota Heights Apartments - 2160 & 2180 Hwy 13 Source: Kaas-Wilson Architects Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-20 While no major roadway projects have been built recently, one of the major highways in Mendota Heights has been renamed. In the summer of 2018, Highway 110 was renamed Highway 62, acknowledging it as an extension of Highway 62 that starts on the west side of the Mendota Bridge and extends west through Minneapolis and other suburbs to I-494 in Eden Prairie. Source: MnDOT Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-21 Community Facilities The City of Mendota Heights currently retains a full complement of administrative services, including Administration, Engineering, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Police, Fire, Finance, and Code Enforcement. The City contracts with private consultants for planning and legal services. City Hall provides administrative office space and public meeting facilities. City Hall is located at 1101 Victoria Curve, northwest of the intersection of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue. Police and Fire The City of Mendota Heights provides police protection for its residents. The police station is located in the lower level of City Hall. Police are dispatched from Dakota Communications Center located in Empire Township. The City also provides police services to the communities of Lilydale and Mendota. The Police Department consists of 20 officers and 2.5 non-sworn civilian employees. Fire protection is also provided by the City. The department is located on Dodd Road, one-quarter mile south of Highway 62. Fire and Rescue Service consists of 36 volunteers and has a fully equipped station consisting of a 2,000-gallon tanker, three pump trucks (one with a 65’ ladder), a rescue vehicle, a brush truck, a boat, an ATV, and other equipment and services. Renovations are planned for the Dodd Road facility with approximately $8 million of upgrades to relieve overcrowding in the apparatus bay, administrative space and storage areas, plus technology and HVAC upgrades. The City also provides fire services for the cities of Sunfish Lake, Lilydale, and Mendota. The average response time to fire calls ranges from six to eight minutes. The Fire and Rescue Services was last rated as providing Class 4 services (1- best, 10-worst), as defined by the Insurance Services Office. Specific residential fire ratings are determined based upon a combination of factors, including the individual rating for the Fire Department, availability of water services, and the level of communications (i.e., 911 call system, fire alarms, pagers, and dispatch systems), available in the community. Schools Minnesota Independent School District #197 serves all or parts of the communities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake and West St. Paul. The District is comprised of five elementary schools (two neighborhood schools and three magnet schools), two middle schools, and one high school. In addition, the District serves birth-to-age five children with an Early Learning Program. Total enrollment for District schools in the 2015-2016 school year was estimated at 4,343 students. This is down from 4,885 students in the 1998-1999 school year. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-22 There are six public and private schools offering kindergarten through 12th grade located within the City of Mendota Heights: Mendota Elementary School, Somerset Elementary School, Friendly Hills Middle School, Henry Sibley High School, St. Thomas Academy, and Visitation School. The following table provides a breakdown of enrollment of the K-12 public schools located within the City at the start of the 2007 - 2008 school year compared with the 2015-2016 school year. Table 1-1: Public School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2015-16 School Years School Grades 2007-08 Total Enrollment 2018-19 Total Enrollment Percent Change 2007-08 to 2015-16 Mendota Elementary School K - 4th 360 388 8% Somerset Elementary School K - 4th 318 419 32% Friendly Hills Middle School 5th - 8th 597 727 22% Henry Sibley High School 9th - 12th 1,462 1,477 1% Source: ISD 197 The number of students enrolled in private schools within the City was 1,201 during the 2015-16 school year, down from the 2007-2008 school year, when 1,295 students were enrolled in private schools. Table 1-2: Private School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2015-16 School Year School Grades 2007-08 Total Enrollment 2018-19 Total Enrollment Percent Change 2007-08 to 2015- 16 St. Thomas Academy 6th - 12th 695 632 -10% Visitation School Montessori -12th 600 585 -2.5% Source: St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School websites Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-23 Parks, Open Space, and Trails The City of Mendota Heights boasts a variety of recreational opportunities, including access to regional trails, riverside and lakeside parks, scenic bluffs and a nature preserve. These facilities represent unique features in a park system that helps to shape the character of Mendota Heights. The City has 295 acres of city- owned parks and open spaces, which includes active and passive recreation areas, along with other state and private parks and open spaces. These facilities are detailed in the Parks, Open Space and Trails chapter of this plan. Cemeteries There are two cemeteries in Mendota Heights – Resurrection and Acacia – which occupy a significant amount of land on the west side of the community. Wastewater The City's Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s sanitary sewer system. The responsibilities of the sanitary sewer system include maintenance of the sanitary sewer lift stations, sanitary sewer main repair, and sanitary sewer hook-up inspections. The City has a “Cleaning and Televising Program”, which it uses to identify and repair infiltration and structural deficiencies; permitting re-lining and replacement of service lines. Water Supply The St. Paul Regional Water Services provides water to Mendota Heights and owns the water tower and distribution system. St. Paul maintains the water lines and hydrants and bills its customers directly. A two-million-gallon water tower, located on Lexington Avenue, next to the City's Public Works Facility, provides reserve water capacity. Surface Water & Stormwater Management The City's Public Works Department is responsible for handling stormwater runoff, both to reduce flooding and to protect water quality. This has been identified as an important issue for Mendota Heights. The city completed a Surface Water Management Plan (July 2018), which is made part of this Comprehensive Plan Update, detailing the programs and policies for surface water management in the City, and is included as Appendix – C. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-24 Socio-Economic Profile The purpose of the social and economic inventory is to identify past trends, document current conditions, and help identify issues to be addressed in planning policies. These policies will help the community address a broad base of land use and development issues. With the help of a solid information and policy base, decision makers can evaluate and prioritize proposals for the community while fulfilling the City’s long-term goals and objectives. Growth Trends: Mendota Heights The following graph illustrates the estimated and projected growth in the City of Mendota Heights for population, household, and employment from 1970 through 2040. The table on the following pages expands this information with comparisons to Dakota County. Figure 1-2: Mendota Heights: Population, Household, & Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970-2040 Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census After a significant increase between 1980 and 2000, City population decreased slightly after 2000, but is expected to remain relatively stable in the decades to come. In the meantime, the number of households is expected to grow at a slow pace, indicating a further decline of household sizes. Employment, however, has continued to grow in the past ten years, even despite the economic downturn in the mid-2000’s, and is expected to continue but at a slightly slower pace in the next 20 years. 6,565 7,288 9,381 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,8001,140 2,998 5,805 8,549 11,550 12,600 13,400 13,700 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Population Household Employment Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-25 Growth Trends: Mendota Heights vs. Dakota County Communities The following table shows population, household, and employment estimates and forecasts for the City of Mendota Heights and Dakota County, 1970 through 2040. The table shows how the City has grown slower in all three measures than the County as a whole over several decades, with the exception of employment between 1970 and 2000. The City saw its largest population percent growth from 1980 to 1990. Dakota County also experienced its highest percentage growth in population from 1980 to 1990. City population is projected to remain more or less unchanged out to 2040, whereas the County is projected to continue to grow steadily for the next three decades. Table 1-3: Mendota Heights and Dakota County: Population, Household, and Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970 – 2040 Population/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 6,565 7,288 9,381 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 Decade change - 11% 29% 22% -3% 2% 0% 1% Dakota County 139,808 194,279 275,186 355,904 398,552 435,870 474,670 514,050 Decade change - 39% 42% 29% 12% 9% 9% 8% Household/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,800 Decade change - 35% 49% 27% 5% 5% 2% 2% Dakota County 37,560 64,087 98,293 131,151 152,060 170,940 187,980 204,750 Decade change - 71% 53% 33% 16% 12% 10% 9% Employment/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 1,140 2,998 5,805 8,549 11,550 12,600 13,400 13,700 Decade change - 163% 94% 47% 35% 9% 6% 2% Dakota County 31,100 62,134 106,029 154,242 170,192 203,330 219,860 236,500 Decade change - 100% 71% 45% 10% 19% 8% 8% Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-26 Population The following line graph illustrates the estimated and forecasted population for Mendota Heights and four other communities within Dakota County – Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul. Mendota Heights and its neighbors West St. Paul and South St. Paul are mostly developed and will grow slowly; Eagan and Inver Grove Heights, with room to grow, will see larger population increases. Figure 1-3: Mendota Heights and Dakota County Communities: Population Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census Household Growth Trends The following graph illustrates the growth trend in the number of households, actual and projected, in Mendota Heights and area communities within Dakota County, from 1970 to 2040. As the graph illustrates, households in West St. Paul and South St. Paul will continue to steadily increase from 2010 until 2040. As with population, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights will experience more dramatic increases between 2010 and 2040. Mendota Heights is expected to experience a modest rise in the number of households, similar to West St. Paul and South St. Paul. 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 63,557 64,206 67,400 69,800 72,300 29,751 33,880 37,300 42,000 46,700 19,405 19,540 20,800 21,900 23,100 20,167 20,160 21,500 21,500 21,800 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population Mendota Heights Eagan Inver Grove Heights West St. Paul South St. Paul Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-27 Figure 1-4: Mendota Heights and Dakota County Communities: Household Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 Household Size The graph below illustrates average household size in Mendota Heights compared to Dakota County from 1970 to 2040. Household size has declined steadily since 1970 but is expected to flatten out in the next couple decades. Figure 1-5: Average Household Size Mendota Heights & Dakota County 1970-2040 4.00 3.30 2.84 2.74 2.51 2.45 2.46 2.40 2.38 3.72 3.03 2.80 2.71 2.60 2.58 2.55 2.53 2.51 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040Persons per HouseholdYear Mendota Heights Dakota County 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,800 23,773 25,249 27,400 28,700 30,000 11,257 13,476 15,400 17,600 19,800 8,645 8,529 9,200 9,600 10,100 8,123 8,186 8,900 9,200 9,400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Households Year Mendota Heights Eagan Inver Grove Heights West St. Paul South St. Paul Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-28 Household Type Two types of householders are distinguished in the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census: a family and a non-family householder. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all people in the household related to him or her are family members. A non-family householder is a householder living alone or with non- relatives only. The table below illustrates the demographic profile of the households in Mendota Heights. The table separates households by information pertaining to family and non-family households; households with or with or without children; and the number of households in each category. Table 1-4: Mendota Heights Household Types 2000 & 2010 Total households HHs with Children HHs without Children Household Type 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Married Couple Families 2,902 2,821 1,356 1,068 1,546 1,753 Female Householder 253 281 151 155 102 126 Male Householder 83 102 37 46 46 56 Total Family Households 3,238 3,204 1,544 1,269 1,694 1,935 Percent 77.5% 73.2% Total Non-Family Households 940 1,174 Percent 22.5% 26.8% Total Households 4,178 4,378 Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census The number of households held fairly steady between 2000 and 2010, but the significant change is in households with and without children – the trend being fewer households with children. This likely indicates a societal trend but also the presence of more retirees in Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-29 Age Distribution The following bar graph compares the percentages of the age distribution in the City of Mendota Heights in 2000 and 2010 and 2014. The median age of Mendota Heights’ residents in 2000 was 41 years old. By 2010, the median age climbed to 47.5 years old. By 2014, the Census estimated it rose again to 49 years old. Figure 1-6: Mendota Heights Age Distribution 2000, 2010, & 2014 Source: US Census 2000 & 2010, ACS 2014 The largest age cohort in Mendota Heights are 45-to-64-year-olds, rising from about 29% in 2000 to over 37% in 2014. The share of children 14 and under has decreased from about 22% in 2000 to under 15% in 2014. 5.8% 16.5% 11.1% 6.9% 15.8% 18.9% 10.6% 8.3% 6.2% 4.6% 13.0%11.4% 7.2% 9.8% 18.1%18.2% 9.1%8.7%3.9% 11.5%11.7% 6.4% 10.0% 17.0% 20.2% 9.2%10.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 22.0% Under 5 years 5 to 14 years 15 to 24 years 25 ot 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years + 2000 2010 2014 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-30 Age Distribution The graphs to the right depict this aging trend in Mendota Heights in a focused way. In just 14 years, the share of the population over and under 45 years of age has flipped – from just under half to just over half. Mendota Heights’ age trends have been following the age composition trends of the Twin Cities Metro Area. The greatest population gains in the 1990s in the Seven-County Metro Area were in the forty-five (45) to fifty-four (54) year old age group, which is the same as Mendota Heights’ largest percentage category. This was a result of the Baby Boom generation moving into an age category previously occupied by the smaller Depression and World War II generation. The generation after the baby boom generation, also known as Generation X, 35-to-44-year-old age group, also grew significantly in the 1990s, just as in Mendota Heights. The continued aging of the population creates new challenges for the Seven- County Metro Area, as well as for the City of Mendota Heights. It is expected to increase the demand for a wider range of services and housing choices, such as townhomes, one-level housing, assisted living, and so on, rather than traditional single-family homes. The Metropolitan Council has estimated that between 2000 and 2030, the population under the age of 55 is projected to increase by nineteen percent (19%) in the Twin Cities Seven County Metro Area, while the number of people 55 and over is expected to more than double, an increase of 111%. If the City of Mendota Heights continues to follow the population trends of the greater Metropolitan Area, the needs of the aging population will need to be recognized and addressed. Education The graph on the next page illustrates education levels for Mendota Heights’ residents ages 25 and over in 2010, compared to Dakota County, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and the State of Minnesota. Compared to the County, State and Metro area, Mendota Heights’ residents are very well educated. The City has more than 20 percent more residents with Bachelor’s degrees than either Dakota County or the Metro Area, and the highest percentage of high school graduates. Figure 1-7: Mendota Heights Age 45+ 2000 & 2014 44%56% 2000 45 years and older 44 and younger 56%44% 2014 45 years and older 44 and younger Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-31 Employment Information from the 2010 Census regarding employment demographics for Mendota Heights is depicted in the table below. The statistics provided include employment information for residents over the age of 16. The majority of those employed in the City in 2010 were in Management, employing 62 percent of the population. The second largest employment category was Sales and Office, employing 23 percent of the population. Figure 1-8: Educational Attainment – Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Metro Area & Minnesota Source: ACS 2014, Metropolitan Council 97%95%92%92% 62% 40%41%33% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mendota Heights Dakota County 7 County Metro Minnesota High School Grad or higher Bachelor's Degree or higher Table 1-5: Occupation of Residents in Mendota Heights Management, business, science, and arts occupations 3,567 Service occupations 501 Sales and office occupations 1,342 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 110 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 259 Total Civilian employed population 16 years and over 5,779 Source: ACS 2014 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Introduction & Background 1-32 Income The median household income for the City of Mendota Heights in 2000 was $81,155. The City’s median household income has increased since then to $98,098 in 2014. The median household income for the City is higher than that of Dakota County, the entire Twin Cities Metro Area, and the State of Minnesota. Poverty Rates According to the 2000 Census and 2017 Census estimates, the City has a relatively low percentage of individuals below the poverty level, compared to Dakota County and Minnesota as a whole. Federal guidelines for 2015 considered the poverty level to be $12,071 annually for a single person, $24,230 per year for a family of four. For 2018 these increased to $12,140 and $25,100, respectively. The number living below the poverty level more than doubled in 2017 to 488 residents, or 4.3% of the estimated population. Figure 1-9: Median Household Income 2000 & 2014 Source: ACS 2014, Metropolitan Council $81,155 $61,863 $54,300 $47,111 $98,098 $74,995 $68,000 $60,828 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Mendota Heights Dakota County 7 County Metro Minnesota 2000 2014 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 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, as well as to reflect what has already developed. 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 April 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 Future 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 reasonable access to the surrounding communities. 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 and reinvestment in select non-conforming properties. 2.2.7 Redevelopment of existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR- High Density Residential properties are to be limited to no greater density than currently exists. Goal 2.3: Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. Policies: 2.3.1 The City will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2.3.2 Encourage appropriate transitions between adjoining land uses. 2.3.3 Encourage the development of additional amenities within the industrial and commercial districts. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 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 Federal Aviation Administration and other appropriate agencies 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. ?±A@ MENDOTA LILYD ALEPI CKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE M A Y GUN CLUB LAKE SOMERSETGOLF COURSE(PRIVA TE)ISLAND REGIONAL TRAILFortSnellingStateParkRESURRECTIONCEMETERY CITY HA LL\P OLICE PUBLICWORKS FIRE STATION MENDAKOTA GOLF COURSE(PRIVA TE) ST. THOMA SACADEMY VISITATION HENRYSIBLEYSENIORHIGH MENDOTAELEM. FRIEND LY HILLSMIDDLE SCHOOL PAR 3 (P UBLIC) ACACIA PA RKCEMETERY VEN TO 'S VIEW(WILD LIFE VIE WIN G STATION) ÊÚ SCENIC OVERLOOK(DAKOTA COUNTY) MENDOTA BRIDGE SOMERSETELEM. OLIVIA T. DODGENATURE CEN TE R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BIGRIVERSREGIONALTRAIL14 13 15 LILYDALE-HARRIETDODD RDÊÚ ÊÚÊÚ ÊÚ PILOT KNOBPRESERVATION BUS GA RA GEÊÚ 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 Facilities & Features MapCity of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Mu nicipal Facilit ies Schools Cemeteries City Parks State Parks Go lf Courses Nature Preserves Lakes, Rivers, Streams Wetlands City Trails Regional Trails Ap ril 23, 2019Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2016 FIGUR E 2-1 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-5 EXISTING LAND USE The following table indicates how the existing land use is distributed within the City of Mendota Heights, and is also 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 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 * The “net” acreage calculation reflects the gross acreage less estimated area of wetlands . 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. Refer to Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map – Figure 2-3. These smaller lots were developed before current zoning standards were in place, so in some cases, residences were built with or without meeting current 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, to provide mechanisms for assisting these legal non-conforming uses, which may permit said uses to be improved or updated without extraordinary measures, such as a variance. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 Use MapCity of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Rural Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Resident ial Medium Density Resident ial - PUD High Density Residential High Density Residential - PUD Bu sines s Limited Bu sines s Mixed Use - PUD Industrial City Facilities Scho ols (Public Private) Churches Synagogu es Cemetery Parks/Op en Sp ace Golf Course Right-o f-Way Open Water Wet land City Bo undary Ap ril 23, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, 2017 FIGUR E 2-2 MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 FamilyLand Use Map City of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet 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 City Bounda ry Open Water Ap ril 23, 2019Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2016 FIGUR E 2-3 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-8 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 four categories of residential uses: rural, low density, 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 minimum 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. 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 April 2019 Land Use 2-9 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 current and corresponding zoning district classifications are B-1 (Limited Business), B-1A (Business Park) and B-2 (Neighborhood 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. The second category of commercial uses expands the uses to include retail, restaurants, hotels and other high-level commercial uses. This includes neighborhood type convenience stores and shopping centers. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as “B - Business”. The current and corresponding zoning district classifications are B-3 (General Business) and B-4 (Shopping Center). B – Business There are four locations where Business uses are planned:  The southeast quadrant of Highway 62 and Lexington Avenue;  The northeast quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Mendota Heights Road;  The area between Highway 55 to the west, Mendota Heights Road to the north, and Northland Drive to the east/south.  