2017-10-11 Planning Comm Minutes WorkshopCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 11, 2017
A special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, October
11, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Michael Noonan,
Doug Hennes (both excused).
Staff Present: Consulting Planner Phil Carlson (Stantec), Community Development Director Tim
Benetti, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek; and City Administrator Mark McNeill.
Chair Field welcomed the participants, and stated that this was a special meeting of the Planning
Commission to consider a first look at items relating to the updating of the City Comprehensive
Plan. He said that there would be subsequent meetings, including public hearings and open houses,
to take and consider public input.
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson then began the presentation, and spoke of the anticipated
schedule. He passed out cards, in which participants would be asked to write a six word sentence
about what Mendota Heights might be like in the future.
S.W.O.T. Analysis
Mr. Carlson led the participants in a “SWOT” analysis, in which the Commissioners listed
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the City of Mendota Heights currently, and in
the future. They began by reviewing and including a number of suggestions which had been
submitted by Commissioner Noonan in an e-mail (as he was unable to attend this meeting), and
added to each category with their own suggestions. The items listed by the participants are noted
as follows:
Strengths
• Low Taxes (5)
• Low Crime Rates (5)
• Overall Accessibility (transportation) (3)
• Rural Feel (3)
• Proximity to Mpls./St. Paul/MSP Airports
• Business Park Employment Base
• Stable Residential
• Diverse Education uses
• Mix of Private vs. Open Spaces
• Community Institutions (schools, churches, civics uses)
• River amenities
• Recreation areas (parks / golf courses / trails
• History (institutional knowledge / generational)
• Public Safety / Public Works (very responsive)
• Industrial Park - “room-to-grow”
• Nearby attractions
• Mix of Housing Stock (style, economics, rural feel)
• Non-Bureaucratic (nimble, responsive government)
• Recreational uses / Trails
Weaknesses
• Limited Amenities (5)
• Financially Constrained (need diversity) (4)
• Lack of Commercial/ Retail services (3)
• Limited Development Opportunities (2)
• Airport Noise (2)
• Resistance to Change (2)
• Age of Housing Stock (2)
• Lack of Public Transit / Transportation Programs (2)
• Lack of Diverse Housing Stock (1)
• Cellular service (poor in parts) (1)
• Lack of Medical Services (clinics, doctor offices, special med services)
• Lack of Affordable Housing
• Overhead Power Lines
• Lack of Broadband service
• Dual-Income Families / Stability
• Aging Population
• Limited Starter Housing Opportunities
• Impacts of Vikings development (Eagan)
Opportunities
• Aging Population (encourages younger populace to move in) (6)
• Vikings development (5)
• Bourn Lane Properties (city-owned lands off Hwy 13 & south of Resurrection Cem.) (5)
• Select Redevelopment (4)
• Proximity to Minneapolis / St. Paul cities / MSP Airport
• Revamp Hwy 149 (Dodd Road) and Hwy 110
• Added Population (adjacent cities) / Added Customer Base
• Resurgence of Downtown St. Paul
• Expanded Food / Retail in the Industrial District
Threats
• Development in Adjoining Communities (especially traffic) (4)
• Aging Infrastructure (4)
• Increased Air Traffic (3)
• Age of Housing Stock (3)
• Tear-downs/Mega-Mansions
• Stagnation – due to maturity of community
• School capacity
• Losing Aged Populace
• Emergency {Plans/Disaster Awareness
• Pipelines (leaks, explosions, environmental damage, etc.)
• Invasive Vegetation (i.e. buckthorn, sumac, etc.) & Insects (i.e. emerald ash borer)
• State Legislative Actions / Un-funded Mandates
• Bluff Area Impacts (erosion, deforestation, new/expanded development)
• Local Businesses “poached” by Adjacent Cities
Once these were identified, Commissioners were asked to list their top priorities in each
classification. The most significant issue(s) were marked with a color-coded dot to represent the
commissioners’ priority or vote under each category, which are noted in the (red #) after each issue
above.
Members of the audience were invited by Chair Field to comment. Concerns were expressed about
impacts on neighborhoods from developments; the Metropolitan Council seeing density as a
positive; Mendota Heights having lost the focus of being “spacious and gracious”; a lack of access
to healthcare; increased traffic; and how to maintain ponds and waterways.
Positives included the collective wisdom of the senior residents of the community; strong and
diverse faith communities; and playground and ballfields being used by younger families.
Vision and Mission Statements
Mr. Carlson stated that the City had an existing Vision Statement, which was not a requirement of
the Comprehensive Plan, but could certainly be included. He notes that the existing Vision
Statement is now 58 years old. The consensus of the group was to include it, and that it could give
a snapshot of where the City could be in the next 20 years.
Discussion turned to the difference between a Vision Statement, and a Mission Statement. It was
stated that the Vision Statement is aspirational; the Mission Statement is how you get there.
After considerable discussion and input, a first draft of the revised mission statement was
formulated as follows:
“Mendota Heights will continue to be a high quality, family oriented residential community,
with the feel of the (small town feel in an urban setting) country and the amenities of a city.
While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers
form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way
of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights achieved its successful business community
and exceptional residential neighborhoods by following the detailed comprehensive plans set
forth by its forefathers over xx years ago….”
“Mendota Heights will be recognized as a, high quality, family oriented residential
community, with a spacious, natural small town, rural feel and the amenities of a city.
- Spacious and gracious
- Continue what we have now, not more high density
- Vision is aspirational, Mission is what you do to get there
- Include as background
- Community is to children as to me
- Large wetlands, near water, streams
“. . . Innovative and forward thinking on the part of community officials has resulted in a
planned community, which affords a quiet lifestyle for its residents while providing a full
array of services and employment opportunities. The community has preserved an abundance
of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for
diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated
populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City. Civic pride and
aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights.”
Consensus was that the Vision Statement should be included as part of the “Background” section
of the Plan. Commissioner Mazzitello volunteered to draft a Mission Statement to consider at the
next meeting.
Discussion of Goals
Mr. Carlson led the group in a review and updating of the goals in the current Comprehensive
Plan, including the Chapters and elements of the Goals. He advised the participants that the goals
could be very general, or be specific to Mendota Heights.
The Land Use Goals were reviewed, and modifications were suggested (in red text) below:
GOAL 1: THE LAND USE PLAN WILL SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR LAND
USE DECISIONS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
POLICIES
• Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, economic
development, housing, transportation, parks and other community facilities.
• Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure consistent
development policy in current and future development decisions.
• Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan.
• Balance land use designations to meet projected demand.
GOAL 2. PRESERVE, PROTECT AND ENRICH THE ESTABLISHED
RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
• Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and architectural
design.
• Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level
in community development and building.
• Parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance of all
residential areas.
• Encourage development and planning of land that provides for reasonable
connection to surrounding neighborhoods.
• Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be
a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow.
• Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions.
GOAL 3: SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
DESIGNATED AREAS.
POLICIES
• The City will use available resources to meet development and redevelopment
needs.
• Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible
land uses.
• Enhance viability of ?commercial/retail, complementary uses to
GOAL 4. ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
POLICIES
• Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems
including lakes, ponding areas, aquifers, and drainage areas
• Encourage sustainable and energy efficient design in all public and private
construction.
• Take into account air quality and noise impacts in land use and infrastructure
decisions.
• Follow best practices in land use and infrastructure decisions that impact
stormwater runoff.
• Pollinator friendly, native plantings, ecological stewardship, eliminate invasive
GOAL 5. REDUCE THE IMPACT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY.
POLICIES
• Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Oversight
Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) through the
Airport Relations Commission
• Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and
corridor compliance.
• Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway
use system.
• Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport
Comprehensive Plan.
• Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and
advance technology.
• Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer
general aviation use to other reliever airports.
• Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions are
encountered.
• Consider aircraft noise and safety issues in all land use and zoning decisions.
It was decided that the discussion of the remainder of the goals would be held as part of the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission, which would be held on October 24,, 2017.
Adjournment
Chair Fields adjourned the meeting at 9:18 pm
Minutes Taken By:
Mark McNeill, City Administrator