The 14.6 acres assemblage of city-owned parcels, located east of Highway 55, north of Bourn Lane and south of Lemay Shore Drive. The properties are commonly referred to as the “Bourn Lane Site”. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-10 MU – MIXED USE 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 The Village of Mendota Heights developments. 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 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 April 2019 Land Use 2-11 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 “net” acreage calculation reflects the gross acreage less estimated area of wetlands . The following pages contain the City’s previous 2030 Planned Future Land Use Map - FIGURE 2-4, followed by the 2040 Future Land Use Plan - FIGURE 2-5. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 2030 Planned Future Land Use MapCity of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Ap ril 23, 2018 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2016 FIGUR E 2-4 Industrial: Residential: Commercial: Institutional: Water P - Parks SP - State Park LR - Low Density Residential MR - Medium Density Residential HR - High Density Residential LB - Lim ited Business B - Business I - Industrial PS - Private School CEM - Cemetery CS - Churches & Synagogues NP - Nature Preserve RR - Rural Residential LR-II MR-PUD HR-PUD LB-PUD CC - City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall Golf Course: GC - Golf Course MU-PUD - Mixed Use GC-S - Small Golf Course S - School MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 2040 Planned Future Land Use MapCity of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet RR - Ru ra l Residential LR - Low Den sity Residential MR - Medium De nsity 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 Wa ter City boundary Ap ril 23, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGUR E 2-5 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-14 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 brief narrative and summary of these changes, illustrated on the 2040 Planned Future Land Use for Properties with Planned Land Use Change from 2030 to 2040 – FIGURE 2-6. 1) 340 - D Street. This 0.86 acre parcel, referred locally as Jack’s Mfg. Co., was left blank on the 2030 Plan, and is now guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Plan to reflect its current use. There is also a small 0.27 acre triangular shaped parcel located behind this property, owned by the adjacent St. Peter’s Catholic Church. This parcel will be guided as P/S-Public/Semi-Public. 2) Pilot Knob Historical Site. This area consists of several parcels totaling over 32 acres in the westerly edge 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, and all 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 (2085 Valencour Cir. & 2095 Hwy 55). Two residential parcels on Valencour Circle, fronting Highway 55 north of Acacia Boulevard, were guided NP-Nature Preserve in the 2030 Plan, but being single family residences they have been changed in the 2040 Plan to LR-Low Density Residential, reflecting their current use. 4) 2160-2180 Highway 13 (between Acacia Drive & Victory Ave.). Up until 2017, these properties housed an old landscaping-nursery business and a motel, which were razed and redeveloped for a new apartment development. The 2030 Plan guided the properties as Business, but in 2017 the City approved the guiding of these sites to HR-High Density Residential, reflecting their future and intended use (refer to Res. No. 2017-43; adopted 06/06/17). 5) Augusta Shores / Lemay Shores Townhomes. The Augusta Shores and Lemay Shores residential developments were both guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan, but as twin-homes, it is more appropriate as Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use. There are also several parcels within each development owned in common by the homeowners association as permanent open space or conservation easement, so identifying these areas as Park & Open Space is appropriate. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-15 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 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) 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. 11) 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. 12) Eagle Ridge. The Eagle Ridge townhomes in the southeast quadrant of Marie Avenue and Victoria Road occupy about 22 acres. They were guided HR- High Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but are now guided MR-Medium Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use. 13) Valley View Heights Park. This small park at the corner of Cullen Avenue and Timmy Street was guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan but is now guided P-Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual use as a City park. 14) 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-16 15) 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 16) Condon Court. Two parcels formerly addressed as 2511 and 2525 Condon Court were re-guided in 2015 from LB-PUD Limited Business-Planned Unit Development to MR-Medium Density Residential (refer to Res. No. 2015-02; adopted 01/06/15). The properties were later subdivided and rezoned R-2 Two Family Residential. These parcels will be guided in the 2040 Plan as Medium Density Residential, reflecting their current use. 17) 2357 Pagel Road. Two privately-owned parcels totaling 1.2 acres were shown in the 2030 Plan as Highway 149 right-of-way, but are actually privately owned parcels with 2357 Pagel Road. They are shown in the 2040 Plan as Low Density Residential, reflecting their actual use. 18) Mendota Meadows (Monet Court): two parcels dedicated to the city for open- space/buffering and storm water pond. Re-guided from MR-PUD in the 2030 Plan to Park/Open-Space in the 2040 Plan. 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 now 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 April 2019 Land Use 2-17 24) The Village (Dodd Road/Hwy 62/Market Street). A combination of city-owned outlots (total of 4.08 acres) located in The Village of Mendota Heights, was guided Mixed-Use PUD in the 2030 Plan, but are all guided Park & Open Space in the 2040 Plan, reflecting their actual use as permanent open space. 25) 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. 26) 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. 27) 723 - 3rd Avenue. The 3-acre privately-owned single family parcel was guided Parks in the 2030 Plan, but is now guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Plan, reflecting its actual single-family residential ownership use. 28) 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. 29) Ivy Keep Condominiums. The Ivy Keep condo and townhome project, consisting of about 19 acres at Dodd Road-Ivy Hill Drive-Maple Park 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. The exception is the Ivy Keep Association’s 2.67 acre tract known as Outlot F, which has been requested to be re-guided to Park & Open Space, reflecting its actual use as permanent open space. 30) 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. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 5 2 9 20 11 26 128 21 25 4 27 15 24 29 28 18 14 63 7 23 22 17 16 30 10 13 19 1 2040 Planned Future Land Use Changes Mapfor Properties from 2030 to 2040 City of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 LR - Low Den sity Residential MR - Medium De nsity Residential HR - High Density Residential B - Business I - Industrial P/S - Public/Semi-Public P - Park & Open Space Open Wa ter Right-of-Way City boundary Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 2-6 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-19 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, under-utilized 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 2-7. 1) SE Quadrant of Highway 55 and Acacia Boulevard: This 9.1-acre city-owned site is bounded by Pilot Knob Road on the west, Acacia Boulevard on the north, and Highway 55 on the east. The site was approved under an interim use permit in 2015 as an off-leash dog park for a five year period, but is located 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 for Industrial use. 3) NW Quadrant of Pilot Knob Rd. & Mendota Heights Road: This vacant 5-acre site is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, and an unnamed extension of Perron Road right-of-way to the north. The property is owned and adjacent to Lloyd’s BBQ business to the south. Site is guided for industrial use. 4) Highway 55 and Northland Drive. This 2.2-acre site is vacant and guided industrial. 5) Bourn Lane Site (city-owned properties). This 14.8-acre area on Bourn Lane and Lemay Lake Road consists of nine separate parcels, all owned by the City. The site is guided for Business use. 6) 1179 Centre Pointe Circle. This 3.6-acre site is one of two vacant parcels in the Centre Pointe Business Park. The site is guided for Limited Business. 7) Centre Pointe Curve & Lexington. This 2.1-acre site is currently vacant and located on the south frontage road to Highway 62. The site is guided Limited Business. 8) Victoria Curve & Glenhill Road. This 6.3-acre site is vacant and guided Low Density Residential. 9) Lexington & Highway 13. Three single family parcels totaling 3.1 acres are surrounded on three sides by multi-family development. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-20 10) 2015 & 2021 Victoria Road South. Two large single family parcels totaling 3.5 acres on the north frontage road to Highway 62. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 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 are guided for Low-Density Residential use. 12) Lexington Avenue & Wagon Wheel Trail. Bounded by Lexington, Wagon Wheel Trail and I-35E, and adjacent to the Lexington Heights Apartments. The site is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 13) SE Quadrant of I-35E interchange and Mendota Heights Road: This 2.4-acre vacant parcel is guided for Limited Business use. 14) Vacant Parcel – South of Visitation School: 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 use. 15) 750 Mohican Lane: 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 LR-Low Density Residential use. 16) 2455 Delaware Avenue. This is a 2.5 acre, single-family parcel, and is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 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 Area. There are three (3) vacant parcels in and around the Mendota Plaza: (i) a 2.05 acre parcel located northwest of the new The Reserve of Mendota Village apartments; (ii) a 2.1-acre parcel on South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way; (iii) a 2-acre parcel at the end of South Plaza Drive, owned by Dakota County CDA. All three parcels are guided and zoned MU-Mixed Use. 19) Village Lots (City-Owned properties). These city-owned properties consists of four vacant parcels totaling 1.7 acres, which are located in The Village center development on the east side of Dodd Road (Hwy 149) and north of Maple Street. The City has been actively marketing the property as a site for high-density residential or mixed-use development. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Land Use 2-21 20) Wachtler & Wentworth. This 2.7-acre residential property in the NE quadrant of Wachtler and Wentworth Avenues adjacent to Wentworth Park is guided for LR-Low Density Residential use. 21) 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. The area is guided Rural Residential use. Due to the existing large lot configuration, the area has the potential to be further subdivided, provided public sewer, water and road systems would be extended to the area. 22) 1170 Dodd Road. This property consists of approximately 3.7 total acres. The property is guided Low Density Residential use. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE M A Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RD1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 21 20 22 10 11 17 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 Focus Areas Map µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Infill Sites Somerset "Super-Block" Area Dakota County CDA Lands City Boundary Infill Sites and/or Redevelopment Areas City of M endota He ights Source: Dakota County, 2016 City of Mendota Heights, 2018 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 2-7 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-1 3 Transportation Mendota Heights is strategically located within the regional roadway system, with access to major highways connecting to both downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul, MSP Airport, and all parts of the region in all directions. The completion of Interstates 494 and 35E in the late 1980’s altered the physical environment of Mendota Heights. The highway systems have connected the community to the region, and this improved access has contributed to growth of the residential, commercial, and industrial base of the community; but these major transportation systems have also increased air, noise, and water pollution in parts of the community. This chapter of the plan addresses transportation in many forms – automobiles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians, aviation, and freight. GOALS and POLICIES GOAL 3.1: Provide a safe, high quality, and cost effective multi -modal transportation system. Policies: 3.1.1 Transportation improvements will be coordinated with the plans of MnDOT, Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, and adjoining communities. 3.1.2 When feasible, the City will support regional improvements to major transportation facilities serving the city. 3.1.3 New construction techniques, technologies, and environmental sustainability will be considered in planning transportation facilities. 3.1.4 A network of sidewalks and trails will be constructed in all new developments and redevelopments, where practical and feasible. 3.1.5 Developers will be required to provide the transportation facilities within and adjacent to new subdivisions, including rights-of-way, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities necessary to support their development. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-2 3.1.6 Existing transportation facilities will be maintained so as to preserve or improve service levels and minimize life-cycle costs. This includes an ongoing pavement management program for city streets. 3.1.7 Where practical and feasible, planning for roadway improvements will include landscaping, street lighting (where deemed appropriate), and other aesthetic improvements. 3.1.8 Advocate for transportation improvements outside of Mendota Heights, as identified in the Dakota County Regional Roadway Visioning Study. 3.1.9 Investigate funding alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the need for special assessments. GOAL 3.2: Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights. Policies: 3.2.1 The City will continue to support and participate in efforts to implement proposed improved transit service in the City. 3.2.2 The City will support the appropriate transit agencies in the seeking of county, regional, state or federal funding to expand transit services in and around the city. Transportation Analysis Zones In order to develop forecasts and plan for regional roads and highways, the Metropolitan Council needs to know the demographic forecasts for smaller geographic areas known as Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The Traffic Analysis Zones Map - FIGURE 3-1 illustrates the eighteen zones currently located within the City of Mendota Heights. Within each zone the allocation of the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 population, household, and employment forecasts are shown for each TAZ. The distribution of future growth within these areas reflects the communities overall land use planning efforts. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE M A Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RDTAZ: 4002040 Population: 5502040 Household: 2202040 Employment: 140 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 TAZ: 4092040 Population: 102040 Household: 02040 Employment: 1,140 TAZ: 4112040 Population: 1,0402040 Household: 4402040 Employment: 3,160 TAZ: 4122040 Population: 5902040 Household: 2102040 Employment: 930 TAZ: 4132040 Population: 1,2702040 Household: 5402040 Employment: 720 TAZ: 4022040 Population: 6502040 Household: 3202040 Employment: 380 TAZ: 3962040 Population: 3802040 Household: 2002040 Employment: 360 TAZ: 4142040 Population: 1,6402040 Household: 7002040 Employment: 90 TAZ: 4102040 Population: 02040 Household: 02040 Employment: 5,900 TAZ: 3972040 Population: 1,3702040 Household: 5602040 Employment: 480 TAZ: 4032040 Population: 7802040 Household: 3802040 Employment: 80 TAZ: 4072040 Population: 6802040 Household: 2802040 Employment: 580 TAZ: 3992040 Population: 8102040 Household: 3302040 Employment: 60 TAZ: 3982040 Population: 3202040 Household: 1302040 Employment: 150 TAZ: 4062040 Population: 2002040 Household: 802040 Employment: 0 TAZ: 4052040 Population: 4702040 Household: 1802040 Employment: 20 TAZ: 4042040 Population: 8002040 Household: 3802040 Employment: 100 TAZ: 4082040 Population: 3702040 Household: 1402040 Employment: 50 Traffic Analysis Zones Mapwith Metropolitan Council Projected2040 Population and Employmentµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Source: Metropolitan Council, 2016 City of M endota He ights Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 3-1 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-4 Functional Classification System Mendota Heights’ street system consists of Principal Arterials, “A” Minor Arterials, “B” Minor Arterials, and community collectors, and a series of local streets. The Transportation System Map - FIGURE 3-2 illustrates the classification of the roads within the City of Mendota Heights.  Principal Arterials Interstates 494 and 35E, State Trunk Highway (TH) 55, and the western part of Highway 62 (formerly Highway 110) – from 35E to TH 55 – are all designated Principal Arterials. Interstate 494 forms the southern boundary of the City, while Interstate 35E bisects the City from east to west. Highway 62 bisects the community from north to south, with Highway 55 further dividing the southwestern part of Mendota Heights.  Arterial Roadways “A” Minor Arterials are further classified as minor augmenters, minor relievers, and minor expander roads. The definitions of these classes are outlined in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. The major function of an arterial road is to move traffic from the smaller community collector roads to principal arterials as efficiently as possible. The “A” Minor Arterials within the City of Mendota Heights are Highway 62, (35E to Delaware Avenue), Dodd Road (Highway 149), Highway 13 (Highway 55 to Interstate 494), and Pilot Knob Road or County Road 31 (Interstate 494 to Highway 13). Wentworth Ave West (Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue) is the only roadway currently classified as a “B” Arterial Roadway. Arterial roadways, except county roads, are maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Traffic on both principal and arterial roadways within the city limits has increased steadily over the last ten years.  Community Collectors Community collector streets are broken down by major collectors and minor collectors. The City of Mendota Heights does not have any minor collectors. Delaware Avenue functions as a major collector on the City’s eastern border. It is otherwise known as County Road 63. Other roads within Mendota Heights that are designated as Collector Streets are: Lexington Avenue or County Rd 43, Mendota Heights Road, Marie Avenue, Sibley Memorial Highway, and Highway 13 (Highway 55 to Sibley Memorial Highway). County Roads 8 (Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue), 63 Delaware Avenue), 43 (Lexington Avenue) and 31 (Pilot Knob Road) are all maintained by Dakota County. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE M A Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RD5,6006,0009701,0403,2003,4304,6004,9306,0006,4305,4005,7903,6503,9102,6003,900101,000108,000 1,7501,880 3,4003,650 105,000113,000 28,50037,500 9501,0201,1001,180 1,550 1,660 8,40010,5007,80010,5004,3004,6006907401,0501,130 33,50035,700 7708307 9,00084,7007,0007,5103,4003,6502,3502,5206,6007,080 96,000103,000 3,3503,590 26,00027,900 25,500 26,7009,2009,6505,0005,36014,20015,2005,2005,5802,2002,3601,0501,130 29,50031,60056,000 60,000 5,2005,5804 5 5490 4,0004,2902,2502,4201,1501,230 1,6001,720 3,1003,3206,6007,08086,00092,2009 3 , 0 0 0 9 9 , 7 0 0 3,3005,000 2,6002,790 9,90011,4007,4007,9402,6002,790 3,5505,5005,8006,2209,3009,9706,3006,7603,5503,810DELAWARE AVE13,4009,500DODD RDDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W MENDOTA HEIGHTS RDLEXINGTON AVELILYDALE RDPILOT KNOB RDHUBER DRSIBLEYMEMORIAL NORTHLAND DR WENTWORTH AVE WWACHTLER AVEWAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA RDHUNTER LNORCHARD PL VICTORIA RD SIVY FALLS AVE Transportation Systems Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet 2-Lane Roadway 4-Lane Roadway 6-Lane Roadway Principal Arterial A Minor Augmentor A Minor Reliever A Minor Expander B Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Road Railroad City of Mendota Heights City of M endota He ights Source: MNDOT, 2016; Stantec Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 3-2 = 201 6 Traffic Volumes (AADT)#,### = Projected 20 40 Tra ffic Volumes (AADT)#,### = Projected 20 40 Tra ffic Volumes (AADT) without Delaware Avenue Interchange#,### Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-6 Traffic Volumes The Transportation System Map illustrates the current daily traffic counts, the forecasted 2040 traffic volumes, both in average annual daily trips (AADT), and the existing number of lanes for each roadway Transportation Issues Mendota Heights commissioned a North-South Mobility Traffic Study to compile data from existing traffic studies into one complete study for the city to use in identifying needed improvements. Previous Studies The need for this study was prompted in response to multiple major growth plans surrounding the study area. Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion and the Minnesota Vikings Headquarters and Mixed-Use Development Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review (AUAR) planning documents identified traffic and impacts for each development respectively, but neither document examined the combined impact of both developments. The intersections for each study were also primarily south of I-494 along Dodd Road and Argenta Trail and did not fully consider the impacts of traffic traveling to the north of the study areas into the city of Mendota Heights. In addition to the two AUARs, this study also incorporated two other Mendota Heights’ expected future developments. These impact studies and other past studies that were used to provide a basis for this project included: ➢ Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion AUAR (Sept 2007) ➢ Regional Roadway System Visioning Study (Aug 2010) ➢ Vikings Headquarters & Mixed-Use Development AUAR (April 2016) ➢ Mendota Plaza Expansion Traffic Impact Study (Aug 2016) ➢ Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) ➢ Linden Street Senior Housing Traffic Impact Study (Dec 2017) ➢ Viking Lakes Event Travel Demand Management Plan (Jan 2018) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-7 Study Intersections Key intersections in the study area were identified by Mendota Heights’ staff that could be impacted by future development. These intersections included the following list on each study corridor: ➢ Dodd Road at:  I-494 South Ramps  I-494 North Ramps  Mendota Heights Road  Lake Drive  Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane  South Plaza Drive  Highway 62 (formerly Highway 110)  Market Street  Maple Street  Marie Avenue  Wentworth Avenue ➢ Delaware Avenue at:  O’Neill Drive  Mendota Heights Road  Huber Drive / Charlton Road  Highway 62 ➢ Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive ➢ Lake Drive and Swan Drive Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-8 Existing Traffic Operations Existing traffic operations were analyzed to identify intersection delay and level of service (LOS) based on HCM guidance. LOS grade values correspond to specific traffic characteristics within a given system. At intersections, LOS is a function of average vehicle delay. For two-way stop controlled intersections, minor approach delay is reported in addition to intersection LOS results. LOS “E” or worse, according to MnDOT standards, is considered deficient under normal traffic operations. Results of the existing traffic operations analysis identified several intersections and operational deficiencies in the study area. Noteworthy deficiencies include: ➢ Dodd Road at Highway 62 has unacceptable operations in the AM peak hour and approaching capacity in the PM peak hour. The queues in the AM peak hour spill back to cause unacceptable conditions and block movements at Market Street. ➢ Delaware Avenue at Highway 62 is approaching capacity. Existing Traffic Control Warrant analysis results showed that signal warrants were met for all existing signalized intersections. For the un-signalized intersections that were analyzed, existing all-way stop intersections at Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue met Multi-Way Stop Application (MWSA) and 70% signal warrants for four hour and peak hour conditions. The remaining two way stop control intersections did not meet signal or MWSA warrants under their current volume conditions. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-9 Future Conditions Traffic projections were developed for 2040 to evaluate operating conditions under both existing and proposed roadway infrastructure. Multiple 2040 traffic scenarios were developed to determine the impact from major developments that are under construction or planned in the area. 2040 Base Scenario ➢ Based on traffic projections from 2030 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan extrapolated to 2040. ➢ Includes planned Mendota Plaza development near Dodd Road and Highway 62. ➢ Does not include the new Viking Lakes development (Minnesota Vikings practice facility and adjacent development) or the planned Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion. 2040 Build AUAR (No Interchange) Scenario ➢ Includes 2040 base scenario traffic growth assumptions as well as traffic generated by the Viking Lakes site and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion. Trip generation for the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion sites are based on information in the respective AUAR documents for each site. ➢ Does not assume a future Argenta Trail/I-494 Interchange. ➢ Assumes the most densely developed Viking Lakes scenario that was considered in the AUAR. Viking Lakes Development Details The Viking Lakes development is in the southeast quadrant of the I-494 and Dodd Road interchange. The site will include the new Minnesota Vikings practice facility and associated office space, other offices not affiliated with the Vikings, hotels, retail, and apartments. During typical operating conditions (i.e., no major events occurring at the Vikings facilities), the following traffic volumes are expected to be added to the surrounding roadway network compared to existing conditions: ➢ 40,000 daily trips ➢ 3,100 AM peak hour trips (74 percent entering/26 percent exiting) ➢ 3,800 PM peak hour trips (35 percent entering/65 percent exiting) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-10 Viking Lakes Event Traffic As part of a separate study, a Travel Demand Management Plan was developed for the Viking Lakes site to best accommodate traffic during atypical event conditions such as Vikings training camp, high school athletic events, concerts, etc. This event plan looked at events between 500 and 7,200 attendees for existing events and up to 21,000 attendees for future events. However, vehicle traffic to and from the event site will be much lower due to transit/walk/bike and vehicle occupancy which decreases the maximum vehicles to 2,495 for existing events and 7,280 for future expanded capacity events. Many events will occur during off-peak time periods, during weekends, midday, or evening, where total volume splits using Dodd Road or Delaware Avenue are expected to be less than peak volumes. Therefore, the North-South Mobility Study will only evaluate typical operating conditions in the area. Results from the ongoing Travel Demand Management Plan will be considered in recommendations made in the North-South Mobility Study to ensure consistency between analyses and recommendations across studies. Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion Development Details The planned development covers a 3,140-acre area in Inver Grove Heights that is generally bound by I-494, Argenta Trail, TH 55, and Babcock Trail. Land uses include low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, office/industrial, public/institutional, and open space. The development is expected to add the following traffic volumes to the surrounding roadway network: ➢ 102,200 daily trips ➢ 5,300 AM peak hour trips (49 percent entering/51 percent exiting) ➢ 8,400 PM peak hour trips (47 percent entering/53 percent exiting) Traffic Forecasts Traffic projections for both 2040 Base Scenario and 2040 Build Scenario conditions were developed based on trip generation assumptions that are described above. This included the development of 2040 daily traffic projections as well as AM and PM peak hour turning movement projections. Origins and destinations of site generated trips were assumed after a review of prevailing traffic patterns and previous documentation. Adjustments were made based on existing regional travel patterns which differed slightly from the Viking Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-11 Lakes AUAR. It is expected that six percent of Vikings Lakes development traffic will use Dodd Road and nine percent will use Delaware Avenue between I-494 and Highway 62. Six percent (6%) of Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion development traffic will use Delaware Avenue to the north of I-494. Future Traffic Operations Increased traffic volumes through 2040 are expected to trigger many operational deficiencies throughout the study area, especially in the 2040 Build Scenario with added traffic from the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion developments. The 2040 Build Scenario is expected to trigger LOS F at all Dodd Road study intersections north of Wagon Wheel Trail and at all Delaware Avenue/Argenta Trail study intersections, except at Huber Drive. Future Traffic Control Minnesota MUTCD traffic control warrants were evaluated with projected 2040 volumes to identify potential traffic control revisions throughout the study area. Intersections that were identified as being deficient in existing or 2040 conditions were analyzed under several options to provide improvements to the intersection. Several options per intersection were identified as possible improvements, with a recommended option being identified for each intersection. To maintain a complete corridor vision, intersections were grouped together based on their existing control and location. High level cost estimates were included for comparison purposes only. They represent high-level estimates and do not include right-of-way costs. MN Highway 62 Intersections The MN HWY 62 intersections with Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue are both high traffic volume intersections. With 37,500 daily entering vehicles at Dodd Road and 35,000 daily entering vehicles at Delaware Avenue, both intersections are approaching the capacity of their existing 4-Lane highway footprint. With 2040 volumes identifying growth up to 50,000 daily entering vehicles for both intersections, an alternative corridor design or interchange will likely be necessary in the future. Market, Maple, and South Plaza Drive The four intersections adjacent to the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection were identified as having deficient 2040 intersection operations. Dakota County recommends at least 1/4 mile spacing for signals along a major arterial roadway precluding a signal at either Market Street or North Plaza Drive. The queuing from Highway 62 would also impact closely spaced signals. If all four access locations were unchanged, signal warrants for the four intersections are expected to not be Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-12 met. However, if access is reduced at Market Street and N Plaza Drive, the resulting traffic shifts would warrant signals at Hilltop Road/Maple Street and South Plaza Drive. The results of the analysis showed that when queuing was minimized at Dodd Road and Highway 62 that operations were generally acceptable at South Plaza Drive, Market Street, and Maple Street. By reconfiguring to a reduced access design, delays at the study intersections were decreased from unacceptable to acceptable conditions. Although right-in right-out access at N Plaza Drive was modeled and preferred, the option of keeping southbound access into Mendota Plaza should be considered in the future. Marie and Wentworth Dodd Road intersections with Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue are both slightly skewed all-way stop controlled intersections. With volumes on Marie and Wentworth expected to increase from 3,000-4,000 existing to 5,000-6,000 in 2040 cross street traffic will drive the need for an alternative intersection that will benefit both safety and operations. Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane With MnDOT’s 2018 TH 149 reconstruction project, Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane will be reconstructed into a three-lane segment with a pedestrian crossing median between the intersections. This improvement is a near-term solution to increase both vehicle and pedestrian safety at the intersection. However, as volumes increase on Dodd Road this intersection will have future unacceptable operations and long-term alternatives will need to be considered. Delaware Avenue Delaware Avenue is expected to see the highest percentage increase in development traffic in the study area. Volumes are expected to increase from 3,000 daily trips to more than 13,000 daily trips in the full build scenarios. If these volumes are not mitigated, Delaware Avenue will be at capacity with several intersections that have unacceptable conditions. The future Argenta Trail interchange in the adjacent City of Inver Grove Heights, is expected to be installed at or near a location 1,500 feet east of the existing overpass on I-494. This new intersection location is the preferred option; the City of Mendota Heights supports the location and building of this intersection. It is expected that 90 percent of development traffic using Delaware Avenue will be shifted to using the Argenta Interchange restoring the acceptable operations of the corridor in the 2040 Base Conditions. If the interchange is not built, long-term alternatives and options will need to be explored and considered by the City and affected jurisdictions. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-13 Multimodal Considerations Although this study was focused on identifying vehicular traffic due to regional development, bike and pedestrian facilities are an important consideration for the final corridor vision. In depth pedestrian and bike facilities were not analyzed as part of the current study (as a previous trail study was finished in Nov 2017). Many of the alternative recommendations will coincide with multimodal improvements and will be analyzed in depth during preliminary design of the concepts. The Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) identified Dodd Road as a major N-S regional trail facility. The existing facilities are mostly on -street trails (wide shoulders) however north and south of Highway 62 there are existing sections of off-street trails. A Pedestrian/Bike tunnel was just recently constructed under Highway 62 connecting these two segments. Trail crossings were also proposed at Wagon Wheel Trail / Decorah Lane as part of the TH 149 resurfacing project in addition to existing crossings at Mendota Heights Road, South Plaza Drive, and Marie Avenue. The recommendations of the study were to build several additional sections of off-street trail segments along Dodd Road with public support as construction would require property owners to sell property or easements for the trail segments. Due to the limited right-of-way along Delaware Avenue, pedestrian accommodations in the study area between I-494 and Highway 62 would be constrained by roadway grade profiles and right-of-way needed from property owners. Existing off-street trails on Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Road allow connections from Delaware Avenue to the west and serve as alternative multimodal routes to the narrow corridor. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-14 Access Management Access management is the planning, design, and implementation of land use and transportation strategies that maintain a safe flow of traffic while accommodating the access needs of adjacent development. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has set up access management guidelines which provide numerous benefits such as, reduce congestion and crashes, preserve road capacity and postpone the need for roadway widening, improve travel times for the delivery of goods and services, ease movement between destinations, and support local economic development. To provide safe and convenient travel within the City, access management guidelines will be applied when making development decisions. MnDOT access management guidelines will be incorporated into this Comprehensive Plan update. MnDOT Access Management Guidelines 1. Think land use AND transportation. Before approving a subdivision or rezoning, consider what road design and improvements will be needed to support the development and link it to the surrounding area. 2. Identify and plan for growth areas. Incremental and uncoordinated development will not lead to a livable community or a healthy business climate. Support economic growth by planning and investing in a local road network to support development. 3. Develop a complete hierarchy of roads. A viable community requires a variety of roadways organized as an integrated system. Highways and arterials are needed for longer, higher speed trips. Local streets and collectors provide access to homes and businesses. Recognize that different roads serve different purposes. 4. Link access regulations to roadway function. Access requirements in zoning and subdivision regulations should fit each roadway’s functional classification. Recognize that the greatest access control is needed for those roads intended to serve longer, higher speed trips. 5. Avoid strip development. Promote commercial nodes. Commercial development can be located adjacent to and visible from the highway, but should be accessed via a system of parallel local roads and side streets that complement the state highway system. 6. Connect local streets between subdivisions. Give residents convenient options for travel from one neighborhood to another by connecting local streets from one subdivision to the next. 7. Design subdivisions with access onto local streets. Avoid lot designs with driveways that enter onto major state or county highways. Orient business and residential driveways to local streets that feed onto the highway at a few carefully designed and spaced intersections. 8. Practice good site planning principles. Locate entrances away from intersection corners and turn lanes. Provide adequate space on the site for trucks to maneuver and for vehicles to queue at drive-through windows without backing or stacking on the roadway. Adjacent businesses should provide shared driveways and cross access, so customers can make multiple stops without entering the arterial. 9. Correct existing problems as opportunities arise. Adopt a long range vision for improving access along older, developed corridors. Correct unsafe accesses as individual parcels expand or redevelop. Work with affected property owners to consolidate driveways and provide internal access between parcels. Fill in the supporting roadway network with local access roads as part of the redevelopment process. 10. Coordinate local development plans with Mn/DOT and county road agencies. Share plans for subdivisions, rezonings, and site plans with affected road authorities early in the development process. Contact Mn/DOT and the County Highway Department to talk about long range plans and development needs. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-15 Bicycles and Pedestrians Mendota Heights installed its backbone trail system in 1989 as part of an approved referendum. The backbone trail system connects residents to amenities throughout the city. In addition to city trails, Dakota County provides regional trail connections identified as greenways. Dakota County Trails are noted as follows: Big Rivers Regional Trail Located along the northern edge of Dakota County from Eagan to Lilydale, the Big Rivers Regional Trail is a scenic 4 1/2-mile paved trail that overlooks the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The trail also links to the 72-mile Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, hundreds of miles of trails throughout the greater Twin Cities area and historic landmarks including Fort Snelling, Pike Island and, one of Minnesota's oldest settlements, the city of Mendota. The Big Rivers Trailhead provides access to a nearly flat paved trail built on an abandoned railroad bed. Highway 55 in Mendota Heights, Interstate 494 in Eagan, and Interstate 35E in Mendota Heights are additional access points to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway The Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway is proposed to travel 8.5 miles through Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan. Today, the landscape is largely suburban. Remaining agricultural areas, primarily in Inver Grove Heights’ Northwest Area, are expected to develop over the next 20-30 years. This will allow for future development patterns in this area to be organized around and shaped by the greenway’s natural, cultural, and recreational amenities. An underpass crossing of Highway 62 was opened in 2017. River to River Greenway The “River to River Greenway” connects Lilydale, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and South St. Paul. The trail is in place between Robert Street and the Mississippi River in South St. Paul. Future construction projects will link Valley Park in Mendota Heights to the area near Dodge Nature Center in West St. Paul. These and all other trail systems throughout the community are further described and illustrated in the Bicycle Facilities and Plan – FIGURE 4-2, contained in the following Chapter 4: Parks and Trails. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-16 Transit Plan Public Transit Service Mendota Heights is within Market Area II and Market Area III of the Transit Market Area classifications, as illustrated in the Existing Transit Map - FIGURE 3-3. Market Area II provides a network of local buses accommodating different trip purposes as demand warrants. Limited stop services connect major destinations. Market Area III emphasizes commuter express bus service with suburban local routes providing basic coverage. General public dial-a-ride services supplement where regular-route service is not available. Regularly scheduled transit route service is provided by the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO). There are six (6) transit routes that operate within the City of Mendota Heights. These bus routes provide service to downtown Minneapolis, St. Paul, the University of Minnesota, the Mall of America, as well as other suburban areas, including Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, and West St. Paul. Several express routes, as well as local limited routes, are available for use by community residents. The City does not have designated Park and Ride facilities or MnPASS lanes. Metro Mobility, which serves people who need specially-equipped vehicles for transportation, is offered throughout the Twin Cities and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities is provided by Dakota Areas Resources and Transportation for Seniors. DARTS Loop Transportation services are provided in the neighboring communities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul, which offers transit options for residents tailored to the community preferences, with affordable all-you-can ride fares, and allows riders to get on and off any stops along a continuous one-hour LOOP route. The City of Mendota Heights should explore or seek reliable transit and transportation alternatives for its residents, especially as the community’s population ages. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE M A Y GUN CLUB LAKE DODD RD417 417 415446 436 436 446 415 470470446 452 452 480 484 489 446 75 417 436 446 446417 446 417 DELAWARE AVEDELAWARE AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYMARIE AVE W LEXINGTON 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 Existing Transit Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Transit Stops Transit Routes Planned Express Bus Corridor City of Mendota Heights Open Water City of M endota He ights Source: Metropolitan Council, 2016 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 3-3 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-18 Robert Street Corridor Transit Feasibility Study (Prepared for Dakota County Regional Rail Authority by URS Corporation, CR Planning, Connetics Transportation Group, 2008) The Robert Street Corridor in Dakota County extends from Union Depot in St. Paul to Rosemount. The corridor is bound by I-35E on the west and the Mississippi River on the east. Existing and projected conditions such as population and employment growth, changing demographics, limited transit service coverage, increased roadway congestion, and lack of planned roadway improvements drove the need to consider transportation alternatives. Short and medium term recommendations were formulated to correspond with the long term vision for the Robert Street corridor. Short term recommendations focus on enhancements to the existing bus service and commencing studies of land use and parking policies. Medium term recommendations require additional sources of funding to significantly expand bus services. The long term vision of the Robert Street Corridor is to build a transit way from downtown St. Paul to Rosemount linking major destinations. The proposed Robert Street transit way alignment is east of the City of Mendota Heights. However, the long term vision would directly affect the roadways within city limits. The plan presents a limited stop Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on Highway 62 and an express bus route on TH 55 which would connect to the existing Light Rail Transit (LRT). The citizens of Mendota Heights would also benefit from additional park and ride facilities within nearby cities. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-19 Aviation Plan Mendota Heights benefits from its close proximity to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) but is also directly affected by aircraft operations. Residents and businesses have easy and quick access to a major international airport. However, aircraft noise is a major issue for some in Mendota Heights because of the detrimental impacts of increased operations on the quality of life in existing neighborhoods and the impact of land use compatibility guidelines and noise contours on development options. Since the opening of the “North-South” runway, previous issues with the distribution of air traffic have been reduced. All residential areas in Mendota Heights were in conformance with the original aviation guidelines and their previous projections of air noise and air traffic. Mendota Heights was the only city that adopted the original Metropolitan Council noise zones and guidelines and is the only city to adopt and enforce a Noise Attenuation Ordinance. The Runway Use System at MSP relies heavily on “land compatibility” as a guiding principle for departure determination, thereby increasing the volume of traffic and the percentage of exclusive use of the southeast corridor, which was zoned commercial/industrial in cooperation with regional and local planning agencies. This increased traffic has impacted existing compatible residential neighborhoods in Mendota Heights. The City of Mendota Heights has worked strenuously to address airport noise issues. A citizen Airports Relations Commission has been established by Mendota Heights to provide recommendations to the City Council on airport issues. This plan is a compilation of the City’s work and history regarding the airport, a set of policies and actions to guide future decisions on airport, a description of the conflicts with other agencies responsible for airport impacts, and a discussion of the potential land use impacts from agency requirements. In addition to these local efforts, the City has adopted a zoning ordinance consistent with federal requirements for height control jurisdictions. The City refers to and utilizes the MSP Airport Safety Zones, Noise Contours and Airspace Limits Map – FIGURE 3-4 when analyzing or approving new developments in these airspace zones. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE M A Y DODD RD65 DNL in 2018 60 DNL in 2018 65 DNL in 2025 991'1090'6 0 D N L in 2 0 2 5 70 DNL in 2025 65 DNL in 2018 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 1010'1030'1070'1060'1050'1080'960'950'940'930'920'910'900'950'960'940'930'991'970'920'910'890'890'880'880'870'870'860'900'980'MSP Airport Safety Zones, Noise Contours,and Airspace Height Limits Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet 2018 Actual DNL Contour 60 DNL 65 DNL 70 DNL 2025 Fore casted DNL Contour s DNL 60 DNL DNL 65 DNL DNL 70 DNL Airsp ace Zo ne L imit AirSpace Conto urs MSP Safety Zone B MSP Safety Zone C DNL: The day-night sound level, or 24-hr.equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A-weighted sound level) from12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levelsmeasured from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00) A.M. City of M endota He ights Ap ril 23, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights &MetropolitanAirport Commission FIGUR E 3-4 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-21 AVIATION-RELATED GOALS & POLICIES GOAL 3.3: Reduce negative airport impacts in Mendota Heights; and Work diligently with all noise issues and agencies to decrease aircraft noise in volume and to decrease the area of noise impacts. Aircraft Noise Policies 3.3.1 Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). 3.3.2 Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and corridor compliance. 3.3.3 Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport Comprehensive Plan. 3.3.4 Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and advanced technology. 3.3.5 Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer general aviation use to other reliever airports. 3.3.6 Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions are encountered. History of Noise Reduction Efforts The City of Mendota Heights has addressed aircraft noise issues in several ways, including the following formal actions: 1. Membership in the NOC. 2. Modification of the Land Use Plan consistent with the established aircraft flight corridor. 3. Adoption of the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance. 4. Establishment of the citizen Airports Relations Commission (ARC) to study airport issues and make recommendations to the City Council. 5. Agreement to a contract with MAC prohibiting construction of a third parallel runway. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-22 The City has worked through the various agencies on issues including: modification of aircraft landings and departures, supporting the installation of ANOMS, supporting the prohibition of Stage II aircraft, and educating homeowners about the Part 150 program. The City of Mendota Heights planned its land use according to the flight corridor, as originally established, and adopted land use guidelines into an ordinance format in 1987. Operations have strayed to existing residential areas outside of the planned corridor however, significantly impacting several neighborhoods. Impacts of Future Land Use Planning Mendota Heights has planned its land uses in relation to the City’s experience with aircraft noise and the airport’s aviation guidelines. New development and redevelopment in the areas affected by air noise is closely scrutinized and has been accomplished with success through strict adherence to site planning and building design regulations. The City of Mendota Heights has adopted the Metropolitan Council’s model Sound Attenuation Ordinance and has enforced the provisions of this ordinance for all building permits in the Noise Zones since 1986. Town home projects are considered to be consistent with the Aviation Policy compatibility guidelines for Noise Zone 4, which allows residential land uses, as a conditional use. The conditional use for residential land use in Noise Zone 4 is satisfied through the enforcement of the City’s Sound Attenuation Ordinance, thereby, allowing residential construction to meet the Aviation Guide Plan’s land use compatibility guidelines. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-23 Freight Plan Freight is an important aspect in supporting a community by providing residents and business with the goods and materials they need. The Twin Cities area is a primary freight hub for the upper Midwest region. Roadways, railroads, barges, and air are the four modes of freight transportation within the Twin Cities Metro area. Mendota Heights does not have any Air/Truck, Barge/Truck, or Rail/Truck freight terminals. See Figure 3-5 below. Figure 3-5 Metropolitan Freight Systems Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Transportation 3-24 Truck freight primarily impacts the city with two US Interstates located within the city limits. I-494 and -35E both carry large amounts of commercial commerce to and from the downtown Minneapolis/St. Paul area (see Existing Roadway Functional Classification Map for HCAADT volumes). No local roadways have been identified as creating significant issues for the movement of goods within the City of Mendota Heights. See Figure 3-6 below. Figure 3-6 Twin Cities Freight Railroads Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks and Trails 4-1 4 Parks and Trails The City of Mendota Heights boasts a variety of recreational and open space opportunities, including access to regional trails, riverside and lakeside parks, scenic bluffs and a nature preserve among their recreation facilities. These facilities represent unique features in a park system that helps to shape the character of Mendota Heights beyond the ordinary. They offer a visual identity to the city, in addition to contributing to the quality of life for those who live here. Mendota Heights has over 771 acres of parks and open space, which includes City parks, active and passive recreation areas, along with other state and private parks and open spaces. The 33 miles of city trails and bicycle facilities located adjacent to roadways or meandering through the bounty of open space in the community offer an excellent opportunity for exercise and relaxation. Opportunities are available for walking, bicycling, bird watching and nature hikes. In addition to parks, the City is also home to three golf courses: Mendakota Golf Course, Somerset Golf Course, and the Mendota Heights Par 3 golf course. GOALS and POLICIES GOAL 4.1: Provide a park system that is safe, accessible, and equitable in its offerings to all Mendota Heights’ residents and visitors. Policies: 4.1.1 Create and maintain a park system that provides the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. 4.1.2 Provide facilities and programs that allow people of varying ages and abilities to participate. 4.1.3 Build, maintain and retrofit park facilities and equipment to be safe for all users. 4.1.4 Plan and build safe connections for pedestrians and bicyclists within and between park facilities and major destinations in the community. 4.1.5 Strive to make all facilities and programs open and welcoming to people of all ages and diverse backgrounds. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks & Trails 4-2 GOAL 4.2: Provide a park system that assures high quality facilities, buildings, grounds, trails, amenities, and natural settings. Policies: 4.2.1 Keep the park system up-to-date in terms of facilities, activities and programs that are responsive to the community’s needs and wishes. 4.2.2 Support the park system adequately through the facilities, activities and programs offered. 4.2.3 Provide bicycle amenities in parks and along trails. 4.2.4 Provide a sustainable funding stream and operate the park system in a fiscally sound manner, including taking advantage of available grants. Goal 4.3: Use the park system as a means to enhance and sustain the environment of each neighborhood and the city as a whole. Policies: 4.3.1 Provide facilities, programs and opportunities in the park system that bring people together and create community. 4.3.2 Ensure that stormwater is managed in park facilities in a manner that protects and preserves water quality and the ecology of the watershed. 4.3.3 Strive to make all park facilities, equipment and construction projects and materials environmentally friendly and sustainable. Goal 4.4: Cooperate with Dakota County and surrounding communities in park and recreation facilities and programming. Policies: 4.4.1 Support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. 4.4.2 Continue to cooperate with South St. Paul, West. St. Paul and other neighboring communities on park and recreation programs and facilities. 4.4.3 Encourage the preservation of open space by private property owners and the City. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks & Trails 4-3 4.4.4 Explore new opportunities and continue to work cooperatively with School District #197, St. Thomas, Visitation, Fort Snelling State Park, and other entities to provide maximum recreational opportunities and avoid duplication. 4.4.5 Improve and expand safe bicycle and pedestrian connections to City parks and other community destinations. Previous Development Previous Comprehensive Plans and Park Plans have guided the City in the development of its park system. As development has occurred, parkland has been dedicated to provide residents with recreational opportunities. Since the adoption of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the City has made improvements to many parks and has developed the following new parks: Copperfield Ponds, Hagstrom-King, Kensington, Mendakota, Sibley, Valley View Heights, and Victoria Highlands. The location of these new parks closely resembles Plan recommendations and reflect the City’s commitment to providing park services to all residents as opportunities arise. Not only has the City made improvements and developed new parks, it has also made efforts to maintain and protect existing open space. The City purchased the 17-acre Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course. The City also joined with other public entities and purchased the 25.5-acre Pilot Knob area, which will be retained as open space. Protection of the Pilot Knob area as an important Dakota site has been identified as a critical issue for many residents in the city. Existing City Park Facilities and Types Mendota Heights currently has 756.7 acres of lands dedicated to city parks, golf courses, and open space. The city also features part of the Fort Snelling State Park within their boundaries, totaling an additional 771.2 acres. The City has 17 public parks throughout the community, including Historic Pilot Knob. These parks contain over 295 acres of land area. A brief discussion of the three types of parks that typically comprise a local park system is provided below. The descriptions and standards should serve as a guide. Other factors, such as proximity to regional or county parks, financing, or major trends in recreation, will also influence the evolution of the City’s park system. Regional and State parks are discussed later in this chapter. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks & Trails 4-4 1) Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. They accommodate a wide variety of age and user groups, including children and adults. They create a sense of place by bringing together the unique character of the site with that of the neighborhood. Mendota Heights should seek to achieve a balance between active and passive neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks range from 5-30 acres and serve a ½ mile area. Communities often will operate a joint neighborhood park with the school district and elementary schools. The City’s neighborhood parks include Friendly Hills, Hagstrom-King, Ivy Hills, Marie, Valley View Heights, Victoria Highland, and Wentworth. 2) Community Park Community parks are designed to meet the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or larger segments of the community. They are intended for ball fields and larger athletic facilities or community gatherings. They can also be designed to preserve unique landscapes and open spaces. They serve a one-half mile to five mile radius. The City’s community parks include Kensington, Valley, Roger’s Lake, Mendakota, and Sibley Athletic Complex. The city also provides an off-leash dog park only, located off Acacia Blvd., south of the Historic Pilot Knob area. This 3.7 acre tract of city-owned lands was approved as a temporary dog park under an interim use permit in 2015, and this permit expires in 2020. The City has not yet determined if this dog park will continue, or allow the lands to be developed into an industrial use, which is what the site is zoned and guided for under this 2040 Plan. 3) Natural Resource Area Natural resource areas are areas set aside to preserve significant or unique landscapes. They are often, but not always, properties unsuitable for development with steep slopes, drainage ways, and ravines or wetlands. In addition, there may be locations where local tree protection, shoreland and critical area ordinances, or state and local wetland ordinances restrict development in some way. Natural Resource areas include Friendly Marsh, Copperfield Ponds, Valley Park, Pilot Knob Preservation, and Dodge Nature Center. The City’s Parks and Facilities Table 4-1 on the following page identifies the various parks and open spaces throughout the city, along with their general locations and facilities offered: TABLE 4-1 City of Mendota Heights Parks & Facilities Table Acres Nature Areas Trails Softball or Baseball Soccer Tennis Basketball Volleyball Playground Equipment Picnic Area/Shelter Hockey/Skating Rinks Parking Fishing Dock/Piers Restroom Facilities Civic Center (next to City Hall) 4 X X X X Copperfield Ponds (east of Huber Dr. at Cheyenne Ln) 24.9 X P X Friendly Hills Park (South of Decorah Ln. - east of Pueblo Ln.) 15.5 X P X X X X 3 X X X X X Friendly Marsh Park (north of Cheyenne Ln. between Apache & Huber) 33.4 X P X Hagstrom-King Park (555 Mendota Heights Rd) 9.6 X P X X X 3 X X X Historic Pilot Knob (2100 Pilot Knob Rd. - Acacia Blvd. & Pilot Knob) 25.5 X X X Ivy Hills Park (645 Butler Ave. – between Butler & Maple Park Dr.) 9.3 X P X X X X 3 X X X X Kensington Park (2627 Concord Way / 640 Mendota Heights Rd.) 14.6 X P X X F X X E X X C Marie Park (1780 Lilac Ln. – NW corner of Lilac & Marie Ave.) 6.2 X P X X X X X X X Mendakota Park (SW Corner of Dodd Road & Mendakota Dr.) 19.7 X X X Y X X X X E X X C Roger's Lake Park (1000 Wagon Wheel Trail- east of I-35E) 9.2 X X X 3 X 4 X X E X X X Sibley Athletic Complex 1 (Henry Sibley High School - Marie & Delaware) 11 X X X F X 2 X X C Market Square Park (The Village of Mendota Heights) 0.5 X X Valley Park (821 Marie Ave – east of I-35E) 94.4 X X X X X 3 X X X X Valley View Heights (SE corner of Cullen Ave. & Timmy St.) 0.7 X X 3 X Victoria Highland Park (1700 Diane Rd.-between Victoria, Douglas & Diane) 6.7 X X X 3 X X X Wentworth Park (739 Wentworth Ave.) 10.5 X P X X X X 3 X X X X X TOTAL 295.7 1. Sibley Athletic Complex is a joint use facility owned and operated by ISD #197 3. Half-court only. 2. ISD #197 maintains 12 tennis courts at Henry Sibley High School 4. Sand volleyball court – all others on grass. E = Electrical service. P = Pond/Natural areas. F = Full size soccer field(s). Y = Youth soccer fields. C = Comfort station – Permanent toilet facility Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks and Trails 4-6 Trail Facilities Trails for biking, walking, and roller blading are very popular. There are 28.5 miles of off-road trails and 4.9 miles of wide shoulders and on-street bicycle facilities currently in portions of the City’s neighborhoods. These trails are both off- and on- road and serve as important connections for recreational opportunities and travel. Improved trail connections are important in Mendota Heights because many residential areas are divided by highways and arterial roads. Access to the Big Rivers Regional Trail is difficult due to the significant elevation changes. As a result, many areas of the community cannot be easily accessed on bikes, roller blades or foot from other areas of the community. Additional or improved trail connections are needed to provide residents access to City parks and other recreational opportunities in the region. Regional Trails Big Rivers Regional Trail: Developed in 1996 by Dakota County along the old Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, this trail enables residents to bike, walk, and roller blade along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. This trail serves as an important link to other communities and has greatly improved the awareness and accessibility of the River. River-to-River Greenway: This trail serves as a link from Big Rivers Regional Trail through Valley Park to West St. Paul and to South St. Paul. Local Trails and On-street Facilities Mendota Heights has a network of paved and on-street bicycle facilities connecting different neighborhoods in the city. Most bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the city are off-street six to eight-foot-wide bituminous trails. There are also a few on-street bicycle facilities in the community, along Dodd Road, Delaware Avenue, and Decorah Lane. City parks and trails, including other natural resource areas, are illustrated in the following Parks and Trails Map - FIGURE 4-1. MARIE AVE W MARIE AVE W LEXINGTON AVEPILOT KNOB RDCITY OF EAGAN CITY OF WEST ST PAULCITY OF SUNFISH LAKEDELAWARE AVEWENTWORTH AVEWACHTLER AVEVICTORIA RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD DODD RDDODD RDTH 55T H 5 5 MENDOTA BRIDGE CITY OFMENDOTA I-494 I-494I-35EI- 3 5 E I-35 E B R I D G E CITY OFLILYDALE CITY OF ST PAUL EMERSON AVE LILYDALETRAILSIB L E Y M E M O R I A LHWYFUTUREBIGRIVERSREGIONALTRAILSIBLEYMEMORIALHWYDODDRD1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MendakotaGolf Course(Private) Par 3 (Public) DodgeNatureCenter HenrySibleySeniorHigh FriendlyMarsh Rogers Lake VisitationMonasterySt ThomasAcademy FriendlyHillsMiddle ResurrectionCemetary Acacia ParkCemetary La k e Au g u s t a L e m a y L a ke Gun Club Lake MinnesotaRiverMississippiRiverBIGRIVERSREGIONALTRAILSt Peter'sChurchTH 62 TH 62 MendotaElement. SomersetElement. SomersetGolf Course(Private) NSPTankFarm FortSnellingStatePark^Scenic Overlook(Dakota County) ^ City Hall& Police ^Fire Hall PickerelLakeRamseyCountyPark ^Public WorksGarage Cem. Source: City of Mendota Heights,Dakota County Surveying &Land Information Department Parks and Trails MapCity of Mendota Heights PARK & TRAIL NOTES: 1) Public Schools in "Blue" text have public playgrounds. 2) Neighborhood concrete sidewalks are not shown on plan. 3) Copperfield Pond trail is a gravel trail. Parks 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 Park 10) Victoria Highland Park 11) Wentworth Park 12) Valley View Heights Park 13) Copperfield Ponds 14) Sibley Park 15) Civic Center Ball Park 16) Historic Pilot Knob 17) Acacia Off-Leash Dog Park 18) Market Square Park City Park (See List) Golf Course Cemetary Nature Preserve State Property Water Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (6' wide) Proposed Future Trail Connection City boundary µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet April 23, 2019FIGURE 4-1 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks and Trails 4-8 Future Park and Trail Needs Future Park Needs The City of Mendota Heights is committed to developing and enhancing its park and open space system. City Park needs can be determined by evaluating the number, size, and accessibility of parks. The city meets the National Recreation and Park Association’s recommendation of park land and acreage. The city easily meets these recommended standards, but will continue to reserve city-owned lands and explore options for expanding additional park and recreation space in the city. Future Trail Connections As part of their 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the Metropolitan Council identified future regional trail opportunities and priority trail corridors. The Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) consists of a series of prioritized Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors and routes. The goal of the RBTN is to establish an integrated network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails which move bicyclists more efficiently and encourage the implementation of future bikeways. Mendota Heights has approximately 6 roadways within Tier 1 RBTN alignments and 1 roadway within Tier 2 RBTN alignments. Providing connections north-south and east-west through Mendota Heights will be critical. Planned trail connections are noted as follows: Dodd Road Trail Corridor: Dodd Road runs approximately 3.8 miles north-south the entire length of the City. Approximately one mile of this corridor is served by an existing trail or by a funded trail that will be constructed in 2019. Mendota Heights analyzed 2.8 miles of the corridor between Delaware Avenue and Marie Avenue and between Wagon Wheel Trail and Mendota Heights Road. Planned Bike Lane – Annapolis Street: a bike lane located along Annapolis Street at the City’s northern border (now under construction). Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway: The Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway is proposed to travel 8.5 miles through Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan. Today, the landscape is largely suburban. Remaining agricultural areas, primarily in Inver Grove Heights’ Northwest Area, are expected to develop over the next 20-30 years. This will allow for future development patterns in this area to be organized around and shaped by the greenway’s natural, cultural, and recreational amenities. River to River Greenway: The River to River Greenway connects Lilydale, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and South St. Paul. The trail is in place between Robert Street and the Mississippi River in South St. Paul. Future construction Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks & Trails 4-9 projects will link Valley Park in Mendota Heights to the area near Dodge Natu re Center in West St. Paul. Eagan Soo Line Trail: The City of Eagan and Dakota County have initiated a trail feasibility study in the general area where I-494, I-35E, and TH 55 all come together. This corridor has been identified as a potential regional trail greenway that would connect the Big Rivers and the Mendota-Lebanon Regional Trail corridors. The initial alignment being evaluated includes an abandoned railroad line and two railroad bridges owned by MnDOT. Areas within or adjacent to Highway 55 and I-494 right of way are also identified. These and all other trail systems throughout the community are further described and illustrated in the below Bicycle Facilities and Plan – FIGURE 4-2. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 Bicycle Facilities and Plan Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Metro politan Council Tier 1 R BTN Alignments Metro politan Council Tier 2 R BTN Alignments Metro politan Council Tier 1 Priority Regio nal Bicycle Transport atio n Co rrido r USBR 45 Mississip pi River Trail Bikeway Bikew ay Inv entory: Existing Bike Lane Planned Bike Lane Existing Paved Trails Existing Non-Paved Trail Planned Paved Trail Existing R oadway with Sho ulder >= 5' Other Bicycle Facilities City Bo undary City of M endota He ights Ap ril 23, 2019Source: City of Mendota Heights, 2018 Metropolitan Council, 2016 FIGUR E 4-2 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks and Trails 4-11 State, Regional, and Private Parks and Open Spaces In addition to the City’s parks, there are numerous regional, county and private facilities within or near the City’s borders: Fort Snelling State Park As noted earlier in this chapter, Fort Snelling State Park is the largest park in Mendota Heights with 771 of its 2,642 acres located in the city. It provides outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the public and is considered part of the regional recreational open space system. Fort Snelling State Park is a recreational state park offering swimming, large group and family picnic grounds, a boat launch, interpretive center and historical areas, trails, and scenic overlooks. Most of the park’s active facilities are located on the Bloomington side of the River, requiring most Mendota Heights residents to drive or bike across the I-494, I-35E, and Mendota bridges to access the park. The Mendota Heights portion of the park is left primarily as a natural area as it contains extensive floodplain marsh habitat. Facilities located in Mendota Heights support less intensive uses, such as biking, hiking, cross country skiing, and fishing. The Sibley and Faribault historic sites are also located on the Mendota Heights side. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Parks & Trails 4-12 Dodge Nature Center The Dodge Nature Center, also referred to as the “Lilly Property”, is a 170-acre private nature preserve area and facility of the city, generally located at the southwest corner of Highway 62 and Delaware Avenue. The nature center is dedicated to the restoration of native plants and animal communities. The center provides excellent educational programs and events for the public, including habitat restoration projects, invasive species removal demonstrations, prairie burns, and native plantings. There are no visitor buildings or restrooms at this location. Trails are open during daylight hours every day of the week; and there are no fees to hike at Dodge Nature Center. Source: Dodge Nature Center Website Historic Piot Knob As was noted in Chapter 1, Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob is generally located south and west of Highway 55, north of Acacia Boulevard and east of Pilot Knob Road. The 112 acres site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and provides an excellent opportunity for the public to visit and experience historic views of the surrounding areas, and learn more about the history and culture of this significant and sacred place. Pilot Knob is a wonderful natural place to read the landscape; watch migratory birds; and to learn more about prairie and oak savanna restoration work currently in progress. Pilot Knob provides a small vehicle parking area, with walking trails, interpretive areas, and gathering spaces. Refer to the image Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Landscape Plan: Issues and Opportunities Map – FIGURE 4-3. Consulting Group, Inc.Great River Greening City of Mendota Heights10699 | 071318 Oĥéyawahe / Pilot Knob Historic Landscape Plan: Issues and Opportunities Key Map ACACIA BLVD ACACIA PARK CEMETERY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS OWNED PROPERTY BUS & OVERFLOW PARKING ALONG ROADPILOT KNOB RDHWY 13H W Y 1 1 0 E B H W Y 1 10 W B SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAYBIG RIVERS REGIONAL TRAILHWY 55 VALENCOUR CIR1 2 3 4 6 7 7 8 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 9 10 5 LEGEND EXISTING TRAILS OFF-STREET TRAIL INTERPRETIVE FEATURE KEY VIEWS WETLAND 0’ N 200’400’ SEE PHOTOS FOR SOUTH AREA SEE PHOTOS FOR CENTRAL AREA SEE PHOTOS FOR NORTH SLOPE AREA SEE PHOTOS FOR STEEP SLOPE & TRAIL CONNECTION AREA SEE PHOTOS FOR NORTH SLOPE INTERPRETIVE AREA 1 6 11 2 7 12 3 8 13 4 9 14 16 5 10 15 17 Entry Area Parking Lot Pilot Knob Road + Utilities Gravel Road Extension Existing Trail Bluff Slope Existing Interpretive Panels Medicine Wheel Overlook - South Seven Oaks Gathering Area Four Oaks Gathering Area Medicine Wheel Overlook - North Seven Council Fires Overlook Big River Regional Trail Stop Privately Owned Parcels Acacia Park Cemetery - East-side Acacia Park Cemetery - North-side Off-Leash Dog Area KEY FEATURES Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-1 5 Housing The health and character of a community may best be measured in its housing stock. Vital cities provide a variety of housing choices and work to ensure that existing housing is well maintained. The City of Mendota Heights must also ensure that new housing addresses the changing needs of the community. Existing and future residents are looking for more services and amenities near where they choose to live, including convenient shopping options and easily-accessible walking and biking trails. Housing has evolved into more than a place to live, but a community in which to thrive. Where people live is important. For many Americans, a high-quality environment, walkable neighborhoods and diversity make a neighborhood a great place to live. Mendota Heights supports life-cycle 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 everyone who wish to live in Mendota Heights. This chapter includes goals and policies to promote housing opportunities in Mendota Heights, followed by an assessment of existing housing stock, tenure, and affordability. GOALS and POLICIES Goals, policies, and programs shall be identified to assist the City of Mendota Heights in decision-making regarding the preservation of its current housing stock and the development of new units. Goals and policies typically address development and redevelopment expectations, housing maintenance and preservation, and density and diversity of housing type. GOAL 5.1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units. Policies: 5.1.1 Continue to enforce housing maintenance and zoning codes. 5.1.2 Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards to encourage reinvestment in existing houses. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-2 5.1.3 Partner with Dakota County, the Metropolitan Council, the State of Minnesota and other agencies that provide housing rehabilitation programs and services. 5.1.4 Protect public safety by requiring owners to repair substandard housing or as a last resort, abate and demolish dangerous housing. 5.1.5 Develop a housing maintenance program that promotes and requires safe homes and attractive neighborhoods. GOAL 5.2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Policies: 5.2.1 Encourage life-cycle housing opportunities in Mendota Heights of various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community throughout their lives. This includes: i. Maintenance of existing entry level housing. ii. Construction of move-up single family development that supports life-cycle housing. iii. Construction of various types of senior housing, including senior ownership units, senior rental units, memory care and assisted living units. iv. Providing a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels, age groups, and special housing needs. 5.2.2 Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices. 5.2.3 Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and distinct neighborhood characteristics in the community. 5.2.4 Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing housing stock. 5.2.5 Periodically assess the housing needs in the community, including for the elderly, disabled, active retirees, and other groups with special housing needs to determine development priorities and to formulate strategies to meet those needs and maintain an adequate and quality housing supply. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-3 Assessment of Housing Stock The following includes an assessment of the current housing stock within the City of Mendota Heights. It includes information on the tenure of occupants; the number, type, and age of housing units; and housing costs. The remainder of the Housing Plan addresses affordable housing needs, goals and policies of the City, and an implementation section identifying ways to address the City’s housing needs. Housing Types and Tenure Housing Types by Units in Structures in Table 5-1 below illustrates the existing housing types by the units in the structure. According to the 2016 American Community Survey, 98.5 percent of the total housing units in Mendota Heights were occupied, while only 1.5 percent were vacant. Out of the occupied housing units in the City, 88 percent are owner-occupied, while only 12 percent are renter-occupied. This is compared to the national average of 63.4 percent of the occupied housing units in the United States being owner- occupied, while 36.4 percent are renter-occupied (Source: American Community Survey, 2012-2016 estimates). Mendota Heights is well above the national average for owner-occupied housing units. The majority of housing units in the City are single-family, detached structures, with multi-family properties and single- family attached homes being other common unit types in the city. Table 5-1: Housing Type by Units in Structure Single Family Two Unit Three + Unit Mobile Home Total Detached Attached Number of Units 3,362 623 19 680 9 4,693 Percent of Stock 71.6% 13.3% 0.4% 14.5% 0.2% 100% Source: Metropolitan Council, American Community Survey, 2016 Age of Housing Mendota Heights experienced a rapid pace of housing construction, starting in the 1940s and continuing through the 1950s. During this time period (1940 to 1959), 850 housing units were constructed. This pace slowed in the 1960s, but started picking up again in the 1970s, when 662 housing units were constructed. Housing construction peaked in the 1980s when 1,162 housing units were built. This number accounts for twenty-seven percent (27%) of the total housing units that were constructed in 2000 and prior. Between 1990 and 1998, another 910 housing units were constructed within the City. The number of housing units slowed in the 2000s, as the amount of vacant land available within the City was minimal. Housing stock age is illustrated in the Housing Age Map - FIGURE 5-1 (below). MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 Age of Housing Stock Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Built before 1970 Built between 1970 and 1980 Built between 1980 and 1990 Built between 1990 and 2000 Built after 2000 City Boundary Open Water City of M endota He ights Source: Dakota County, 2016 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 5-1 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-5 Housing Value and Rent The median home value in Mendota Heights is $351,100, which is much higher than the Dakota County median value of $226,900 and much higher than the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area median of $212,600. Compared to other communities in the region, Mendota Heights’ housing values are above average. Housing values in Mendota Heights are mapped in Figure 5-2. Table 5-2: Median Housing Values in and around Mendota Heights Community Median Housing Value Mendota Heights $351,100 Eagan $251,500 Inver Grove Heights $216,400 Dakota County $226,900 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area $212,600 Source: American Community Survey, 2016 The median rent in Mendota Heights is $1,097 per month, which is higher than the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area ($916) and higher than Dakota County ($1,003). Compared to other communities in the area, Mendota Heights’ median rent is slightly higher. This may be attributed to the large number of single family homes that are rented in the City as well as the development of new, market rate apartment units in the Village neighborhood. Table 5-3 includes median monthly rents in nearby communities. Table 5-3: Median Rent in and around Mendota Heights Community Median Monthly Rent Mendota Heights $1,097 Eagan $1,074 Inver Grove Heights $990 Dakota County $1,003 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area $916 Source: American Community Survey, 2016 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-6 Housing Affordability Affordable Housing Stock in Mendota Heights The Metropolitan Council defines an “affordable” home as one costing $85,500, for households making less than 30 percent Area Median Income (AMI), a home costing $153,000 for households making 31-50 percent AMI, and a home costing $240,500 for households making 51-80 percent AMI. In Mendota Heights, the median home value is $351,100, indicating that much of the City’s housing stock is unaffordable at 80 percent AMI or lower. Housing affordability is discussed later in this chapter. These characteristics are summarized in Table 5-4 for homes in Mendota Heights. Table 5-4: Affordable Housing Stock in Mendota Heights Total Number of All Housing Units 4,693 Number of Affordable Units At or below 30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 50 311 1,053 Number of Publicly Subsidized Units Senior Housing People with Disabilities All other publicly subsidized units 110 0 24 Source: Metropolitan Council Cost Burdened Households Many residents in communities across the Twin Cities experience challenges affording their housing costs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing to be affordable if the residents do not pay more than 30 percent of their income towards housing costs. Housing costs can include rent or mortgage payments, utility bills, HOA fees or other fees associated with living in the home. Residents who pay more than 30 percent are considered “Cost- burdened”. In Mendota Heights, over seven hundred households (16.8 percent of households) are considered to be cost-burdened. Table 5-5 describes the cost burdened households by median income level. Table 5-5: Housing Cost Burdened Households Household Income Level Number of Cost-burdened Households At or below 30% AMI 229 31 to 50% AMI 270 51 to 80% AMI 237 Total Households 736 Source: Metropolitan Council Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-7 Housing Projections and Need Although the City of Mendota Heights is relatively built out, it will still need to accommodate for new residents of all socioeconomic backgrounds. The Metropolitan Council encourages Mendota Heights to supply 23 new units of affordable housing (at or below 80 percent AMI) by 2040. The units are to be affordable at different levels, described below in Table 5-6. Table 5-6: Affordable Unit Allocations for Mendota Heights Household Income Level Number of Units At or below 30% AMI 18 31 to 50% AMI 2 51 to 80% AMI 3 Total Households 23 Source: Metropolitan Council Strategies to Promote a Diverse Housing Stock In order for Mendota Heights to meets its goals and policies pertaining to housing, and especially to accommodate the projected needs of affordable housing units, the City can rely on a number of existing programs and policies to promote housing stock diversity. Numerous efforts are available for Mendota Heights to employ in order to facilitate the construction of affordable housing and to expand local housing options including regional, state, and national programs, fiscal devices, official controls, and land use regulation. Livable Communities Act In 1995, Minnesota Legislature created the Livable Communities Act (LCA) as defined by MN State Statute 473.25. The LCA is a voluntary, incentive-based approach to help the Metro Area communities address affordable and lifecycle housing needs. The LCA provides funds to communities to assist them in carrying out their development plans for affordable housing and creation of new jobs. Participation in the Local Housing Incentives Program portion of the LCA requires communities to negotiate housing goals with the Council and prepare a Housing Action Plan. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-8 Livable Communities Demonstration Accounts (LCDA) LCDA funds support regional growth strategies promoting development and redevelopment that make efficient and cost-effective use of urban lands and infrastructure; improve jobs, housing, transportation, and service connections; and expand affordable and lifecycle housing choices in the region. The funds are available to municipalities that participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program of the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The LCDA is open to local housing and redevelopment authorities, economic development authorities or port authorities in LCA-participating cities, or to counties on behalf of projects located in LCA- participating cities. As the name of the account suggests, LCDA funds are intended to be used for projects that demonstrate innovative and new ways to achieve and implement the statutory objectives, not merely to fill project funding needs. Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA) LHIA grants help to produce new and rehabilitated affordable rental and homeownership, promote the Council’s policy to expand and preserve lifecycle and affordable housing options to meet changing demographic trends and market preferences, and support the region’s economic competitiveness. Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) The TBRA provides funds to clean up polluted land to make it available for economic redevelopment, job retention, and job growth, or the production of affordable housing to enhance the tax base of the recipient municipality. TBRA funds are raised by a legislatively authorized levy capped at $5 million annually. If the TBRA project includes a housing component, a portion of the housing is required to be affordable. Ownership units are considered affordable if they can be purchased by buyers earning 80% of the area median income (AMI). Affordable rental units are those renting at the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit rent limits based on 50% of the AMI. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The CDBG Program is provided through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The CDBG program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. The CDBG program works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Housing 5-9 Fiscal Devices Fiscal devices, such as revenue bonds, tax increment financing, or tax abatement can be used to help ease the construction and availability of affordable housing in the City of Mendota Heights. Official Controls Official controls and land use regulation can be used to assist in the construction of affordable housing units. Controls and regulations can also be used to simplify the process of expanding local housing options. The following is a list of official controls that the City of Mendota Heights can use to implement its housing goals and policies: Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Building Codes, Design Requirements, lot splits and new home construction, and the actual approval process itself. These regulatory tools impact the type and cost of new housing. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 6-1 6 Economic Development A strong community is not simply about housing and parks but also economic vitality. Mendota Heights seeks to support its community through a diverse mix of commercial offerings, retention and expansion of job-generating businesses, and preserving land for commercial and industrial activities that is adequately buffered from nearby residential areas. Regional Context The Metropolitan Council recommends including an economic development element in local comprehensive plans, to achieve regional goals for economic competitiveness. Providing great locations for businesses to succeed, particularly industries that export products or services beyond our region and bring revenue and jobs into the region, is a significant need. The Metropolitan Council defines two key terms related to this element:  Economic Competitiveness – Examining and strengthening the ability of the region to compete effectively and prosper in the global economy.  Economic Development – Activities that directly aim to retain, attract, and grow businesses that bring wealth into a community or region. While the City focuses its efforts on growing businesses within its own boundary, it is also important to understand the context for that growth within the region and work with regional partners to achieve shared success. Part of the regional context for Mendota Heights is its excellent location within the regional roadway network and its proximity and easy access to MSP International Airport. Both are critical to cities within the regional economic environment. Economic Development topics addressed in this chapter include:  Economic Overview  Redevelopment and Business Development  Education and Workforce  Economic Information, Monitoring, and Strategic Initiatives Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-2 GOALS and POLICIES GOAL 6.1: Promote Economic Development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to business needs. Policies: 6.1.1 Manage growth and land resources to ensure an appropriate mix of developments and, where possible, land to secure new business investments. 6.1.2 Retain the present industrial and commercial base and encourage companies with their expansion needs where appropriate. 6.1.3 Attract quality businesses consistent with the City’s target market to areas available for development. 6.1.4 Explore options for sites and buildings to meet the demand for commercial and industrial development. 6.1.5 Maintain an infrastructure system to meet the needs of current businesses and facilitate future growth. 6.1.6 Address unique development challenges including the reuse and redevelopment of vacant buildings. 6.1.7 Foster private investment and economic activity without compromising community objectives to maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’ environment. GOAL 6.2: Promote Business Attraction, Retention, and Expansion In Mendota Heights. Policies: 6.2.1 Identify target markets and prepare and implement a marketing plan to attract businesses that fit this market. 6.2.2 Work with local businesses and industry to ensure needs for expansion and development are adequately met and maintain an open line of communication with the business sector through the Business Retention and Expansion Program. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-3 6.2.3 Continue to actively provide information and market Mendota Heights to commercial brokers and retail businesses in order to expand retail and service opportunities in the City. 6.2.4 Work cooperatively with local business groups, the school district, and area colleges and universities to provide training for workers, which in turn will help develop skills needed for sustaining productive workforce for existing and future Mendota Heights businesses. GOAL 6.3: Promote Economic Development through Public Financing Tools. Policies: 6.3.1 Periodically review economic development opportunities, such as incentive programs from county, regional, state, and federal agencies. 6.3.2 Review new and innovative economic development incentives proposed by existing and future businesses in Mendota Heights. 6.3.3 Pursue outside funding sources to develop or redevelop land for commercial and industrial uses, such as Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account, Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other applicable grants. GOAL 6.4: Continue to develop community commercial areas that serve the whole community. Policies: 6.4.1 Provide and support commercial areas to supply convenience goods and services for residents of Mendota Heights. 6.4.2 To mitigate conflicts between commercial and residential development, require appropriate land use transitions at the edges of residential neighborhoods through the use of setbacks, screening, buffering and fencing. 6.4.3 Require sidewalk connections along major streets leading up to neighborhood commercial centers and direct connections from the public sidewalk to the storefronts. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-4 GOAL 6.5: Continue to develop business park areas that provide jobs and serve the local and regional economy. Policies: 6.5.1 Provide opportunities for new industrial development and expanded employment opportunities to create livable-wage positions in Mendota Heights and the redevelopment of existing industrial uses to serve existing businesses in the community. 6.5.2 Provide attractive, planned environments as a means to induce employers to locate within the city. 6.5.3 Continue to provide and enforce standards for industrial developments that improve the appearance and character of industrial properties. 6.5.4 Provide high quality public services and infrastructure in all commercial and industrial districts. Economic Overview A 2016 report by Tangible Consulting Services evaluated the market and development conditions in preparation for the comprehensive plan update (see attached Appendix-B). It overviewed the unique demography and economic base that characterizes the city and investigated the market and development factors that will shape future growth in housing, retail, and industrial development. Mendota Heights is a fully developed suburb. While that status limits opportunities for new development, there is a need to stay viable and attractive as the demographics of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area shift. The population is growing, it is aging, and more households will be renters. Choices about purchasing and employment will also evolve. Decisions about housing redevelopment, retail support and location, and office and employment opportunities will influence Mendota Heights’ character as a desirable place to live. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-5 Redevelopment and Business Development Opportunities for business investment will likely include retail, business, office and industrial uses. Retail areas in Mendota Heights benefit from their visibility from the heavily traveled Highway 62 corridor. They also benefit from their distance from other retailers. Their distance from retail centers in the nearby communities of Eagan and West St. Paul gives Mendota Heights’ retailers a corner on neighborhood goods and services for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. These locational characteristics are likely to keep the areas strong into the future. Mendota Heights is more limited in its prospects for destination retail given its competition in this category in surrounding communities. The Mendota Heights Industrial District (MHID) is an important contributor to the tax base compared to nearby competing areas. It is in the South Central industrial submarket of the Twin Cities which encompasses West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Apple Valley, and Burnsville. New industrial development in the South Central Submarket is coming online more slowly than in the metro area overall. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-6 The Mendota Heights Industrial District is attractively positioned for continued business occupancy due to its central location in the region, proximity to the airport, flat topography, diversity of existing tenants, and available utilities. A major challenge is the limited opportunity for on-site facility expansion and very few sites for new industrial development. The office buildings in the Mendota Heights Industrial District and the Centre Pointe Business Park operate in a different competitive environment than the industrial facilities. Vacancy rates tend to be higher in office properties. Office developments typically cluster into specialized areas or recognized districts within the metropolitan area, due to transit availability and proximity to amenities. Office buildings in Mendota Heights’ two districts are 20 years old on average and together offer around 1.4 million square feet of floor area. Market indicators are mixed for office buildings in Mendota Heights – the 2016 vacancy rate is lower than the metro as a whole but rents are also lower. Retail Redevelopment Opportunities While there are limited opportunities for additional retail in Mendota Heights, two exist:  Expanding retail opportunities beyond what is already planned at Mendota Plaza and The Village at Mendota Heights along Highway 62 at Dodd Road.  Better capturing the daytime population at the Mendota Heights Industrial District. Small footprint retail and restaurants could better serve these employees. Industrial Redevelopment Opportunities The Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan makes several recommendations for actions to strengthen the area’s attractiveness to industrial users and invite building renovation and improvement. These include:  Explore ways to communicate, brand, and promote the Industrial District;  Consider city policies toward redevelopment incentives, which will provide a positive impact on future projects or existing business expansion projects; and  Consider investments in broadband and other technology infrastructure as necessary to ensure the area is competitive and serves the business needs. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-7 Office Redevelopment Opportunities To support continued viability of the office areas in Mendota Heights, consideration could be given to actions such as:  Strengthen the office identity and branding of the southern part of the Mendota Heights Industrial District; let the district be part of the broader Eagan/Mendota Heights office district; and  Build the amenity base of the area with the addition of some retail and restaurants, even if the opportunities to do so are limited. Education and Workforce A strong, educated workforce supports local businesses and gives Mendota Heights’ residents an opportunity to work and go to school close to home. If a community has daytime workers, it leads to more retail and restaurant offerings since those businesses can now capture a daytime crowd in addition to evenings and weekends. Additionally, residents who can work close to home reduce transportation costs and gain more time in their day that would have otherwise be spent on long commute. Education Mendota Heights is served by public schools, including Somerset Elementary, Mendota Elementary, Friendly Hills Middle School and Henry Sibley High School, all of which are part of Independent School District 197. The City is also home to St. Thomas Academy and Convent of the Visitation School. There are currently no post-secondary schools located in Mendota Heights, but the city’s central location in the Twin Cities offers many easily accessible post- secondary options. Workforce Mendota Heights has a unique employment profile for a Twin Cities suburb. Businesses in Mendota Heights offer a high number of good-paying jobs and there are almost two jobs in Mendota Heights for every employed person who lives in the city. However, most Mendota Heights workers commute to jobs outside of the city. Of the roughly 5,500 workers who live in Mendota Heights, almost 95% go to work at a location outside the city limits. Only around 300 residents work at a business in Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-8 While some jobs are in neighborhood serving retail businesses and the community’s educational institutions, the great majority of jobs in Mendota Heights are in the industrial facilities and offices in the city’s industrial and office areas. The majority of employment in Mendota Heights is focused in two distinct areas – the Mendota Heights Industrial District and the Centre Point Business Park. Figure 6-2: Office and Industrial Context Source: Mendota Heights Assessor Data Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Economic Development 6-9 Businesses in the Mendota Heights Industrial District (MHID) offer over 7,000 principal jobs. The MHID is home to a mix of industrial and office developments. The Centre Pointe Business Park offers around 800 jobs. The business park was developed in the 1990s and 2000s and is comprised entirely of office buildings. Industrial and office jobs tend to pay a living wage which are higher on average than jobs in some other sectors such as retail stores and services. Economic Information, Monitoring, and Strategic Initiatives Through a partnership with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) and the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), the City makes available a certified “Open to Business” consultant to offer free services to local businesses. The service is free to any Mendota Heights business or resident. Experts help businesses plan by providing information on business start- up or acquisition, creating a business plan, evaluating financials, and analyzing the viability of commercial sites. The West St. Paul Work Force Center is a valuable tool for local job seekers and businesses searching for employees in the surrounding communities. Part of a larger initiative sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), job seekers have access to job search coaching, information for veterans and people who require special services, training programs for in-demand occupations, and a free online job bank. Businesses can get help finding workers, developing a workforce strategy, locating and expanding their business, and data analysis on the local labor market. The City also partners with the Dakota County CDA on strategic initiatives such as:  Investing in transportation;  Coordinating strategic infrastructure and land development;  Linking workforce development and economic development;  Building the capacity to respond to business prospects;  Providing quality workforce housing; and  Strengthening development-related research and policy capacity. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 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. 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. Photo courtesy of Rachel Quick Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-2 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. 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. 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-3 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. 7.1.11 Explore the opportunity to develop a Natural Resource Matching Fund and work with agency partners to achieve the vision & goals of the Natural Resources Management Plan. 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. 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 (see Appendix - D). 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-4 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. 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-5 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. 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 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-6 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, 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-7 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-8 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 Twin Cities Formation of the Eastern St. Croix Moraine g eomorphic 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 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-9 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. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 Topography Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet 50' C ontour Line s Elev ation up to 7 00' Elev ation 700 ' - 7 50' Elev ation 750 ' - 8 00' Elev ation 800 ' - 8 50' Elev ation 850 ' - 9 00' Elev ation 900 ' - 9 50' Elev ation 950 ' - 1 ,000 ' Elev ation abov e 1 ,000 ' City B oundary Land Parce l Line Open Water City of M endota He ights Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2016 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 7-1 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-11 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-12 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-13 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-14 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-15 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 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). More detailed information on the City’s wetlands can be found in the 2018 SWMP, included as Appendix - C 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-17 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. MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 M ISSISSIPPI RIVER W ATER SHEDMANAGEMENT OR GANIZATION EAGAN-INVER GR OV E WATERSHED M ANAGEMENT ORGANIZTION LOWER M INNESOTAWATERSHED DISTRICT Hydrography Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Watershed Boundary Open Water Wetland 100-Year Floodplain 500-Year Floodplain City Boundary City of M endota He ights Source: FEMA, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2018 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 7-3 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-19 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 MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 Vegetation Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Altered/Non-Native Deciduou s Fo rest Altered/Non-Native Deciduou s Woo dland Altered/Non-Native Mixed Woodland Asp en Forest Floodplain Fo rest Lowland Hardwood Fo rest Maple-Basswood Fo rest Oak F orest White Pine-Hardwoo d Fore st Mesic Prairie Open Water Wet land City Bo undary City of M endota He ights Source: Dakota County MLCCS, 2013 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 7-4 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-21 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-22 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 Resolution 2016-01, adopted January 5, 2016 and Pollinator Friendly Native Plantings List – APPENDIX C). 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-23 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 is committed to control or eradicate invasive species on the State Noxious Weed list. Source: City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Natural Resources 7-24 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 April 2019 Natural Resources 7-25 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 2019 Resilience 8-4  Population Vulnerability Assessment & Climate Adaptation Framework A Population Vulnerability Assessment and Climate Adaptation Framework may seek to:  Increase awareness of potential climate impacts and population vulnerabilities;  Increase inclusion of climate adaptation dialogue within City planning and decision making processes;  Strengthen adaptive capacity based on the best available information on regional climate change projections and impacts;  Outline priority risks, vulnerabilities, and possible near-term actions;  Lay the foundation for the development of implementation plans that consider available resources and prioritize the most effective actions from a cost and benefit perspective; and  Prevent or reduce the risks to populations most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. A Population Vulnerability Assessment describes how climate affects the community and region of today, and the changes and impacts expected over the coming decades, and includes identifiers of population vulnerabilities. A Climate Adaptation Framework provides recommended Adaptation Goals as well as a menu of Adaptation Strategies. The City can enact these climate resilience goals and strategies to reduce the impact of climate change, improve public health, and expand the local economy. Across all of these goals, there are four priority areas of action. 1) Assess vulnerabilities - especially among populations most vulnerable to climate change impacts. 2) Train and educate local officials, planners, and community organizations 3) Incorporate climate vulnerabilities into existing planning documents. 4) Develop partnerships to fund on-going research and implementation Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Resilience 8-5 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 Support the efforts of residents and businesses to plant and install new trees in areas with low coverage, areas with high heat vulnerability, or 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 Consider conducting a Population Vulnerability Assessment and Climate Adaptation Framework plan 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. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Resilience 8-6 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. 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. 8.3.5 Review emergency communications procedures to ensure the public is adequately informed in the event of an emergency. Develop a communications plan for the residents to inform them in the event of an emergency. 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 desires to 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 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Resilience 8-7 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 the 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 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 Map 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 April 23, 2019 Source: Metropolitan Council Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Resilience 8-9 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 8.4: Continue to support, plan for, and encourage the use of solar energy as a renewable energy source. Policies: 8.4.1 Encourage the development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems. 8.4.2 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 April 2019 Resilience 8-10 8.4.3 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. 8.4.4 Provide information on grants and incentives for alternative energy. GOAL 8.5: Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independence goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policies: 8.5.1 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. 8.5.2 Explore collaborating regionally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 8.5.3 Begin the application process to the Minnesota Green Step Cities Program. 8.5.4 Encourage alternative fuel stations, electric vehicle charging stations, and supporting infrastructure at commercial sites, office sites, parking ramps and residential sites. GOAL 8.6: Support long-range planning efforts to build the community’s renewable energy capability and maximize the benefits of renewable energy development. Policies: 8.6.1 Regularly review renewable energy policies and programs, including the alternative energy systems ordinance (§12-1D-18). 8.6.2 Support mass transit goals as detailed in Transportation Section 3. 8.6.3 Prioritize infrastructure improvements that support walking and biking as an integral part of the transportation system. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Resilience 8-11 Resilient Food System The well-being of our residents is vital to long-term sustainability and prosperity of our community. 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, Mendota Heights can help improve the quality of life for its residents and leave a legacy of health for future generations. 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 permits residents to keep up to six female chickens for 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.  Beekeeping: The City of Mendota Heights allows for the keeping of honey bees on parcels of 50-acres or more in the R-1 Residential Zone (Sect. 12- 1E-3C). The acreage limitation was established to minimize the impact honey bees may have on native bees by outcompeting them for food resources, and transmitting diseases to native bees.  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. An important consideration is the city support of local food markets by residents.  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 April 2019 Resilience 8-12 GOALS and POLICIES – Resilient Food System GOAL 8.7: 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: 8.7.1 Review and update regulations governing food processing businesses, such as commercial kitchens, flash freezing businesses, and small scale home kitchen businesses. 8.7.2 Support the development of a Mendota Heights Farmers Market as an accessible and reliable source for local, healthy food. 8.7.3 Support innovative local food production solutions such as aquaponics, hydroponics, indoor agriculture, backyard gardening and composting, community gardens, and urban farming, where appropriate. 8.7.4 Encourage edible and pollinator-friendly landscapes on residential properties. 8.7.5 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. GOAL 8.8: Promote responsible waste disposal and study feasibility of improving systems that encourage residents to make responsible decisions. 8.8.1 Promote use of County Organics drop-off station. 8.8.2 Study feasibility of organics pick-up in the years to come as technology advances and is more readily available. 8.8.3 Educate on and support back-yard composting in efforts to reduce waste. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-1 9 Critical Area Pursuant to the Critical Areas Act of 1973 and Executive Orders in the 1970s, the State of Minnesota established the Minnesota River Corridor Critical Area Plan (MRCCA) to protect and preserve the natural, scenic, recreational, and transportation resources of Mississippi River as it travels through the Twin Cities. The MRCCA covers a 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi River through the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, comprising 54,000 acres of land in 30 local jurisdictions from Dayton in the north to Hastings in the south. The purpose of the MRCCA is to:  Protect and preserve the Mississippi River and adjacent lands that the legislature finds to be unique and valuable state and regional resources for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state, region, and nation;  Prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to these state, regional, and national resources;  Preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River and adjacent lands for public use and benefit;  Protect and preserve the Mississippi River as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems; and  Protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi River corridor. The MRCCA is important because of its many significant natural and cultural resources, including scenic views, water, navigation, geology, soils, vegetation, minerals, fauna, cultural resources, and recreational resources. The MRCCA is home to a full range of residential neighborhoods and parks, as well as river- related commerce, industry, and transportation facilities. In 2016, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) revised the rules and regulations governing development within the MRCCA which have been incorporated into this plan and will be implemented in the City’s zoning ordinance after plan approval. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-2 Local communities within the corridor are required to complete a MRCCA plan as a chapter of their Comprehensive Plan. The rules also require local governments to update their MRCCA plans and MRCCA ordinances for consistency with the rules. MRCCA in Mendota Heights The City of Mendota Heights finds that the Mississippi River corridor as it exists within the metropolitan area and the city is a unique and valuable local, state, regional and national resource. The river is an essential element in the local, regional, state and national transportation, sewer and water and recreational system and serves important biological and ecological functions. The prevention and mitigation of irreversible damage to this resource and the preservation and enhancement of its natural, aesthetic, cultural and historic values is in furtherance of the health, safety and general welfare of the city. Generally, the boundaries of the MRCCA in Mendota Heights are situated along the Mississippi River corridor, starting at Fort Snelling State Park / Interstate 494 to the south and extends northwesterly along this natural corridor and Sibley Memorial Highway (State Highway 13) for approximately 5 miles, and to the northerly boundary line of the city at Annapolis Street. The MRCCA boundary fluctuates in width along this corridor from one-tenth (1/10) to one-third (1/3) of mile in width in areas. A majority of this land is used for single-family residential purposes or public park land. FIGURE 9-1 illustrates the general area of MRCCA boundaries in around St. Paul (including Mendota Heights) and FIGURE 9-2 illustrates the general MRCCA boundaries in and around Mendota Heights. CA-UMCA-UMCA-RNCA-ROSCA-UMCA-ROSCA-ROSCA-UMCA-ROSCA-SRCA-SRCA-RNCA-RNCA-RTCCA-RNCA-RNCA-RNCA-SRCA-RTCCA-UCCA-RTCCA-RNSaint PaulMendota HeightsNewportSouth Saint PaulLilydaleMendotaMaplewoodInver Grove HeightsMississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) District Map - St. PaulMinnesota Rules, part 6106.0100´00.510.25MilesCA-RN: River NeighborhoodCA-SR: Separated from RiverCA-UM: Urban MixedCA-UC: Urban CoreMRCCA Districts(Effective January 4, 2017)CA-ROS: Rural & Open SpaceCA-RTC: River Towns & CrossingsWaterMunicipal BoundariesMRCCA BoundaryTextFIGURE 9-1March 26, 2019 Source: Metropolitan Council MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 Mississippi RIver Critical Area District Map City of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet MRCC A D ISTRICTS CA-ROS Rural & Open Space CA-RN River Neighborhood CA-SR Separated from River CA-RTC River Towns & Crossing City boundary Open Water Ap ril 23, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGUR E 9-2 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-5 MRCCA DISTRICTS The Minnesota Rules define six districts within the overall MRCCA designation. These districts are characterized by the various natural and built features of the river corridor. Most standards and requirements outlined in the rules apply uniformly throughout the corridor. However, certain requirements such as structure setbacks, bluff standards, building height limits, additional subdivision standards, and the amount of open space required for development vary by district. There are three (3) MRCCA districts present in Mendota Heights. 1. Rural and Open Space District (CA-ROS): Rural and Open Space District (CA-ROS): The CA-ROS district is characterized by rural low density development patterns and land uses, and includes land that is riparian or visible from the river, as well as large, undeveloped tracts of high ecological value, floodplain, and undeveloped islands. Many primary conservation areas exist in this district. The “rural and open space” district has the lowest level of development of all of the proposed districts within the MRCCA. To preserve the rural and open space characteristics of this district and its unique recreational value, a structure height of 35-feet is proposed for this district. This district includes agricultural and rural residential areas, parkland and natural areas adjacent to the river. This height is intended to keep structures at or below the level of the tree line and is consistent with height restrictions in most of the local zoning standards that apply in these areas The CA-ROS district must be managed to sustain and restore the rural and natural character of the corridor, and to protect and enhance existing habitat, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural and historic areas. In Mendota Heights, the CA-ROS district encompasses primarily the Fort Snelling State Park area (including Gun Club Lake) and a small area of Lilydale/Harriet Island/Cherokee Park property located on the north side of Hwy. 13, between Wachtler Avenue and Sylvandale Road. These districts comprise of 950 acres of vacant, open and natural land areas. 2. River Neighborhood District (CA-RN): River Neighborhood District (CA-RN): The CA-RN district is characterized by residential neighborhoods that are riparian or readily visible from the river or that abut riparian parkland. Characterized by its physical and visual distance from the Mississippi River. The district includes land separated from the river by distance, topography, development, or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the Mississippi River. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-6 The DNR Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) outlines height limits for the CA-RN District, which in this case is a 35-foot height limit for all residential “river neighborhood” districts. The height limit is intended to allow a typical two- story single-family dwelling without breaking the top of the tree line. This height restriction is consistent with existing structure heights in residentially zoned neighborhoods and height restrictions in most of the local zoning standards that apply in these areas. The City of Mendota Heights intends to preserve and maintain a 25-foot height (maximum) standard for all single-family dwellings as currently provided for in the city’s Zoning Ordinance, or the adopted height standards for any underlying zoning district inside the CA-RN district. The CA-RN district must be managed to maintain the character of the river corridor within the context of existing residential development, and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated stormwater into the river and enhancing shoreline habitat are priorities in this district. In Mendota Heights, the CA-RN district encompasses approximately 220 acres of area (to be verified in GIS). 3. Separated from River District (CA-SR) Separated from River District (CA-SR): This district includes non-riparian land that is separated from the Mississippi River by distance, development, or transportation infrastructure. Because of this separation, underlying zoning standards govern height, with the stipulation that structure height must be compatible with the existing tree line, where present, and surrounding development. The DNR Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) further describes height restrictions for the CA-SR District. The “separated from river” district includes non-riparian land that is separated from the Mississippi River by distance, development, or transportation infrastructure. Because of this separation, underlying zoning standards govern height, with the stipulation that structure height must be compatible with the existing tree line, where present, and surrounding development. The City of Mendota Heights intends to preserve and maintain a 25-foot height (maximum) standard for all single-family dwellings as currently provided for in the city’s Zoning Ordinance, or the adopted height standards for any underlying zoning district inside the CA-SR district. The CA-SR district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and flow of untreated storm water into the Mississippi River are priorities in the district . In Mendota Heights, this district covers the greatest acreages of the two districts and comprises of 325 acres (to be verified in GIS). Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-7 MRCCA with Future Land Use and Zoning The planned land uses within the MRCCA districts in Mendota Heights are a mix of existing and planned low-density residential area; small segments of existing and planned medium-density residential areas; a small area of limited business area; and a large public recreation/open space area in and around Fort Snelling Park/Gun Club Lake. As part of their comprehensive planning process, the City of Mendota Heights has developed a 2040 Planned Future Land Use Map. The map illustrates planned land uses including single and multi-family residential, commercial, public and open space area. Most of the city area inside the MRCCA boundary is predominantly developed with single-family housing, though there are small commercial and mixed-use areas along the Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) and near the Highway 13/I-35E interchange. Most of the Park and Open Space areas include the Fort Snelling State Park and Lilydale/Harriet Island Regional Park, and other lands along the Mississippi River. These planned future land uses correspond appropriately to the districts that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed. Future land uses in each of these districts are listed below. Rural and Open Space District CA-ROS: Future land uses include parks and open spaces. River Neighborhood District CA-RN: Future land uses include single- family, multi-family, and parks and open spaces. Separated from River District CA-SR: There are a large number of parcels in the MRCCA district with planned future land uses of single-family and a very limited number of multi-family residential uses. A map illustrating the 2040 Future Land Uses along with an overlay mapping of all applicable MRCCA districts is illustrated on the MRCC Boundary with 2040 Future Land Use Map – Figure 9-3 (below). MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 MRCCA Boundary with 2040 Future Land Use Map City of M endota He ights µ0 3,000 6,000 Feet Mississippi River Critical Are a Layer RR - Ru ra l Residential LR - Low Den sity Residential MR - Medium De nsity 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 Wa ter City boundary Ap ril 23, 2019 Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2017 FIGUR E 9-3 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-9 As an implementation step of this Plan, the City will fully evaluate its preferred dimensional requirements for the property for any new developments and redevelopment of lands, and will work with the DNR on proper steps to incorporate flexibility within the MRCCA ordinance to address this particular area. Most of the properties located in this MRCCA boundary are planned and guided for low-density residential uses, which are primarily developed with single-family uses. The City will work with property owners through the MRCCA ordinance preparation process to understand existing conditions of the property within the CA-RN and CA-SR districts, and identify any potential conflicts with the existing standards and how to address non-conforming uses within the district. Table 9-1. Category Comparisons MRCCA District Future Land Use Map Categories Existing Land Uses CA-RN River Neighborhood District  Low Density Residential  Single Family Residential  Park / Open Space CA-SR Separated from River District  Low Density Residential  Medium Density Residential  Limited Business (Commercial)  Rights-of-way  Single Family Residential  Medium Density Residential  Park, Recreational or Preserve  Rights of way GOALS and POLICIES GOAL 9.1: Guide land use and development and redevelopment activities consistent with the management purpose of each district. Policies: 9.1.1 Adopt a new MRCCA ordinance overlay district compliant with the goals and policies of the MRCCA plan, and with Minnesota Rules, part 6106.0070, Subp. 5 - Content of Ordinances; and work with the Minnesota DNR on flexibility with the ordinance as noted in previous sections of this Plan. 9.1.2 Update zoning map to reflect new MRCCA districts. 9.1.3 Ensure that information on the new MRCCA districts and zoning requirements is readily available to property owners to help them understand which ordinance requirements - such as setbacks and height requirements - apply to their property for project planning and permitting. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-10 9.1.4 Work with the DNR on height standards to determine appropriate height restrictions, particularly on redevelopment areas with existing site constraints. PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS (PCA) General Overview As the DNR’s Statement of Needs and Reasonableness (SONAR) defines it, the term “primary conservation areas” (PCAs) addresses the key natural and cultural resources and features managed by MRCCA rules. These features are given priority consideration for protection with regard to proposed land development, subdivision, and related activity. PCAs include Shore Impact Zones (SIZ), Bluff Impact Zones (BIZ), floodplains, wetlands, gorges, areas of confluence with tributaries, natural drainage routes, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural and historic properties, significant existing vegetative stands, tree canopies and “other resources” identified in local government MRCCA plans. Shore Impact Zone Shore Impact Zones (SIZs) apply to the Mississippi and all of its backwaters, as well as to its four key tributaries, including the Crow, Rum, Minnesota, and Vermillion rivers. They include land along the river’s edge deemed to be environmentally sensitive and in need of special protection from development and vegetation removal. A typical shore impact zone (SIZ) is a “buffer” area that is required between the water’s edge and the area where development is permitted (see Figure 9-4 right); and is the focus of many of the MRCCA rule standards for land alteration and vegetation management. Mendota Height’s zoning map and the related Critical Corridor Area map will provide a detailed delineation of the boundary of the MRCCA, however, there are Figure 9-4. Shoreland Impact Diagram (Typical) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-11 no additional shore impact zones or shoreland regulations identified or included in the City’s zoning ordinance or this plan. The only area of “shoreland” is along the Fort Snelling State Park/Gun Club Lake region located within the city, of which no development has or will take place. Nevertheless, recognizing a shore impact zone would highlight the importance of protecting the river shore from development and vegetative removal, maintaining a buffer area between the river banks and urban development. Adding ordinance requirements for the shore impact zone should be considered by the City for inclusion in the zoning ordinance update. Floodplains & Wetlands Although the City of Mendota Heights is located in such close proximity to the Mississippi River and the Minnesota River, there is no floodway within the City boundaries. As the Floodplain map portrays, there is floodway on both sides of the Mississippi River and Minnesota River, but within the cities of St. Paul, Lilydale, Mendota, and Eagan. The floodway basically follows the northwest boundary of the City. Refer to the MRCCA Wetlands & Floodplains Map – FIGURE 9-5 and FEMA Floodplain Map – FIGURE 9-6. There are a number of known wetlands identified within the MRCCA boundary in Mendota Heights. These wetlands and water features have been identified and mapped, and are made part of the city’s Surface Water Management Plan, which is made part of Chapter 7 – Natural Resources – FIGURE 7-2. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-12 FIGURE 9-5. MRCCA Floodplains & Wetlands Map MENDOTA LILYD ALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERM IN N ESO TA R IV ER ROGERS LAKE L AKE AUGUST AL A K E LE 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 FEMA Floodplains Mapµ0 3,000 6,000 Feet 100-Year Floodplain 500-Year Floodplain Open Water City Boundary City of M endota He ights Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, 2018 Ap ril 23, 2019FIGURE 9-6 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-14 Natural Drainage Ways Natural drainage ways are linear depressions that collect and drain surface water. They may be permanently or temporarily inundated. There are a few identified natural drainage routes that flow from some of the city’s own water features and eventually towards the Mississippi River. The city’s existing topography acts provides a natural northward flow pattern for most of these waterways, and the proximity of Interstate 494 to the south acts as a significant barrier to natural drainage to the south or into adjacent communities. See MRCCA – Major Natural Drainage Routes Map – FIGURE 9-7 (below). FIGURE 9-7. MRCCA Natural Drainage Ways Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-15 Bluffs & Bluff Impact Zones According to Minnesota Rules 6106.0050, subp. 10, a “bluff” is defined as a natural topographic feature having either of the following characteristics: A. a slope that rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level or toe of the slope to the top of the slope; and the grade of the slope from the ordinary high water level or toe of the slope to the top of the slope averages 18 percent or greater, measured over a horizontal distance of 25 feet; or B. a natural escarpment or cliff with a slope that rises at least 10 feet above the ordinary high water level or toe of the slope to the top of the slope with an average slope of 100% or greater. The development and land use standards tied to the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ). In the MRCCA, rules are more restrictive than those in the shoreland rules. They prohibit the placement of structures, land alteration, vegetation clearing, stormwater management facilities, and most construction activities in the BIZ. However, some limited exceptions to these restrictions, such as for public utilities and recreational access to the river, are allowed. This greater degree of protection is necessitated by development pressures on bluffs throughout the river corridor and the susceptibility of these features to erosion and slope failure. Mendota Heights has several areas or narrow strips of land identified as a BIZ within the MRCCA boundary. See MRCCA – Bluff Impact Zones Map – FIGURE 9-8. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-16 FIGURE 9-8. MRCCA – Bluff Impact Zones Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-17 Native Plant Communities & Significant Existing Vegetative Stands Native plant communities are plant communities that have been identified as part of the Minnesota biological survey. They represent the highest quality native plant communities remaining in the MRCCA. Significant vegetative stands are plant communities identified by the National Park Service that are largely intact, connected and contain a sufficient representation of the original native plant community. Much of this vegetation contributes to the scenic value of the MRCCA. Mendota Heights has one large area of native plant communities within the city and its MRCCA boundaries, which primarily encompasses Fort Snelling Park/Gun Club Lake reserve. There are also a number of significant [existing] vegetative stands in the MRCCA. Refer to MRCCA – Native Plant Communities and Significant Existing Vegetative Stands Map – FIGURE 9-9. The corridor generally exhibits a mostly wooded and natural vegetative character, with a variety of other vegetative environments like prairie, shrubs and wetlands. These wooded areas are mostly located within or near the Fort Snelling/Gun Club lake area, and in smaller developed and undeveloped area inside the MRCCA boundary. Tree species include oaks, maples, cottonwood, elms, and Linden (basswood) trees along with a wide variety of evergreen trees such as white pine, black hill spruce, blue spruce and others. Unfortunately, the corridor is also impacted by some invasive species, such Siberian elms, black locusts, and buckthorn. Regardless of these desired and invasive plants, these wooded and vegetative areas systematically provide limited animal habitat areas, and offer natural erosion control measures, especially those located on slopes and bluffs. Previous and current efforts to prevent and control elm and oak tree diseases have been generally effective in preserving these forested resources. Throughout the course of the years, the city has carefully regulated all new development and redevelopment sites within the Mississippi Critical Corridor Area, and the regulations have controlled the loss of woodland and other significant vegetation on bluff areas and slopes whenever land development was requested. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-18 FIGURE 9-9. MRCCA Native Plant Communities & Vegetation Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-19 Cultural & Historic Properties There are no known cultural or historic properties within the MRCCA of Mendota Heights. The City of Mendota Heights does not have an official control for historic preservation. As opportunities for preservation are discovered, the City will handle them on a case-by-case basis, drawing from the resources such as the Minnesota Historical Society, Dakota County, and community/non-profit organizations. According to the Minnesota Historical Society, the following property is the only property listed on the National Register of Historic Places:  Fort Snelling – Mendota Bridge – Is a steel-reinforced, continuous-arch concrete bridge located on Minnesota Highway 55 over the Minnesota River. It was built in 1925-26, according to the plans prepared by Walter Wheeler and C.A.P. Turner. The bridge was reconstructed between 1992 and 1994, reflecting the original design.  St. Peter’s Church – This church complex includes one of the oldest church buildings used by Minnesota’s early settlers of the Mendota area, and is still in use today. Growth of the congregation has resulted in the addition of several other buildings on the site, although the historic building remains in use.  Pilot Knob – Currently restored and protected to its pre-development condition, the Pilot Knob area, just off of the east end of the Mendota Bridge, has special historical meaning through a wide spectrum of Minnesota history. The City and other public agencies have acquired much of the property and are adding interpretive facilities to the site as opportunity permits Public River Corridor Views Public river corridor views (PRCVs) are views toward the river from public parkland, historic properties, and public overlooks, as well as views toward bluffs from the ordinary high water level of the opposite shore, as seen during the summer months. PRCVs are deemed highly valued by the community and are worth protecting because of the aesthetic value they bring to the MRCCA. Views Toward the River from Public Places The existing tree coverage and topography in Mendota Heights limits some views toward the Mississippi River from public places and in certain private properties within the MRCCA boundary. One particular public view that exists is located near the intersection of Sibley Memorial Highway and State Highway 13. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-20 The view is valuable to Mendota Heights because it includes both a view of the Mississippi River corridor, Gun Club Lake preserve and part of the City of St. Paul skyline. Another important view is from 1) Picnic Island looking east across the Minnesota River towards the cities of Mendota and Mendota Heights and, 2) Views from Picnic Island looking north towards Pike Island and the Mississippi River bluffs along Shepard Rd. in St. Paul. Hwy 55/62 Bridge – View from Picnic Island Source: City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-21 GOALS and POLICIES - PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS GOAL 9.2: Protect PCAs and minimize impact to PCAs from public and private development and land use activities (landscape maintenance, river use, walking/hiking, etc.). Policies: 9.2.1 Adopt a new MRCCA ordinance overlay district compliant with the goals and policies of the MRCCA plan, and with Minnesota Rules, part 6106.0070, Subp. 5 - Content of Ordinances; and work with the Minnesota DNR on flexibility with the ordinance as noted in previous sections of this Plan. 9.2.2 Support mitigation of impacts to PCAs through, subdivisions/PUDs, variances, CUPs, and other permits. 9.2.3 Prioritize the restoration and protection of Native Plant Communities and natural vegetation in riparian areas a high priority during development. 9.2.4 Support alternative design standards that protect the Local Government Units (LGU’s) identified PCAs, such as conservation design, transfer of development density, or other zoning and site design techniques that achieve protection or restoration of primary conservation areas 9.2.5 Protect and prioritize through permanent protection measures, such as public acquisition, conservation easement, deed restrictions, etc., which protect PCAs in the corridor. PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREA - Implementation Actions  Ensure that information on the location of PCAs is readily available to property owners to understand how PCA-relevant ordinance requirements, such as vegetation management and land alteration permits, apply to their property for project planning and permitting.  Establish procedures and criteria for processing applications with potential impacts to PCAs, including: o Identifying the information that must be submitted and how it will be evaluated, o Determining appropriate mitigation procedures/methods for variances and CUPs; and Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-22 o Establishing evaluation criteria for protecting PCAs when a development site contains multiple types of PCAs and the total area of PCAs exceed the required set aside percentages.  Developing administrative procedures for integrating DNR and local permitting of riprap, retaining walls and other hard armoring. (Note: Application procedures are a required element of MRCCA ordinance review and approvals.) PRIORITIES FOR RESTORATION General Overview Natural vegetation is critical to the health of the ecosystem along the Mississippi River corridor, providing important habitat for area wildlife and natural function of plant and waterway systems. The Minnesota DNR has identified a number of high priority areas for restoration of natural vegetation, not only within the established Critical Corridor Area, but in other areas throughout the city, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and drainage ways. These areas were determined based on identifying existing significant stands of vegetation, areas of erosion, and areas of needed stabilization. MRCCA requires communities identify areas that are priorities for restoration due to poor quality natural vegetation or bank erosion issues. Much of the critical corridor area is wooded and vegetated, with a large expanse of open space and park or vegetated residential land. If development or redevelopment occurs within MRCCA, protection of existing vegetation or restoration will be required in accordance with MRCCA ordinance requirements. Mapping for Mendota Heights was completed by MnDNR and Metropolitan Council. Refer to Vegetation Restoration Priorities Map – FIGURE 9-10. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-23 FIGURE 9-10. MRCCA Vegetation Restoration Priorities Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-24 GOALS and POLICIES - Restoration Goal 9.3: Protect native and existing vegetation during the development process and require restoration if any is removed by development. Priorities for restoration shall include stabilization of erodible soils, riparian buffers and bluffs or steep slopes visible from the river. Policies: 9.3.1 Seek opportunities to restore vegetation to protect and enhance PRCVs identified in this plan. 9.3.2 Seek opportunities to restore vegetation in restoration priority areas identified in this plan through the CUP, variance, vegetation permit and subdivision/PUD processes. 9.3.3 Sustain and enhance ecological functions (habitat value) during vegetation restorations. 9.3.4 Evaluate proposed development sites for erosion prevention and bank and slope stabilization issues and require restoration as part of the development process. Restoration Implementation Actions  Ensure that information on the location of natural veg etation restoration priorities is readily available to property owners to understand how relevant ordinance requirements apply to their property for project planning and permitting.  Establish a vegetation permitting process that includes permit review procedures to ensure consideration of restoration priorities identified in this plan in permit issuance, as well as standard conditions requiring vegetation restoration for those priority areas. (Note: vegetation permitting process is a required element of MRCCA ordinance.)  Establish process for evaluating priorities for natural vegetation restoration, erosion prevention and bank and slope stabilization, or other restoration priorities identified in this plan in CUP, variances and subdivision/PUD processes. (Note: A process for evaluating priorities is a required element of MRCCA ordinance review and approval.) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-25 SURFACE WATER USES Mendota Heights has very little surface water use in the MRCCA other than recreational motorboats and small paddle crafts such as canoes and kayaks. There are no public boat launches or marinas in Mendota Heights; however there is a small private marina/boat dock associated with the Pool and Yacht Club in the City of Lilydale (located just east of the I-35E bridge crossing), and which some residents of Mendota Heights belong and enjoy. Source: Google Maps There is limited barge traffic that passes Mendota Heights, heading west on the Minnesota River to Ports Bunge and Cargill in Savage, and a loading facility in Burnsville just west of I-35W.. No additional policies or implementations actions are applicable for surface water use for MRCCA in the City of Mendota Heights. WATER-ORIENTED USES General Overview Water-oriented uses within the Mississippi River Corridor are very limited within Mendota Heights. Most of the land adjacent to the river is primarily in the Gun Club Lake and Fort Snelling State Park preserve area on the far west edge of the community. There are no proposed new water-oriented uses for the City in the 2040 planning period. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-26 OPEN SPACE & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES General Overview Open space and recreational facilities, such as parks, trails, scenic overlooks, natural areas, and wildlife areas add to the quality of a community. One purpose of a MRCCA plan is to promote the protection, creation, and maintenance of these features and locations in each community along the metropolitan Mississippi River corridor. Fort Snelling State Park Fort Snelling State Park, with 611 of its 2,642 acres located in the City, is considered the largest in Mendota Heights. This park provides outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the public and is considered part of the regional recreational open space system. Fort Snelling State Park is a recreational state park offering swimming, large group and family picnic grounds, a boat launch, interpretive center and historical areas, trails, and scenic overlooks. A passive recreation area located within the boundaries of Mendota Heights, but situated across the Minnesota River is an area known as Picnic Island. This 75- acre tract of land appears to have been created or carved out by an “oxbow lake” feature in the Minnesota River corridor, and is located underneath the Highway 62/55 Bridge. The site is accessed from Hwy. 5 in St. Paul, off the Post Road/Snelling Lake Road exit ramp. Most of the park’s active facilities are located on the Bloomington side of the River, requiring most Mendota Heights residents to drive or bike across the I-494, I-35E and Mendota bridges. The Mendota Heights portion of the park is left primarily as a natural area as it contains extensive floodplain marsh habitat. Facilities located in Mendota Heights support less intensive uses, such as biking, hiking, cross country skiing, and fishing. The Sibley and Faribault historic sites in the City of Mendota Heights are also located on the Mendota Heights side of the River. Source: Google Maps Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Critical Area (MRCCA) 9-27 Harriet Island-Lilydale Regional Park Located just north of Mendota Heights, this park is managed by the City of St. Paul. The lower portion of the park in the City of Lilydale is planned to remain passive open space. A beach and concessions area are planned, but eventual development is highly unlikely due to wetland issues. The area also has a ramp for boat access to the River. A trail through the park, separate from the roadway, is planned to link St. Paul to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-1 10 Implementation The following chapter outlines an implementation methodology for the Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan and offers tools to assist the public and private sectors in the realization of the community vision. While many implementation strategies will be the responsibility of the City of Mendota Heights or other public- sector partners, many of the directives will take a cooperative effort over time from business owners, property owners, and private developers. The tables on the following pages outline by chapter how the recommendations in this Plan can begin to be realized, defining the implementing body and timeframe for implementation. Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Summary Chapter 1 serves as the introduction of the Comprehensive Plan, identifying existing conditions, history and development, a vision and mission, and key issues of the Plan. The Chapter also includes a natural resource inventory and demographic trends in the city. The vision and mission serve as the framework for the plan and are integrated throughout each of the content areas (chapters 2 through 9). The vision and mission are high-level, aspirational goals for Mendota Heights, to be implemented through the Plan’s goals and policies. Goals and Policies to be implemented  No goals in this chapter, no implementation steps are required Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-2 CHAPTER 2: LAND USE Summary Chapter 2 provides an overview of existing and planned future land use in Mendota Heights. Because it is the most wide-reaching of any of the plan chapters, the land use goals and policies address numerous topics including land use, zoning, community character, redevelopment, and the impacts of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. At a basic level, State law requires zoning to reflect a City’s future land use plan. There are numerous implementation strategies that were developed for this chapter, reflecting the various goals, policies, and land use plans. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 2.1: The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights.  Implementation Goal 2.2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community.  Implementation Goal 2.3: Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas.  Implementation Goal 2.4: Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community. Other implementation steps  Future Land Use Map – implement the future land use plan by updating the existing zoning map to reflect new land use changes. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-3 LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION GOALS TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights Goal 2.1 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing High Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community Goal 2.2 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing High Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. Goal 2.3 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing Medium Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community. Goal 2.4 City Staff; Airport Relations Commission Ongoing Medium Implement the future land use plan by updating the existing zoning map to reflect new land use changes City Staff, Planning Commission Short-term (1 year) High Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-4 CHAPTER 3: TRANSPORTATION Summary Chapter 3: Transportation addresses all aspects of the transportation system including roadways, rail, freight, and transit. The goals and policies in this section emphasize an efficient multi-modal system that works for residents, employees and visitors to Mendota Heights. Many public entities have authority over transportation elements in the city, so all parties will need to work in partnership to implement the transportation recommendations. From the public side, the primary implementation tool for infrastructure improvements is the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Federal, State, and local grants may also be a possibility should an opportunity for funding become available. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 3.1: Provide a safe, high quality, and cost effective multi-modal transportation system.  Implementation Goal 3.2: Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights.  Implementation Goal 3.3: Reduce negative airport impacts in Mendota Heights; and Work diligently with all noise issues and agencies to decrease aircraft noise in volume and to decrease the area of noise impacts. Other implementation steps  Implement near-term roadway projects as identified in the City’s CIP and Comprehensive Plan.  Implement the future transportation network as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the future roadway and transit facility maps. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-5 TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Provide a safe, high quality, and cost effective multi-modal transportation system Goal 3.1 City Staff Ongoing Medium Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights. Goal 3.2 City Staff, Planning Commission; Metro Transit Ongoing Medium Reduce negative airport impacts in Mendota Heights; and Work diligently with all noise issues and agencies to decrease aircraft noise in volume and to decrease the area of noise impacts. Goal 3.3 City Staff; Airport Relations Commission Long-term (10+ years) Medium Implement near-term roadway projects as identified in the City’s CIP and Comprehensive Plan. City Staff; City Council Medium- term (5 years) High Implement the future transportation network as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the future roadway and transit facility maps. City Staff; Planning Commission Long-term (10+ years) Medium Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-6 CHAPTER 4: PARKS AND TRAILS Summary The parks and trails chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses existing parks, natural areas, and trails within the City of Mendota Heights. The city is also home to three golf courses which serve local and regional visitors. Goals and policies in this chapter emphasize creating an integrated network of park facilities and connecting to amenities, such as the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers and regional park and trail systems. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 4.1: Provide a park system that is safe, accessible, and equitable in its offerings to all Mendota Heights’ residents and visitors.  Implementation Goal 4.2: Provide a park system that assures high quality facilities, buildings, grounds, trails, amenities, and natural settings.  Implementation Goal 4.3: Use the park system as a means to enhance and sustain the environment of each neighborhood and the city as a whole.  Implementation Goal 4.4: Cooperate with Dakota County and surrounding communities in park and recreation facilities and programming. Other implementation steps  Implement short-term park and trail improvements and planning projects as outlined in the City’s CIP and Comprehensive Plan.  Implement the future trails network as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the bicycle facilities map. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-7 PARKS & TRAILS IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Provide a park system that is safe, accessible, and equitable in its offerings to all Mendota Heights’ residents and visitors. Goal 4.1 City Staff, Parks Commission Short-term for programming (1 year) and ongoing for facilities High Provide a park system that assures high quality facilities, buildings, grounds, trails, amenities, and natural settings. Goal 4.2 City Staff, Parks Commission Ongoing High Use the park system as a means to enhance and sustain the environment of each neighborhood and the city as a whole. Goal 4.3 City Staff, Parks Commission Ongoing Medium Cooperate with Dakota County and surrounding communities in park and recreation facilities and programming. Goal 4.4 City Staff Ongoing Medium Implement short-term park and trail improvements and planning projects as outlined in the City’s CIP and Comprehensive Plan. City Staff, Parks Commission Long-term (10+ years) Medium Implement the future parks and trails network as designated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the bicycle facilities map. City Staff, Parks Commission Long-term (10+ years) Medium Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-8 CHAPTER 5: HOUSING Summary The housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan addresses existing and future housing needs for residents of Mendota Heights. In addition to goals and policies developed by the community, the Metropolitan Council has placed affordable housing requirements on the City which will need to be met by 2040. The goals and policies in this chapter address preserving existing housing stock while providing diverse stock for young homeowners, seniors, and move-up housing. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 5.1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.  Implementation Goal 5.2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Other implementation steps  Explore ways to encourage 23 new affordable housing units by 2040, as per requirements from the Metropolitan Council.  Seek funding opportunities to develop an affordable and diverse housing stock including funds from the Livable Communities Act, Local Housing Initiative Account, or Tax Base Revitalization Account. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-9 HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units. Goal 5.1 City Staff Ongoing High Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Goal 5.2 City Staff Ongoing Medium Explore ways to encourage 23 affordable housing units by 2040, as per requirements from the Metropolitan Council City Staff, Dakota County CDA Staff; Metropolitan Council Staff Ongoing, long-term (10+ years) Low Seek funding opportunities to develop an affordable and diverse housing stock including funds from the Livable Communities Act, Local Housing Initiative Account, or Tax Base Revitalization Account. City Staff, Metropolitan Council Staff Ongoing Low Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-10 CHAPTER 6: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Summary Chapter 6: Economic Development summarizes existing market conditions in Mendota Heights, identifies redevelopment areas in the city, and identifies roles that the City can take to attract new businesses to the community. Goals and policies in this chapter emphasize business attraction and retention and commercial/business park areas in the community. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 6.1: Promote Economic Development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to business needs.  Implementation Goal 6.2: Promote Business Attraction, Retention, and Expansion In Mendota Heights.  Implementation Goal 6.3: Promote Economic Development through Public Financing Tools.  Implementation Goal 6.4: Continue to develop community commercial areas that serve the whole community.  Implementation Goal 6.5: Continue to develop business park areas that provide jobs and serve the local and regional economy. Other implementation steps  Implement recommendations identified in the existing Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan, including branding, redevelopment incentives, and investments in broadband.  Focus job-based redevelopment and commercial investment in the existing Mendota Heights Industrial District. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-11 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Promote Economic Development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to business needs. Goal 6.1 City Staff Ongoing Medium Promote Business Attraction, Retention, and Expansion In Mendota Heights. Goal 6.2 City Staff Medium- term (5 years) High Promote Economic Development through Public Financing Tools. Goal 6.3 City Staff, Planning Commission Short-term (1 year) High Continue to develop community commercial areas that serve the whole community. Goal 6.4 City Staff, Planning Commission Medium- term (5 years) Medium Continue to develop business park areas that provide jobs and serve the local and regional economy. Goal 6.5 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing Low Implement recommendations identified in the existing Mendota Heights Industrial District Redevelopment Plan, including branding, redevelopment incentives, and investments in broadband. City Staff Ongoing Medium Focus job-based redevelopment and commercial investment in the existing Mendota Heights Industrial District. City Staff Ongoing Medium Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-12 CHAPTER 7: NATURAL RESOURCES Summary Natural resource protection is critical for the City of Mendota Heights. Chapter 7: Natural Resources Plan identifies critical water, open space, and recreational areas in the community and issues these areas face. Goals and policies in this chapter emphasize protecting and enhancing existing natural areas, providing habitat to support biodiversity and developing a full natural resource plan for the City. Other goal areas in the chapter address public education and reducing air, noise, and light pollution. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 7.1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management Plan for City-wide natural areas and natural resources.  Implementation 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.  Implementation Goal 7.3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the City’s water resources with emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management.  Implementation 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.  Implementation 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.  Improve and implement the City’s Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-13 NATURAL RESOURCES IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management Plan for City- wide natural areas and natural resources. Goal 7.1 City Staff, Natural Resources Committee, City Council Medium- term (5 years) High 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. Goal 7.2 City Staff, Natural Resources Committee, City Council Short-term (1-year) High Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the City’s water resources with emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management. Goal 7.3 City Staff Ongoing High 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. Goal 7.4 City Staff Ongoing Medium Address issues that impact air quality, light pollution, and noise pollution, such as vehicle emissions, traffic flow, air traffic, lighting, and street design. Goal 7.5 City Staff, Planning Commission, Natural Resources Committee Short-term (1-year) Medium Implement a formal Natural Resources Management and Sustainability Commission to aid in the execution of the strategic Natural Resources Plan. City Staff, City Council Short-term (1-year) High Improve and implement the City’s Surface Water Management Plan City Staff Medium- term (5 years) High Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-14 CHAPTER 8: RESILIENCE Summary Chapter 8: Resilience addresses the unique challenges Mendota Heights will face in the future regarding climate change. Although Resilience is not a required element for the 2040 comprehensive plans in the region, 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. Goals and policies in this chapter address infrastructure, public health, and health and safety during extreme weather events. Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 8.1: Protect and maintain infrastructure and constructed systems that provide critical services.  Implementation Goal 8.2: Proactively maintain public health and safety during extreme weather and climate-related and other unforeseen events.  Implementation Goal 8.3: Promote social connectedness and build an engaged community of resilience.  Implementation Goal 8.4: Continue to support, plan for, and encourage the use of solar energy as a renewable energy source.  Implementation Goal 8.5: Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independence goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Implementation Goal 8.6: Support long-range planning efforts to build the community’s renewable energy capability and maximize the benefits of renewable energy development.  Implementation Goal 8.7: 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.  Implementation Goal 8.8: Promote responsible waste disposal and study feasibility of improving systems that encourage residents to make responsible decisions. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-15 RESILIENCE IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Protect and maintain infrastructure and constructed systems that provide critical services Goal 8.1 City Staff Ongoing Medium Proactively maintain public health and safety during extreme weather and climate-related and other unforeseen events Goal 8.2 City Staff, City Council Medium- term (5 years) High Promote social connectedness and build an engaged community of resilience. Goal 8.3 City Staff Ongoing Medium Continue to support, plan for, and encourage the use of solar energy as a renewable energy source. Goal 8.4 City Staff Medium- term (5 years) Medium Adopt climate mitigation and/or energy independence goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Goal 8.5 City Staff, Planning Commission Short-term (1-year) High Support long-range planning efforts to build the community’s renewable energy capability and maximize the benefits of renewable energy development. Goal 8.6 City Staff Medium- term (5 years) Medium 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. Goal 8.7 City Staff, Planning Commission Short-term (1-year) High Promote responsible waste disposal and study feasibility of improving systems that encourage residents to make responsible decisions. Goal 8.8 City Staff, Planning Commission Short-term (1-year) High Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-16 CHAPTER 9: CRITICAL AREA Summary The Critical Area Plan is a required plan for communities located along the 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities. The Metropolitan Council and Department of Natural Resources have identified numerous issues that must be addressed in the Critical Area Plan, each with their own goals and policies. These required issues include:  Critical Area Districts  Primary Conservation Areas  Restoration Goals and Policies to be implemented  Implementation Goal 9.1: Guide land use and development and redevelopment activities consistent with the management purpose of each district.  Implementation Goal 9.2: Protect Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) and minimize impact to PCAs from public and private development and land use activities (landscape maintenance, river use, walking/hiking, etc.).  Implementation Goal 9.3: Protect native and existing vegetation during the development process and require restoration if any is removed by development. Priorities for restoration shall include stabilization of erodible soils, riparian buffers and bluffs or steep slopes visible from the river. Other implementation steps Restoration Implementation Steps:  Ensure that information on the location of natural vegetation restoration priorities is readily available to property owners to understand how relevant ordinance requirements apply to their property for project planning and permitting.  Establish a vegetation permitting process that includes permit review procedures to ensure consideration of restoration priorities identified in this plan in permit issuance, as well as standard conditions requiring vegetation restoration for those priority areas. (Note: vegetation permitting process is a required element of MRCCA ordinance.) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan April 2019 Implementation 10-17 • Establish process for evaluating priorities for natural vegetation restoration, erosion prevention and bank and slope stabilization, or other restoration priorities identified in this plan in CUP, variances and subdivision/PUD processes. (Note: A process for evaluating priorities is a required element of MRCCA ordinance review and approval.) CRITICAL AREA IMPLEMENTATION TABLE Item/Action Goals Implementing Body Timeframe Priority Level Guide land use and development and redevelopment activities consistent with the management purpose of each district. Goal 9.1 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing High Protect Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) and minimize impact to PCAs from public and private development and land use activities (landscape maintenance, river use, walking, hiking, etc.) Goal 9.2 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing High Protect native and existing vegetation during the development process and require restoration if any is removed by development. Priorities for restoration shall include stabilization of erodible soils, riparian buffers and bluffs or steep slopes visible from the river. Goal 9.3 City Staff, Planning Commission Ongoing High Adopt a new MRCCA ordinance overlay district compliant with the goals and policies of the MRCCA plan, and with Minnesota Rules, part 6106.0070, Subp. 5 - Content of Ordinances; and work with the Minnesota DNR on flexibility with the ordinance as noted in previous sections of this Plan. City Staff, Planning Commission; MN Dept. of Natural Resources Staff Short-term (1 year) High Update zoning map to reflect new MRCCA districts City Staff, Planning Commission Short-term (1 year) High CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - WORKSHOP MJ Monday, April 15, 2019 (Rescheduled from APRIL 11, 2019) 6:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 [Please note this meeting will not be a public hearing and will not be televised] 1. Call to Order/ Roll Call 2. Discuss Updates to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan a. Ch. 10- Implementation b. All Other Chapters & Mapping Edits (as needed): i. Ch. 1: Introduction and Background ii. Ch. 2: Land Use iii. Ch. 3: Transportation iv. Ch. 4: Parks and Trails v. Ch. 5: Housing vi. Ch. 6: Economic Development vii. Ch. 7: Natural Resources viii. Ch. 8: Resilience ix. Ch. 9: Critical Area x. Appendices - and other related information ALL CHAPTERS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT: https://www.mendota-heights.com/index.asp?SEC=320D5DB8-C925-4819-9DF2- BE3231E48499 3. Adjourn Workshop 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.