Loading...
2021-11-03 Council agenda CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA mWednesday, November 3, 2021 6.00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approve the October 19, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the August 24, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Joint Water Resources Application of Wetland Exemption for the parcels included in the Sullivan Acres Development d. Approve the Banking Authorization Signatory Changes e. Approve the September 2021 Treasurer's Report f. Approve the Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Resolution 2021-86 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of$2,630,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A, Pledging for the Security Thereof Special Assessments and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof 8. Public Hearing a. Resolution 2021-85 Adopting Assessments for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2021-87 approving Planning Case No. 2021-20, the Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Conditional Use Permit for 1125 Orchard Circle (Steve & Michelle McHale) b. Consideration of Planning Case No. 2021-12 (Phase II / 58-Unit Apartment) and Case No. 2021-13 (Phase III ./ 8-Unit Apartment) Projects within Mendota Mall Plaza PUD c. Establish Date for City Council Work Session 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: "The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to S minutes per person and topic;presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised." page 3 5a. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, and Mazzitello, were also present. Councilor Miller was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar,pulling item d. for a separate discussion. a. Approval of October 5, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge Minutes of the September 14, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission c. Approve Sewer Repair at 546 Simard Street e. Acknowledge August 2021 Par 3 Financial Report f. Approve 2021-2022 Insurance Renewal and Elect to Not Waive Statutory Limits g. Approve the Ordering of a Police Patrol Vehicle h. Approve the Preliminary Purchase of Par 3 Maintenance Equipment i. Acknowledge August 2021 and September 2021 Fire Synopsis j. Approval of September 2021 Building Activity Report k. Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 page 4 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS D)APPROVE RESOLUTION 2021-84 ACCEPTING A GIFT FOR PARK BENCH DONATION AT MENDAKOTA PARK Councilor Duggan commented that people sometimes wonder what they can do to improve the community and the purchase of a park bench is one thing people can do. He encouraged others to donate a park bench. Councilor Mazzitello commented that it has been over seven years since Police Officer Patrick was lost in the line of duty and the City made a pledge to never forget. He stated that donations such as this speak to the legacy of one of their fallen. He stated that the donors should be applauded. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-84 ACCEPTING A GIFT FOR PARK BENCH DONATION AT MENDAKOTA PARK. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, stated that he samples water from Lake Augusta 13 times each year and provides the samples to the watershed management organization. He noted that he serves on the homeowners association for his neighborhood, Augusta Shores. He stated that Lake Augusta is an impaired lake. He advised of work the lakeshore owners have done with a contractor in order to improve the Lake Augusta easement area. He stated that even though there is not a public access to the lake, the public still accesses the lake. He urged the Council to add green infrastructure systems into the road reconstruction project. He hopes that over time single actions will accumulate and improve the water quality of Lake Augusta. PRESENTATIONS A) MET COUNCILMEMBER CHAI LEE Mayor Levine introduced Met Councilmember Chai Lee and provided background information on his career and experience. Mr. Chai Lee provided background information on himself and explained why he wanted to join the Met Council. He reviewed some of the actions the Met Council attempts to address throughout the region. Councilor Paper thanked Mr. Lee for attending the meeting. Councilor Mazzitello commented that Mendota Heights is almost fully developed and its infrastructure network needs updating. He asked how the Met Council might be able to assist in the process. Mr. Lee replied that there are many planning tools that can be used and he provided examples. He stated that perhaps a City representative would like to join the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). October 19, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 6 page 5 Councilor Duggan stated he was impressed to hear the statement that no city is strong enough to handle the larger government charges, such as regional growth. He referenced the term regional cohesiveness, noting that even though Mendota Heights contributes hugely to fiscal disparities, it is just a small portion of the region. He requested that Mr. Lee provide the city with quarterly reports specifically addressed to Mendota Heights and its comprehensive plan. Mr. Lee confirmed that he could provide quarterly updates to the Council. Mayor Levine thanked Mr. Lee. She appreciated the vision of the Met Council to look for regional solutions for regional problems. She appreciated that the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Met Council. PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2021-83 APPROVING RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION FOR MOHICAN COURT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council is asked to hold a public hearing for Resolution 2021-83, a right-of-way vacation commenced by petition for Mohican Court. Councilor Duggan asked if the City has any challenges to this request. Mr. Ruzek replied that the City has not received any opposition to the request. Councilor Duggan moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Dan Kelly, applicant, stated that he has maintained this property for 20 years and would like to continue to do so by adding more landscaping and irrigation. He stated he would like to remove the buckthorn on the property. Councilor Mazzitello asked if the applicant agrees to a drainage and utility easement running through the property, which would mean the land could not be built on. Mr. Kelly confirmed that he has no intention of building on the property. Councilor Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilor Duggan moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-83 APPROVING A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 October 19, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 6 page 6 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS B) QUARTERLY UPDATE FOR 2021-2022 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson reviewed with the Council the strategic priorities progress report for the third quarter. Councilor Duggan stated that he would hope the City could work with people interested in the area of Highway 62 and Dodd Road and possibly obtain an updated traffic study.He referenced park opportunities and improvements and stated that he would like to see the skate park remain located where it is. He stated that he appreciates receiving this report. He referenced the community garden priority and questioned if land might be available south of Visitation School, along Mendota Heights Road. Mayor Levine commented that there is already a group of individuals that use the property south of Visitation. She stated that there are other areas which could be turned into a community garden space. Councilor Mazzitello referenced a strategy related to the zoning code. He stated that the first step has been taken to update the MRCCA and critical area ordinance. He asked for an update on the process to update the other zoning ordinances. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the MRCCA ordinance has been updated and the intent was to begin formulating a working task force to assist with the ordinance updates. Councilor Mazzitello referenced a mention of a parks assets management plan developed for strategic planning and asked for an update on that process. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that staff is looking to schedule a work session with the Council to review the field and facility use policy, which is done annually, and to review a strategic plan for parks and recreation which was developed using the information gathered from those planning sessions. She stated that the parks asset management plan was something staff developed to inventory the park system in order to use that in strategic planning. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he does not believe a revised traffic study is needed for Dodd and Highway 62 as the 2017 traffic study assumed the worst-case scenario for growth and many of those assumptions have not come to fruition. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Dakota County along with the cities of Inver Grove Heights and Eagan completed a regional traffic study which is going to be reviewed. He stated that staff will notify the Council of upcoming meetings related to that topic. Mayor Levine commented that this is a very ambitious work plan with a lot of wants and needs and did not want to see staff or the Council get lost in prioritization. She stated that in terms of ordinance updates, she would like to prioritize portions of the code to be updated that would make things easier for residents. Councilor Paper stated that the Natural Resources Advisory Commission is slated to begin in January and asked for an update on that process. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that bylaws will need to be adopted and ordinance updates will be needed. He stated that appointments would be made in late January, when other Commission vacancies are filled, with the hope to perhaps begin meeting in February. October 19, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 6 page 7 Councilor Paper asked when the City would start to discuss options for the Bourne Lane property. City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson stated that staff would follow the direction of the Council on that topic. Mayor Levine commented that she finds it helpful for this document to be updated and reviewed. C)REVIEW CITY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Kristen Schabacker provided an update on the City's financial report for the second quarter of 2021. Councilor Duggan referenced the equipment reserve fund and asked for details. Ms. Schabacker stated that balance shown is more than anticipated as there was a purchase of a 2020 public works truck that did not come in during 2020. She stated that those funds budgeted for 2021 are still on track. Mayor Levine stated that this is the general fund that covers the majority of expenses, but the City also bonds for street improvements. She asked for an update on the street projects currently underway and when completion would occur. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the project is slightly behind schedule. The original substantial completion date was October 29 and the paving should occur within the next two weeks. Councilor Mazzitello stated that this is an outstanding report and management of the City assets. He commended Finance Director Kristen Schabacker for her continued great work. Mayor Levine asked for an update on the impact to the payment of property taxes related to COVID. Ms. Schabacker replied that the City has not seen an impact on the payment of property taxes. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming events occurring this weekend. She also advised of the Halloween bonfire which will be held on October 31st. She highlighted some recreation events slated for early November. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper thanked Met Council member Chai Lee for attending the meeting tonight. He commented that the potential funding opportunities from the Met Council are attractive.He thanked the representatives from Mendota Heights Athletic Association for their presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission the previous week. Councilor Duggan stated that perhaps the City should consider a smaller Halloween bonfire this year. He asked that the public be notified to not bring brush to the bonfire site. He stated that he appreciates seeing walkers wearing reflective gear after dark. He commented that leaves should be swept up and not swept into the street where they could end up going into the waterways. He stated that the School District held October 19, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 6 page 8 a tour of Two Rivers High School this past weekend, which he found helpful. He urged residents to do their research in the upcoming School District election. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he was pleased to have a small discussion related to traffic tonight and that a representative from the Met Council was also present to speak about transportation. He stated that the traffic study completed in 2017 had recommendations for improvements in the corridor. He stated that the Met Council Traffic Advisory Board could possibly provide funding opportunities for those improvements. He wished a happy birthday to Councilor Paper. Mayor Levine encouraged residents to get their COVID booster shots, if eligible. She thanked staff and expressed appreciation for the work they continue to do. She extended condolences to Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: Lord Smith City Clerk October 19, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 6 page 9 5b. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24,2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Commissioners Michael Toth and Andrew Katz. Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuzust 9, 2021 Special Meeting Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE ONE, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...MUD WAS..." ON PAGE TWO, THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...AND ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DESIGNER WERE TO MAKE..." AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings Chair Field stated that he is going to amend the agenda to consider Case C first. C) PLANNING CASE 2021-15 ZACH ROBINSON, 684 3"AVENUE—VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Zach Robinson, owner,and resident of 684 3rd Avenue, is requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 One Family Residential District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a list of adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to the staff report; and one email letter of support from a neighbor. No other comments or objections were received. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page I of 16 page 10 Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Zach Robinson, applicant, thanked staff for making this process accessible and thanked his neighbors for their support. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she stopped by the home and was impressed by the garden. She stated that the addition will go closer to the street and asked if there is a reason that was chosen over the existing setback. Mr. Robinson stated that the addition will go forward six inches because of the recommendation of the builder for the garage space. Chair Field thanked the applicant for attending. Misty Becken, 685 3rd Avenue, stated that the Robinsons are great neighbors, and she would hate to see them leave for something so minor. Ken Noack, 677 4th Avenue, stated that they are happy to have the Robinsons into the neighborhood. He noted that they have a smaller lot, smaller house and garage and it would be nice for the family to update the home with an attached garage and front porch. He commented that they are good neighbors, and the updated home will fit well with the neighborhood. Robert Bonine, 688 3rd Avenue, commented that he lives directly next door, and the proposal will enhance the home and property, as well as the neighboring properties. He commented that he strongly supports the proposal. Mr. Robinson thanked everyone that attended in support of his request. He asked the Commission to approve the request. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS TO August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 page 11 SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF SAID VARIANCE TO ZACH ROBINSON OF 684 3RD AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT WHILE THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SETBACK IN A FEW AREAS, THIS IS REASONABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SHE NOTED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS DUE TO THE LOT SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE HOME. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 9, 2021 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:g requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as Phase 11 of The Reserve of Mendota Village and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment complex (720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the impervious surface calculation for the proposed calculation, which would be based on taking away the wetland area. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 page 12 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the applicant's engineer could provide that information. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the stormwater standards for The Reserve and whether that meets the current requirements. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that Phase 11 was designed under the City's current design standards, noting that there are two underground chambers designed to serve the property. He noted that the new apartment proposed is a slight reduction to the originally planned development. He stated that the 2016 design standard goals were met. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she heard two different parking stall references within the report and asked for clarification between the 118 stalls mentioned and the 122 stalls mentioned. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied there would be 118 stalls. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the number of two-bedroom units. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there would be 30 two-bedroom units. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Leanna Stefaniak with At Home Apartments, stated that they are present to address any questions the Commission may have on the two housing proposals. She stated that they are requesting a PUD amendment for the two housing parcels. She stated that the proposes uses approved in 2016 never came to be, but The Reserve fully leased within six months which proves that is a desired housing type in the community. She noted that The Reserve continues to be fully leased with additional interest. She stated that the additional restaurant and retail components never came to be, and the undeveloped portion of the site continues to be an eyesore. She stated that they intend for this to be a second phase of The Reserve. She noted that they have seen a lot of demand for two-bedroom units, which allows the older population to move into the apartment home option and turns over the single-family homes for new families in the community. She stated that they would treat this as one property together noting that the residents could access all the amenities from the different buildings. Commissioner Corbett asked the breakdown of units within The Reserve. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she believed that 65 percent of the units are one bedroom while 35 percent of the units are two bedroom. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on impervious surface. She asked the impervious surface of the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have that information for the entire 21-acre PUD. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 page 13 Lee Copy, architect representing the applicant, stated that the impervious surface calculation is provided within the stormwater report. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the stormwater report is a very large book and noted that this proposal would be a slight reduction of about 2,000 square feet from what was previously approved. He stated that the stormwater reports submitted are specific to this parcel and not the entire PUD. Mr. Copy stated that he could provide that calculation as a follow up with staff or could attempt to gain that information tonight. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she would want that information in order to consider the application complete. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan and asked if the darker shaded area around the perimeter is where the wildflower is mix proposed and whether sod would be in the lighter shaded areas. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that the lighter shaded areas are sod, and the darker shaded areas are the wildflower mix. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it is her understanding that a lighting plan has not been submitted, which is supposed to be provided. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she does not have the lighting plan with her, but that information could be provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she could not recommend approval without that information. She stated that it is her understanding that a circulation diagram should be provided for traffic, which she did not see. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to the entire PUD or this parcel. Commissioner Lorberbaum replied that it would need to be for the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak asked for clarification if that is required as this is already a PUD and whether that would be required for the CUP requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Bolton and Menk provided the third-party traffic review and will be completing the site circulation prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the parking study is based on information from three years ago, although there were updates. She stated that things have changed, and she was concerned that the study does not compare the current conditions to the proposal. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to traffic or parking. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 page 14 Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified that she was referring to traffic. Ms. Stefaniak replied that they provided their proposed use to the previously approved uses and would not compare the proposed use to Vikings Lakes. She explained that the trip generation compares the proposed residential uses to the previously approved restaurant and daycare uses. She stated that if a full-fledged market study would be required, they could entertain that, but that direction was not provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she has driven by The Reserve a number of times. She noted that staff has said that less than the required parking stalls were allowed, and it has worked out just fine. She noted that when she has visited the site, she has seen all the outdoor parking stalls used, along with the spaces along the curb, and there are also vehicles parked in the triangle that is going to be an addition to The Reserve. She commented that it appears there is not sufficient parking already and this would remove parking and make the situation worse. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she cannot say that all the parking in the dirt is a result of The Reserve. She noted that this proposal would increase parking from 1.6 stalls to 2.03 stalls and would add a significant surface lot. She stated that the additional surface lot would be shared with the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she spoke with a resident of The Reserve and the resident commented that they love living there but it can be difficult to park there. She stated that the resident commented that people do not want to pay for underground parking which is why the surface parking is full. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit of The Reserve receives one underground parking stall included in their rent. She stated that there are additional spaces that can be rented for an additional cost. She noted that there are an additional 22 guest stalls in the underground parking as well. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that her thought was that if a lesser number of parking stalls are allowed, people would need to find a place to park which would put additional burden on the restaurant parking area. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there is not a parking shortage for the commercial space and did not believe there was a complaint from the residents utilizing commercial stalls. She again reviewed the proposed parking for this request, which would provide additional parking for the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on the request for the shorter parking stall length. Pete Keely, architect representing the applicant, stated that the stalls would be 18 feet deep and nine feet wide, while some would be deeper, and handicap stalls would meet the required dimensions. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 page 15 Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it appears there are only three handicap spaces for The Reserve. Mr. Keely replied that two percent of the parking stalls are required to be handicap per the guidelines from the State and generally speaking those stalls are not heavily utilized. Commissioner Lorberbaum believed that handicap stalls in Mendota Heights would need to be 12 feet by 20 feet,not including the access aisle. She believed that the stalls would need to be adjusted to meet that requirement. Mr. Keely replied that they met the State of Minnesota standard. He noted that if that is the requirement, it could be made a condition. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that this proposal would include 2.03 parking stalls per unit. She stated that information was included in the packet which included comments from the Department of Transportation, specific to noise standards for residential uses adjacent to highways. She stated that the comment was made that the noise from the highway in this location could exceed the standards. She asked what would be done to mitigate noise. Mr. Keely stated that noise is something they are always concerned about and provided details on the elements that they incorporate in order to mitigate for noise. He stated that noise has not been a complaint and the tests have exceeded the standards from the State. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that a review from the Fire Department was included in the packet and asked if those concerns would be addressed. Mr.Keely provided additional details,noting that fire hose connections are included in the building permit review. He commented that there is fire access around the property and did not note any concern with that. He was not aware of any specific concerns noted in that report. Commissioner Corbett stated that it has been brought up that the last amendment is not working as planned. He asked the effort that was given towards those uses. Mike Sturdivant with Paster Properties,stated that they have been marketing all of the undeveloped lots since 2009. He noted that there were issues with access from retailers as there is not direct access from 62. He stated that Mendota Plaza is currently 22 percent vacant,therefore the market is showing there is not sufficient demand to develop additional commercial space on that parcel. Commissioner Petschel commented that a deviation was granted on the number of parking stalls for the original Reserve property and asked if there is any data available that would help inform whether that plan worked. He asked if there is any parking utilization data for the remainder of the Paster property. Mr. Sturdivant stated that since The Reserve was developed in 2016 there have been no complaints. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 page 16 Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data or methodology to review current utilization of the parking. Mr. Sturdivant commented that the video he has seen shows parking available at any given point. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would like to have the data to support that the parking is sufficient. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have quantitative data to provide tonight but could provide that information. Commissioner Petschel explained that the City deviated from its parking requirement on The Reserve and would like to see those results before deviating again. Ms. Stefaniak stated that from a general Code perspective and what occurs in other communities. Commissioner Petschel interrupted and stated that Mendota Heights is no other communities, and he does not want to hear that information. Ms. Stefaniak asked if there has been any analysis done by the City on the 2.5 stalls required in the 1980s and whether that continues to be necessary. She stated that she was simply attempting to show the current development trends compared to the standards set in the 1980s. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that the standard may be outdated but that is the standard the Commission has to use until it is shown to be outdated Ms. Stefaniak asked if that should be an analysis by the other properties that used a smaller ratios or whether that would fall to only this property. Commissioner Petschel stated that a deviation from the standard was granted and there has been some discussion as to whether it worked, and that information has been provided. Ms. Stefaniak stated that deviation was granted for other developments as well. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that deviation may have worked but he would like to have the data before continuing to make the deviation. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it would be great to have data that shows that it worked. Commissioner Corbett asked how the data would be defined or measured. He stated that the City has deviated on multiple occasions,but this would be the third deviation within the PUD. He noted that he has been to a restaurant in that development recently and the lot was 85 to 90 percent full. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is a quantitative method in which that could be evaluated. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 page 17 Commissioner Corbett agreed that he would like to see the data if that is available. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that data would be difficult to obtain. She noted that one of the restaurants is only providing take-out service, therefore it would be difficult to assume what eat in parking would demand. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is difficult as the Commission can only discuss this project and cannot go back to what has been done before. She stated that they are also talking about a community where people need vehicles and therefore that data would be important. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the restaurant that is only providing take-out service at this time. Commissioner Johnson referenced the review from the Fire Department and concern with the additional traffic that would utilize South Plaza Drive. She referenced a statement that mentioned traffic would increase 28 percent from the existing conditions. Ms. Stefaniak commented that was an error that they clarified and updated as it did not take into account the current allowed use of the daycare. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that it would be a local responsibility to add the preemptive traffic measure as that issue already exists. He confirmed that the City would handle that update independent of the application. Bernard Friel 750 Mohican Lane, stated that his comments are not directed just at this project, but both proposed projects. He stated that the planning staff reports on the projects are very disappointing. He stated that he could not tell if the reports were prepared on behalf of the Metropolitan Council or developer but did not believe they were prepared on behalf of the City. He stated that the current staff indicated and made several suggestions that Mendota Heights' ordinances should be updated to be similar to other communities. He stated that perhaps staff does not understand that Mendota Heights does not want to be like other communities in the area and is known and rated as one of the most desirable metro communities. He stated that residents like that Mendota Heights is characterized as spacious and gracious. He commented that the objective of a PUD seems to have gotten lost in current years as it has become a mechanism to increase density rather than for the purposes PUDs were created in the first place. He provided a historical definition and purpose of PUD. He stated that these two proposals fail badly on the scale test as they do not preserve natural and scenic quality of any area. He stated that the original PUD concept plans for this property were presented in 2003 and was before the Council six more times in 2007. He stated that a long-held contention shared by the Planning Commission and Council was that no part of the PUD be any closer to 62 than the existing McDonalds building. He stated that the applicant at that time proposed relocation of the restaurant and retail space to 70 feet from the right-of-way, which this proposes that the apartments be setback only 15 feet from 62. He stated that in 2008 the City indicated a strong desire to maintain as much greenspace as possible along 110, also supported by Dakota County. He stated that would be an important feature to maintain greenspace for those living in The Reserve. He stated that the City also expressed concern with a lack of usable greenspace for this 12-year-old PUD. He stated that the PUD ordinance devotes August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 page 18 two pages to usable open space issues, yet said space is hard to find in this PUD. He stated that the City also expressed concern that the developer could cherry pick for certain types of development and does not get around to the other uses and believes that this proposal is an example of that cherry picking. He stated that while there have been several plan amendments, all of those have been consistent in carrying out the original PUD objectives while this amendment proposes to eliminate original uses without benefit of a feasibility study and adds uses at locations not intended for such uses. He stated that one of the most troubling features of PUDs is the willingness of cities to give up open space in return for the payment of money rather than usable open space. He stated that there is a bill pending that would place limits on the use of PUDs. He commented that in the 2008 traffic study,the City had to request that McDonalds be included in the study. He stated if approved, traffic would be the most devastating legacy of these apartments. He believed an updated traffic study should be completed to provide meaningful information for these applications. He stated that the entire PUD should be considered for traffic studies and impervious surface, rather than considering bits and pieces. He stated that the original PUD report states that the total time of completion for the construction shall be within five years from the approval of the final development plan, which was approved in 2009. He stated that a PUD should terminate at the end of the five-year period as only the developer benefits after that length of time expires. He did not believe sufficient context was provided within the staff report. He stated that a PUD has a unified ownership, or all individual owners must be signatories on any potential amendment. He stated that these applications should be treated as applications for new PUDs. He stated that in 2008 there was concern with a percentage of 69 percent of impervious surface for the site. He stated that the staff report mentions that R-3 would be the suitable zoning district but then suggests that those standards do not apply. He did not believe the Commission should consider the requested setbacks or density. He commented that the obligation to the residents of Mendota Heights is greater than the obligation to the Metropolitan Council. He did not believe that these two apartment buildings would be a good fit for the site and instead believed the spaces should be converted to open space in order to help the Plaza achieve the objectives of the PUD. He requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the PUD be formally terminated and adopted the findings of fact supporting denial of the requests. He asked that the Commission require the two parcels to be developed as open space. He provided copies of his statements to staff. He commented that the staff report was 169 pages and therefore residents should be given sufficient time to make their comments. Gary Fishbach, 2150 Fox Place, stated that he loves his neighborhood and neighbors. He commented that the entrance to the mall property is a mess for those that have to use those roads every day. He stated that the statement was made that retailers are not interested in the site because of the poor access to the property. He noted that he does not agree that this development would generate less traffic than what was originally proposed. He stated that if this is approved the City would be adding onto something that is already a mess. He believed that a representative from MnDOT should have been involved. He stated that if this development moved forward, it would create more of a mess and a situation where the residents have to wait until MnDOT schedules improvements. He asked the Commission to think of the residents that live in that area. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that this lot is part of the mixed-use PUD for Mendota Plaza which includes residential uses and is subject to the general zoning regulations for R-3. She stated that this property is also subject to the guidelines of Mendota Plaza. She stated August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 page 19 that while the requirements and regulations are mentioned within the report, staff also goes into detail about how those standards would not have to be met. She provided examples of where the proposal does not meet the standards. She reviewed the requirements of a wetland permit and the related site work proposed that would require wetland permitting. She commented that distance to structures is not shown on the sketch. She reviewed the different variances that she believed would be necessary for the proposed project. She commented that these two projects are being shoehorned into the site and an updated traffic study should be provided. She asked where overflow vehicles from The Reserve would park. She believed a circulation study would be needed for Fire Department safety. She asked who would benefit from the proposal outside of the developer, the owner of Mendota Plaza and the residents that choose to live there. She stated that this proposal, however, would negatively impact residents traveling on Dodd Road and residents that live north of 62. She stated that this is Mendota Heights and not another adjacent community and the City should continue to impose its standards in order to keep the City in its excellent standard. She stated that she was a member of the City Council when this PUD was adopted, and it was never envisioned that a PUD would be abused in this manner as a way to eliminate the zoning standards. Dr. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that he believes that analysis of traffic volumes works best when what has happened is studied rather than what could happen in the future. He stated that driving up and down Dodd Road is already unpleasant in that area and adding that number of apartments to a confined space would increase that problem. He stated that to say these uses would be better than other potential uses is not an applicable argument. He referenced the 2008 traffic and impact study that was done in preparation for the original Mendota Plaza PUD and read excerpts from the report. He also compared that report to the 2013 report. He stated that the 2020 scenario which reported calm reports. He also referred to a north/south mobility study that provided comparisons to the 2017 existing intersection ratings to the anticipated 2040 build scenario and base conditions. He stated that he is unsure how the Fire Department would get to his property during times of heavy traffic. He stated that when apartment buildings are constructed,those are temporary living conditions, and those people are going out much more than those living in single-family homes. He stated that the Commission has a tough job. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, stated that her main concerns for the proposal are related to density and traffic. She commented that the density exceeds the density specified in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the biggest problem would be traffic and that this density would cause more traffic. She believed that improvements should be implemented before additional traffic is added. She referenced the study completed by the developer that compared what might have been to this proposal. She referenced the incorrect percentage of trips shown in the report and noted that it would be helpful to have the correct number. She stated that Bolton and Menk commented on the improvements to the plaza and not the other roadways but mentioned that the City needs to focus on other improvements to control traffic. She believed that the improvements should occur prior to the additional apartments being added. She stated that many Mendota Heights residents use 149 as their main way out of their neighborhoods and the City should concentrate on those improvements before adding additional density. She asked that the Commission recommend denial of the plans. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 page 20 Randy Swenson, 775 Creek Avenue, echoed the comments made thus far including traffic. He stated that he has concern with light pollution. He stated that he is unsure of the impact from lighting from the big apartment buildings. He referenced noise pollution, noting that he has Anderson windows in his 1957 home, along with new insulation and siding but is still awakened by the garbage trucks that empty the mall trash containers. He stated that on the other side of his fence is the south plaza office building and therefore he hears those trash trucks three times per week as well. He stated that there is a taekwondo center adjacent to his home as well, which creates additional noise for his property. He commented that in the winter, the parking lot behind his home causes additional noise from snow plowing. He stated that additional apartment buildings and surface lots would create additional noise for his property. Thomas Smith,625 Hampshire Drive, offered a broader perspective on the comments that previous speakers have made tonight. He pointed out that Mendota Heights is fully developed and furthermore throughout that development history the City has avoided rampant commercial development and rampant density development that is characteristic of other adjacent communities. He stated that as a first-tier community, Mendota Heights is unique in that category because many decades ago, City officials recognized that the community had unique appeal in terms of development. He stated that the first Mayor was a leader in saying the City would not pander to developers and that mantra prevailed over the succeeding decades and therefore the pattern of development has been prudent and careful. He stated that there are numerous flaws with this current proposal including traffic, setbacks, unit size, etc. He stated that it seems that the developer is asking the City to pander to them. He asked who the Commission would rely on to guide the City in the future. He noted that City staff does not seem to have a sense of defending the special character of the City. He stated that developers are also not invested in the future of the City, only making money. He commented that the future of the City and sustaining its pattern of development lies to the Commission and City Council. He believed that the requests for parcel two and parcel three should be denied because of the number of flaws. He commented that residents like the City the way it is. Allen Olson, 2153 Fox Place, commented that he is in awe of the previous speakers who were incredibly prepared. He commented that he agrees with the comments made thus far. He commented that the intersection of 62 and Dodd is already a failure and therefore a study is not needed. He commented that it is often difficult and unsafe to get out of his neighborhood. He stated that the smoke and mirror statistics/study was offensive. He stated that even though he lives close to the Plaza, he does not frequent those businesses because of the traffic problems. He commented that there is a daycare facility on his street and that is enough. He stated that he likes the open space and does not see it as an eyesore. He commented that in his experience wildflowers is a nice way to say weed patch. He referenced median plantings that were done that turned into weed patches. He echoed the comments of the previous speakers and stated that he is adamantly opposed to the request. Beth Henry Olson, 2153 Fox Place, stated that making a left turn onto Dodd Road has always been a struggle and therefore she cannot imagine more traffic. She stated that when she moved to her property, Mendakota Park was still being hayed and people were riding horses in that area. She stated that there is nothing specific about this proposed addition that she would like to address but noted that pieces added to the development have a cumulative effect. She believed that the traffic August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 page 21 issues should be addressed with communication with MnDOT prior to allowing additional development. She stated that if traffic is not addressed with this proposal, the request should not move forward. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they are not proposing a daycare, that is the current proposed use, and this request is for apartment housing. She stated that they understand the concerns with traffic. She noted that MnDOT was communicated with and chose not to opine on the traffic piece. She acknowledged that there are different owners within the PUD but noted that The Reserve and housing projects proposed would be of the same owner. She stated that there is an OEA and Declaration Agreement that governs the overall PUD and how the properties and uses exist in harmony. She requested that the vote be tabled in order for her to provide the additional information requested by the Commission including an impervious surface study for the entire PUD, a lighting plan, a traffic circulation study, and quantitative parking analysis. She asked if they are being asked to complete a traffic study for the entire 21 acres, as that would be quite an undertaking. Commissioner Lorberbaum deferred to staff, noting that it is her understanding that would be required for what is current. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff asked the developer to provide a traffic analysis based on the conditions that would be added to the PUD. She stated that the City review was done independently and separately and was provided in the packet. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the plans should be adjusted to reflect the required handicap stall dimensions. She also asked that those stalls be marked on the plans. Ms. Stefaniak stated that her request to table would extend to the following case as those same concerns would exist for that proposal. Commissioner Petschel stated that the apartment is proposed to be 15 feet from the right-of-way and asked what concerns would exist for placing an apartment building that close to the highway, below the grade of the road, without barriers. Pete Keely stated that the distance is 15 feet from the right-of-way, which is 75 feet. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the location of the traffic study language. Chair Field clarified the request of the applicant to table this request with the public hearing open and forgoing opening the public hearing on the next case at this time. He asked if the applicant would submit a written request to that nature for the public record related to the 60-day review period. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was not mentioned that the unit sizes do not meet the minimum of 750 square feet. She stated that she would like to see balance in that area or for the standard to be met. She noted that for the following plan there is no landscaping plan, and the Master Gardener was not provided the ability to provide input. She noted that request is also August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 page 22 missing the lighting plan. She referenced the Comprehensive Plan which mentions goals and policies in chapters seven and eight related to development and suggested the applicant review that information. She stated that there were comments from the Master Gardener that were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a follow up was received from the Master Gardener related to the hole diagram for the trees and related to the mulching near the base of the tree. He confirmed that staff shared that information with the applicant. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that they can work with those recommendations from the Master Gardener. She stated that the Master Gardener was helpful in creating the landscaping plan for The Reserve and many of those elements carried over into these plans. Commissioner Johnson referenced the Bolton and Menk review and recommendations for City and MnDOT improvements and asked that the applicant review and address those. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the recommendation of the southbound left turn lane would fall to MnDOT. She noted that they could have another discussion but was unsure what the reply from MnDOT would be. Chair Field commented that statements were made related to the standing of the PUD and stated that it would be interesting to have a comment related to that. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that it is his opinion that the application for the amendment of the PUD would be the proper course to take as the existing 21-acre parcel is zoned PUD and there have been seven amendments within that 21-acre PUD. He stated that because the existing parcel is already zoned PUD there would be no point in requiring a new PUD application as it already exists within a PUD and therefore an amendment would be the appropriate course to take. Commissioner Corbett asked if the City is acting out of its own rules and guidelines and whether the PUD should have been closed after the time period expired. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that whether this was proceeding as a new PUD application or an amendment to the PUD, the City's regulatory powers are not diminished or lessened. He stated that the standards existing within the City's ordinances would still need to be met. Commissioner Corbett asked whether this was supposed to be closed five to seven years ago. Commissioner Petschel asked if that is specific to the rights of the applicant to execute against a hypothetically sunset plan. He asked if the project was not completed within the appropriate time, would the approvals expire. Commissioner Corbett stated that the PUD is done in accordance with the wants of the City and developer. He asked if too much leeway has been provided in continuing to amend the PUD to meet the needs of the developer. He stated that units are used as a measure of volume. He stated August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 page 23 that when referencing R-3 the square footage is based on bedrooms. He asked if the acreage this is based on is 75 percent of 18 for density. That was confirmed to be true. He stated that The Reserve has gone 15 percent over the threshold for that area, in that there are 618,000 square feet permissible for residential and 694,000 is consumed by The Reserve. He stated that The Reserve exceeds the highest density for that entire site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in 2016 when The Reserve was approved, staff presented 139 over the two-acre parcel. He stated that the parcel equates to about 60 units per acre,but staff presented an overall density calculation on the entire 21-acre site,which dropped the density to 10.7 or 10.8 units per acre. Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps there should be some recollection as to how the density is calculated. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are differences between R-3 and MU-PUD. Commissioner Corbett stated that obviously there is leeway but if the proposal exceeds over ten percent past the guidelines it would appear to fail. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE CASE 2021-12 WITH CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO TABLE CASE 2021-13. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT ONE RESIDENT WAS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON 2021-13. THE RESIDENT CONFIRMED THAT HE WOULD POSTPONE HIS COMMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 7, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No additional comments as the item were tabled. Staff Announcements/Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • All cases recommended for approval at the Commission's special meeting were approved by the City Council. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she did not notice a screen along Lexington. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 page 24 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff is working with Xcel to have that screen installed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief update on road projects. Adiournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:58 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 page 25 5c. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Height, 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 3,2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek,P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter,Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Approve Joint Water Resources Application of Wetland Exemption for the parcels included in the Sullivan Acres proposed development INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act(WCA)Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption,for the proposed Sullivan Acres development. BACKGROUND A Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption under Minnesota Rules 8420.0420, Subp. 8: De minimis,was submitted by Mark Sullivan, applicant,on September 22,2021. DISCUSSION The application is proposing 364 sf of impact to the wetland basin identified as Basin 1 and 636 sf of impact to the wetland basin identified as Basin 2 within the Wetland Delineation Report approved by the City Council on September 9,2021. These impacts total 1,000 sf,which is the maximum amount of impact allowed for an exemption under rule 8420.0420 Exemption Standards,Subp. 8: De minimis,A. (3) (b).Under this rule, a replacement plan is not required. The purpose of the proposed project is to build a single family home on the property. The impacts to Wetland Basin 1 are proposed for the purpose of building a driveway to the home. The impacts associated with Wetland Basin 2 are proposed for the purpose of building a swimming pool. The application was noticed and sent to members of the Technical Evaluation Panel(TEP). One comment was received by a member of the public regarding the potential impact to wetlands(attached).No additional comments were received from the TEP. BUDGETIMPACT None, this process is a judicial requirement of the City. If the Council approves the application, a Notice of Decision will be sent to TEP members and their respective agencies as well as the applicant and any members of the public that requested notice. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the application as submitted by Jacobson Environmental, and direct staff to issue the Notice of Decision. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation,it should pass a motion approving the application for Exemption, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 26 From: Sean Fahnhorst<sean.fahnhorst@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:58:21 PM To: Stephanie Levine;Joel Paper; duggan.ultan@gmail.com;John Mazzitello;Jay Miller Subject: Ridgewood Drive Variance Hi Mayor Levine and City Council Members, I'm a Mendota Heights resident and would like to provide some feedback on an issue you are likely to decide on in the coming months. The pending owners of the land to the north of Ridgewood Drive are planning to request a variance soon allowing them to build a large new home. I'm not opposed to this request. I understand this land will be developed at some point. I just want to bring to your attention the unique nature of this property in hopes that there will be some conditions/restrictions on any new build. Specifically, the majority of this land is a wetland that collects much of the rain runoff for the surrounding area. In anticipation of more frequent and wet storms in the coming years, I think it would be prudent to ensure this wetland doesn't lose any of its ability to collect and filter stormwater. The roots of the native vegetation and large trees prevent erosion. Without a natural place to collect, this water is likely to damage nearby homes, yards, and streets, and could necessitate costly new stormwater systems. This area of the city has experienced quite a bit of new development in the past couple decades, which surely has diminished some of the land's resilience to heavy rainfall. I think some reasonable restrictions preventing damage to the wetlands and large trees would be a fair condition for approving the requested variance. It is likely the most responsible option for the city budget, as well, because of the potential for water damage to roads and water infrastructure. Specifically, I hope you can find ways to prevent the destruction of trees and native grasses and prevent the filling of any wetlands during the construction process. Thank you, Sean Fahnhorst 1767 Ridgewood Drive, Mendota Heights 952-393-3707 page 27 - r IT Ac 5 �m�, i; r * b xis page 28 page 29 5d. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN bbM 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com R CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 3, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Banking Authorization Signatory Change BACKGROUND This memo is to update the Banking Authorization Resolution for Deerwood Bank, Gateway Bank and Bank Cherokee. We will also update the authorized signors with our investment brokers at Wells Fargo Advisors, Piper Jaffray and TD Ameritrade. We will need to add Cheryl Jacobson, city administrator and remove Mark McNeill from the list of authorized signatures. The banks will provide staff with the paperwork to make this change to the city bank accounts effective October 1, 2021. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Remove Mark McNeill and add Cheryl Jacobson to the Banking Authorization Resolutions for Deerwood Bank, Gateway Bank and Bank Cherokee and update the signors with our investment brokers effective October 1, 2021. page 30 page 31 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5e. TREASURER'S REPORT SEPTEMBER 2021 BALANCE COLLATERAL Deerwood Bank Checking Account .03% $358,787.36 Collateral - Bonds $3,240,000.00 Gov't. Guar. $200,000,00 Investments Cost PV Saving Cert 7/27/2020 @ 1.50% Cherokee $14,064.33 $14,064.33 FHLMC 0.32% 11/24/23 $225,000.00 $224,885,25 Federal Farm Credit Bank Bond 0.31% 11/30/23 $490,000.00 $489,887.30 FHLB 0,25% 10/14/25 $500,000.00 $496,535.00 FHLB 0.40% 2/25/26 $340,000.00 $336,977.40 FHLB 0.50% 3/16/26 $505,000.00 $502,611.35 FHLB 0.65% 6/30/26 $300,000.00 $298,455.00 FHLB .50% 8/26/26 $250,000.00 $248,840.00 Sallie Mae Bank 1.70% 11/15/21 $100,000.00 $100,204.00 Morgan Stanley Bank 1.70% 12/27/21 $245,000.00 $245,955.50 Wells Fargo Bank 1.80% 1/18/22 $125,000.00 $125,636.25 Ally Bank 1.70% 1/24/22 $245,000.00 $246,261.75 Axos Bank 1.55% 3/28/22 $245,000.00 $246,754.20 Comenity Bank 2,25% 07/18/22 $200,000.00 $202,812.00 Capital One Bank 2.05% 8/15/22 $245,000.00 $249,240,95 Capital One 2.05% 8/15/22 $245,000.00 $249,240.95 Bank Hapoalim BM NY 0.20% 11/17/22 $200,000.00 $200,134.00 Eaglemark Savings Bank .20%4/28/23 $245,000.00 $244,786.85 BMW Bank America 0.40% 9/26/23 $245,000.00 $245,188.65 Bank United .45%4/15/24 $245,000.00 $244,573.70 UBS Bank USA 0.35%6124/24 $245,000.00 $243,515.30 Texas Exchange Bank 0.50% 7/9/24 $247,000.00 $246,419.55 Toyota Financial Savings Bank .55% 8/5/24 $245,000.00 $244,608.00 Morgan Stanley Private Bank 0.40% 3/20/25 $245,000.00 $244,184.15 JP Morgan Chase Bank 0.50% 7/30/25 $245,000.00 $245,264.60 Sallie Mae Bank 1.00% 718/26 $144,000.00 $144,406.08 Goldman Sachs Bank 1.05% 9/22/26 $160,000.00 $160,459.20 State Bank of India 1.10% 9/28/26 $245,000.00 $246,254.40 Fidelity Institutional Government Portfolio (Piper) $9,187,204.23 $9,187,204.23 Gov't. Securities Fund 28% Sold 6/4 $433,187.00 MMkt Fd (WF) $4,926.28 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE 9/30/2021 $16,610,381.84 Funds Available 1I1/2021 $19,834,685.05 Rates Money_ Market September Bank 0.03% 5 Yr. Tr. 0.98% 10 Yr. Tr. 1.52% page 32 TD Ameritrade Account Fire Station Bond Proceeds) Cash $421.90 Federal Government Obligation Mutual Fund $190,254.52 Total for TD Ameritrade Account $190,676.42 page 33 5f. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com mCITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: November 3, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Claims List Summary BACKGROUND Significant Claims Met Council Environmental Srvcs—Sewer& SAC Charges $ 134,611.13 A to Z Home Inspection—9/14-10/15/21 Inspections $ 9,937.50 Barr Engineering—Ridge Place Sewer Project $ 3,430.00 Campbell Knutson—Sept Legal Services $ 4,918.68 Ehlers &Associates—Arbitrage Reporting/TIF Services $ 6,331.25 Northern Escrow—Ivy Falls East Street Project $ 222,294.98 Nystrom Publishing—Fall Newsletter $ 4,682.25 Res Great Lake LLC—Natural Resources Management Plan $ 4,177.50 TKDA—Ivy Falls East Street Project Services $ 22,691.55 US Bank—Monthly Purchases $ 8,354.66 Manual Checks Total $ 138,848.93 System Checks Total $ 350,900.71 Total for the list of claims for the November 3,2021 city council meeting $ 489,749.64 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the list of clauns for November 3, 2021. page 34 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:25 PM Page 1 Claims List MANUAL CHECKS 10/27/21 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 G 01-2073 10/15/21 PAYROLL $150.00 G 01-2072 10/15/21 PAYROLL $2,440.00 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 $2,590.00 Search Name METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT SVC R 15-3320 SEPT SAC $12,425.00 E 15-4449-060-60 NOV. SEWER SERVICE Utility Enterprise $122,310.38 R 15-3615 SEPT SAC -$124.25 Search Name METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT SVC $134,611.13 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 01-2072 10/15/21 PAYROLL $50.00 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $50.00 Search Name SAM S CLUB E 45-4310-210-45 CONCESSION FOOD-PAR 3 Golf Course $30.86 E 01-4490-070-70 PILOT KNOB TASK FORCE SUPP Parks&Recreation $82.43 E 45-4310-210-45 CONCESSION FOOD-PAR 3 Golf Course $10.74 E 45-4310-210-45 CONCESSION FOOD-PAR 3 Golf Course -$16.96 E 01-4435-200-70 GLOW DASH SUPPLIES-REC Parks&Recreation $28.86 Search Name SAM S CLUB $135.93 Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE G 01-1210 REPLENISH POSTAGE METER $1,200.00 Search Name US POSTAL SERVICE $1,200.00 Search Name XCEL ENERGY E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $51.51 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $13.22 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $16.45 E 01-4211-320-70 UTILITIES Parks&Recreation $12.62 E 45-4211-047-45 UTILITIES Golf Course $161.90 E 45-4211-046-45 UTILITIES Golf Course -$22.68 E 45-4212-046-45 UTILITIES Golf Course $28.85 Search Name XCEL ENERGY $261.87 $138,848.93 page 35 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 1 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name A TO Z HOME INSPECTION, LLC E 01-4231-040-40 9/14/21-10/15/21 INSPECTION Code Enforcement/Inspe $9,937.50 Search Name A TO Z HOME INSPECTION, LLC $9,937.50 Search Name A-1 VACUUM CLEANER COMPANY E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $33.75 Search Name A-1 VACUUM CLEANER COMPANY $33.75 Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT&IMAGING E 01-4300-020-20 BUSINESS CARDS-PD Police $61.97 E 01-4300-110-10 MAILING LABELS Administration $31.59 E 01-4300-070-70 MAILING LABELS Parks&Recreation $23.69 E 01-4300-040-40 MAILING LABELS Code Enforcement/Inspe $23.69 E 01-4300-080-80 MAILING LABELS Planning $31.58 E 01-4300-105-15 MAILING LABELS Engineering Enterprise $31.59 E 15-4300-060-60 MAILING LABELS Utility Enterprise $15.79 Search Name ALLEGRA PRINT&IMAGING $219.90 Search Name ALLSTREAM E 15-4210-060-60 NOV 2021 TELEPHONE SERVIC Utility Enterprise $341.15 E 01-4210-020-20 NOV 2021 TELEPHONE SERVIC Police $207.58 E 01-4210-050-50 NOV 2021 TELEPHONE SERVIC Road&Bridges $49.75 E 01-4210-070-70 NOV 2021 TELEPHONE SERVIC Parks&Recreation $49.75 Search Name ALLSTREAM $648.23 Search Name ARAMARK(AMERIPRIDE SERVICES) E 01-4410-050-50 UNIFORM-PW Road&Bridges $10.84 E 15-4200-610-60 MAT SERVICE-PW Utility Enterprise $10.00 E 01-4200-610-50 MAT SERVICE-PW Road&Bridges $10.00 E 01-4200-610-70 MAT SERVICE-PW Parks&Recreation $10.00 E 01-4410-050-50 UNIFORM-PW Road&Bridges $10.84 E 15-4200-610-60 MAT SERVICE-PW Utility Enterprise $11.86 E 01-4200-610-50 MAT SERVICE-PW Road&Bridges $11.87 E 01-4200-610-70 MAT SERVICE-PW Parks&Recreation $11.87 Search Name ARAMARK(AMERIPRIDE SERVICES) $87.28 Search Name ARGINT, F. &TILSEN-MOGENI,A. G 15-1150 SEWER ACCOUNT REFUND $890.00 Search Name ARGINT, F.&TILSEN-MOGENI,A. $890.00 Search Name ASCAP E 01-4435-200-70 MUSIC LICENSE FEE AD] 1/1/2 Parks&Recreation $3.33 G 01-1215 MUSIC LICENSE FEE 1/1/22-10 $305.83 E 01-4435-200-70 MUSIC LICENSE FEE 11/1/21-1 Parks&Recreation $61.17 Search Name ASCAP $370.33 Search Name ASPEN MILLS E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS-FIRE Fire $58.34 E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS-FIRE Fire $174.55 E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS-FIRE Fire $174.55 E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS-FIRE Fire $121.60 E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS-FIRE Fire $174.55 E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS- FIRE Fire $194.67 E 01-4410-030-30 UNIFORMS- FIRE Fire $121.60 page 36 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 2 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name ASPEN MILLS $1,019.86 Search Name AWARDS BY HAMMOND E 01-4330-215-70 PLAQUE-PARKS Parks&Recreation $135.00 Search Name AWARDS BY HAMMOND $135.00 Search Name BCA-C J IS E 01-4223-020-20 CJDN ACCESS FEE 7/1/2021-9/ Police $720.00 Search Name B C A-C J IS $720.00 Search Name BARR ENGINEERING E 15-4220-060-60 RIDGE PLACE SANITARY SEWE Utility Enterprise $3,430.00 Search Name BARR ENGINEERING $3,430.00 Search Name BERGAN K D V E 01-4220-130-30 PREPARATION OF IRS FORM- Fire $1,975.00 Search Name BERGAN K D V $1,975.00 Search Name CAMPBELL KNUTSON E 01-4220-120-80 SEPT 2021 PLANNING LEGAL S Planning $3,605.84 E 01-4220-120-10 SEPT 2021 CLERK LEGAL SERVI Administration $82.50 E 01-4220-120-80 SEPT 2021 PUBLIC WORKS LEG Planning $18.00 E 01-4221-120-10 SEPT 2021 MEETINGS LEGAL S Administration $766.84 E 01-4220-120-10 SEPT 2021 GENERAL LEGAL SE Administration $33.00 E 01-4220-120-80 SEPT 2021 GENERAL LEGAL SE Planning $115.50 E 01-4220-120-70 SEPT 2021 GENERAL LEGAL SE Parks&Recreation $297.00 Search Name CAMPBELL KNUTSON $4,918.68 Search Name CENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $15.40 Search Name CENTRAL IRRIGATION SUPPLY $15.40 Search Name CITY AUTO GLASS E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $75.00 Search Name CITY AUTO GLASS $75.00 Search Name Cl SPRAY,INC. E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR- PARKS Parks&Recreation $97.06 Search Name CJ SPRAY, INC. $97.06 Search Name CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES,INC E 01-4220-110-10 ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEE Administration $250.00 Search Name CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES,INC $250.00 Search Name CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS E 01-4330-460-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $443.99 Search Name CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS $443.99 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC E 01-4275-030-30 SEPT 2021 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Fire $746.56 E 01-4220-040-40 ROW PERMITS 2021 ANNUAL S Code Enforcement/Inspe $531.00 E 01-4211-420-50 3RD QTR 2021 UTILITIES Road&Bridges $419.88 E 15-4200-610-60 SEPT 2021 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Utility Enterprise $23.33 E 01-4200-610-50 SEPT 2021 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Road&Bridges $163.31 E 01-4200-610-70 SEPT 2021 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Parks&Recreation $93.32 page 37 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 3 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4200-610-15 SEPT 2021 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Engineering Enterprise $69.99 E 01-4275-020-20 SEPT 2021 RADIO SUBSCRIBER Police $863.21 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY FINANCIAL SERVIC $2,910.60 Search Name DELTA DENTAL E 15-4131-060-60 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Utility Enterprise $232.60 G 01-2071 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM $348.90 E 01-4131-110-10 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Administration $697.80 E 01-4131-020-20 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Police $1,000.40 E 01-4131-050-50 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Road&Bridges $393.50 E 01-4131-070-70 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Parks&Recreation $294.70 E 08-4131-000-00 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Spec Fds $44.60 G 01-2074 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM $1,296.80 E 01-4131-105-15 NOV 2021 DENTAL PREMIUM Engineering Enterprise $62.10 Search Name DELTA DENTAL $4,371.40 Search Name EARL F.ANDERSEN,INC E 01-4420-050-50 STREET SIGNS Road&Bridges $48.55 E 01-4420-050-50 STREET SIGNS Road&Bridges $448.90 Search Name EARL F.ANDERSEN, INC $497.45 Search Name EHLERS&ASSOCIATES INC E 14-4490-000-00 ARBITRAGE REPORT 2015C ISS Spec Fds $3,000.00 E 13-4220-000-00 MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT Spec Fds $331.25 E 14-4490-000-00 ARBITRAGE REPORT 2015B ISS Spec Fds $3,000.00 Search Name EHLERS&ASSOCIATES INC $6,331.25 Search Name ELROY S ELECTRIC SERVICE E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $55.00 Search Name ELROY S ELECTRIC SERVICE $55.00 Search Name EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNC E 01-4268-030-30 NFPA PUMP TEST&INSPECT P Fire $323.46 E 01-4268-030-30 NFPA PUMP TEST&SERVICE A Fire $1,258.68 E 01-4268-030-30 NFPA PUMP TEST-FIRE Fire $265.00 E 01-4268-030-30 NFPA PUMP TEST&SERVICE A Fire $1,258.68 Search Name EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNC $3,105.82 Search Name EXCEL TURF&ORNAMENTAL E 45-4334-045-45 COURSE MAINTENANCE CHEMI Golf Course $1,913.06 ............_........... Search Name EXCEL TURF&ORNAMENTAL $1,913.06 Search Name EYE MED E 01-4131-110-10 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Administration $29.97 E 01-4131-050-50 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Road&Bridges $20.22 E 01-4131-020-20 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Police $50.49 E 01-4131-070-70 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Parks&Recreation $5.13 E 01-4131-105-15 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Engineering Enterprise $0.51 E 15-4131-060-60 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Utility Enterprise $24.84 G 01-2071 NOV 2021 PREMIUM $20.22 Search Name EYE MED $151.38 Search Name FLEET SERVICES E 01-4200-610-20 SEPT 2021 SQUAD LEASES-PD Police $5,568.69 page 38 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 4 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name FLEET SERVICES $5,568.69 Search Name FLEETPRIDE E 01-4330-490-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $2.77 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $32.45 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $105.12 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $111.15 Search Name FLEETPRIDE $251.49 Search Name FRA17ALONES DAWNWAY LLLP E 01-4422-050-50 STREET MAINT MATERIAL-ST Road&Bridges $84.00 . ..............._.. Search Name FRATTALONES DAWNWAY LLLP $84.00 Search Name FURTHER(SELECT ACCOUNT) E 01-4131-105-15 OCT 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Engineering Enterprise $6.75 E 01-4131-070-70 OCT 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Parks&Recreation $9.00 E 01-4131-050-50 OCT 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Road&Bridges $4.50 E 01-4131-020-20 OCT 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Police $40.10 E 01-4131-110-10 OCT 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Administration $21.70 E 08-4131-000-00 OCT 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Spec Fds $2.25 Search Name FURTHER(SELECT ACCOUNT) $84.30 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks&Recreation -$150.00 E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks&Recreation $1,500.00 E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks&Recreation $63.80 E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks&Recreation $1,236.00 E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks&Recreation $422.76 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE $3,072.56 Search Name GRAINGER E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $88.92 Search Name GRAINGER $88.92 Search Name GRANNIS&HAUGE, P.A. E 01-4222-120-20 SEPT 2021 PROSECUTIONS-P Police $5,891.00 E 01-4222-120-20 JULY 2021 PROSECUTIONS-P Police $5,891.00 Search Name GRANNIS&HAUGE, P.A. $11,782.00 Search Name GREEN2 SOLAR LEASING, LLC E 01-4213-030-30 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Fire $173.26 E 01-4213-070-70 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Parks&Recreation $57.75 E 45-4213-045-45 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Golf Course $159.52 E 01-4213-050-50 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Road&Bridges $57.75 E 01-4213-030-30 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Fire $149.96 E 01-4213-070-70 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Parks&Recreation $115.50 E 15-4213-060-60 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Utility Enterprise $57.75 E 08-4213-000-00 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Spec Fds $362.28 E 01-4213-050-50 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Road&Bridges $115.50 E 15-4213-060-60 NOV 2021 SOLAR PANEL LEASE Utility Enterprise $115.50 Search Name GREEN2 SOLAR LEASING, LLC $1,364.77 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS E 01-4300-030-30 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Fire $34.80 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $15.93 page 39 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 5 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4300-110-10 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMIN Administration $62.67 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $113.40 Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $272.58 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $46.97 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $46.97 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $272.58 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $171.90 E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIP REPAIR-UTILITY Utility Enterprise $272.59 E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIP REPAIR-UTILITY Utility Enterprise $46.96 Search Name INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM $1,130.55 Search Name INVER GROVE FORD E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $2,446.68 Search Name INVER GROVE FORD $2,446.68 Search Name KENNEDY&GRAVEN E 01-4220-120-20 SEPT 2021 LEGAL SERVICES Police $711,00 Search Name KENNEDY&GRAVEN $711.00 Search Name L E L S G 01-2075 NOVEMBER 2021 UNION DUES $889.00 Search Name L E L S $889.00 Search Name L M C I T1 E 01-4481-110-10 LMCIT CLAIM# LMC CA 000000 Administration $1,231.80 Search Name L M C I T1 $1,231.80 Search Name LOCAL UNION NO.70 G 01-2075 NOVEMBER 2021 UNION DUES $71.26 Search Name LOCAL UNION NO.70 $71.26 Search Name LUBE-TECH G 01-1210 OIL $749.00 Search Name LUBE-TECH $749.00 Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY E 45-4334-045-45 IRRIGATION WINTERIZATION Golf Course $690.80 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $554.28 Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY $1,245.08 Search Name MENARDS E 01-4435-200-70 REC SUPPLIES Parks&Recreation $20.94 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $15.22 E 15-4335-310-60 BLDG MAINT-UTILITY Utility Enterprise $11.98 E 01-4335-310-50 BLDG MAINT-STREET Road&Bridges $11.98 E 01-4335-310-70 BLDG MAINT-PARKS Parks&Recreation $11.98 E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIP REPAIR-UTILITY Utility Enterprise $35.94 E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIP REPAIR-UTILITY Utility Enterprise $111.53 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $14.07 Search Name MENARDS $233.64 Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS,CITY OF E 45-4427-045-45 2021 3RD QTR SEWER-PAR 3 Golf Course $395.40 page 40 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 6 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name MENDOTA HEIGHTS,CITY OF $395.40 Search Name MENDOTA,CITY OF R 15-3400 2021 3RD QTR SEWER BILLING $701.75 Search Name MENDOTA,CITY OF $701.75 Search Name MN DEPT OF TRSPT E 01-4220-050-50 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANC Road&Bridges $81.69 E 01-4400-050-50 10/21/21 TRAINING-STREETS Road&Bridges $1,200.00 Search Name MN DEPT OF TRSPT $1,281.69 Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE E 01-4223-020-20 SEPT 2021 WAN SERVICE Police $124.00 E 01-4220-114-14 SEPT 2021 WAN SERVICE Info Tech $111.010 Search Name MN ST ADMIN ITG TELECOM SRVCE $235.00 Search Name MNPEA G 01-2075 NOVEMBER 2021 UNION DUES $117.00 Search Name MNPEA $117.00 Search Name NORTHERN ESCROW INC E 27-4220-802-00 IVY FALLS EAST IMPROVEMEN Spec Fds $222,294.98 Search Name NORTHERN ESCROW INC $222,294.98 Search Name NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO., INC. E 01-4268-650-10 2021 FALL HEIGHTS HIGHLIGH Administration $4,682.25 Search Name NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO.,INC. $4,682.25 Search Name OREILLY AUTO/FIRST CALL E 01-4330-490-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $136.56 E 01-4330-490-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $6.36 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges -$1.46 Search Name OREILLY AUTO/FIRST CALL $141.46 Search Name PETSCHEL, KENNETH G 15-1150 SEWER ACCOUNT REFUND $888.80 Search Name PEfSCHEL, KENNETH $888.80 Search Name RES GREAT LAKES, LLC E 01-4220-070-70 NATURAL RESOURCE MGMT PL Parks&Recreation $4,177.50 Search Name RES GREAT LAKES, LLC $4,177.50 Search Name ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $268.28 E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $498.30 E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $80.64 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $7.60 Search Name ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD $854.82 Search Name S E H G 01-2125 VERIZON C-BAND LTE @ WT $750.95 Search Name S E H $750.95 Search Name SPRWS E 01-4425-070-70 OCT 2021 SERVICE-2171 DOD Parks&Recreation $703.91 E 01-4425-070-70 OCT 2021 SERVICE-2627 CON Parks&Recreation $403.82 page 41 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 7 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name SPRWS $1,107.73 Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE G 01-2071 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS $1,533.80 E 15-4131-060-60 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Utility Enterprise $147.30 E 08-4131-000-00 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Spec Fds $130.33 E 01-4131-105-15 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Engineering Enterprise $156.97 E 01-4131-070-70 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Parks&Recreation $206.22 E 01-4131-050-50 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Road&Bridges $239,37 E 01-4131-020-20 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Police $823.06 E 01-4131-110-10 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS Administration $219.50 G 01-2074 NOV 2021 PREMIUM-LIFE/DIS $1.82 Search Name STANDARD INSURANCE $3,458.37 Search Name STEPP MFG E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $438.00 Search Name STEPP MFG $438.00 Search Name STREICHERS E 01-4410-020-20 UNIFORMS-P. MCCARTY Police $260.00 Search Name STREICHERS $260.00 Search Name SUN LIFE(ASSURANT BENEFITS) E 01-4132-031-30 NOV 2021 PREMIUM Fire $180.20 Search Name SUN LIFE(ASSURANT BENEFITS) $180.20 Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC. SVC. E 01-4220-070-70 10/12/21 PARK&REC COMMIS Parks&Recreation $187.00 E 01-4220-110-10 10/5/21 CITY COUNCIL MINUT Administration $187.00 Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC. SVC. $374.00 Search Name TKDA E 27-4220-802-00 IVY FALLS EAST IMPROVEMEN Spec Fds $22,691.55 Search Name TKDA $22,691.55 Search Name TRUCK REPAIR&EQUIPMENT E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $453.92 Search Name TRUCK REPAIR&EQUIPMENT $453.92 Search Name U. S. BANK E 45-4330-490-45 EQUIP REPAIR-PAR 3 Golf Course $49.98 E 01-4490-109-09 MTG SUPPLIES-CITY COUNCI City Council $48.63 E 01-4305-070-70 SUPPLIES-PARKS Parks&Recreation $95.05 E 01-4490-020-20 MTG SUPPLIES-PD Police $80.00 E 01-4402-030-30 ZOOM -FIRE Fire $16.06 E 01-4490-030-30 MEALS-FIRE Fire $50.85 E 01-4318-110-10 POSTAGE Administration $32.55 E 01-4490-110-10 MTG SUPPLIES Administration $34.47 E 01-4410-020-20 UNIFORMS-PD Police $170.00 E 01-4490-070-70 MTG SUPPLIES-PARK Parks&Recreation $44.50 E 01-4410-020-20 UNIFORMS-PD Police $160.00 E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE VALLEY P Parks&Recreation $141.41 E 01-4500-070-70 TREE REMOVAL-PARKS Parks&Recreation $143.52 E 01-4400-105-15 MN WATER RESOURCES CONF Engineering Enterprise $95.00 E 01-4490-105-15 MTG SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING Engineering Enterprise $369.33 page 42 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 8 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4305-070-70 EYE WASH STATION SUPPLIES Parks&Recreation $9.20 E 01-4305-020-20 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PD Police $25.94 E 08-4280-000-00 WASTE DISPOSAL-CITY HALL Spec Fds $7.80 E 15-4400-060-60 2021 MN TREE INSPECTOR RE Utility Enterprise $16.66 E 15-4305-060-60 EYE WASH STATION SUPPLIES Utility Enterprise $9.20 E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS Parks&Recreation $598.47 E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS Parks&Recreation $996.95 E 01-4331-020-20 FURN EQUIP-PD Police $199.99 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $331.96 E 01-4400-050-50 MN FALL MAINTENACE EXPO- Road&Bridges $120.00 E 01-4400-020-20 STREET COP TRAINING-A. RA Police $249.00 E 01-4400-050-50 2021 MN TREE INSPECTOR RE Road&Bridges $16.67 E 01-4305-040-40 GOPHER SUPPLIES-CODE Code Enforcement/Inspe $45.32 E 01-4400-070-70 2021 TREE INSPECTOR CERT. Parks&Recreation $200.00 E 01-4305-024-20 RESERVES OPERATING SUPPLI Police $1,032.90 E 01-4223-020-20 SEPT 2021 TRANSUNION-PD Police $75.00 E 01-4220-020-20 COVERTTRACK SUBSCRIPTION Police $600.00 E 01-4400-020-20 STORM TRANING-P. FLEMING Police $208.95 E 01-4305-030-30 SUPPLIES-PD Fire $50.73 E 01-4400-070-70 2021 MN TREE INSPECTOR RE Parks&Recreation $16.67 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $15.69 E 01-4435-200-70 TABLE CLOTH DRY CLEANING- Parks&Recreation $92.94 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $22.94 E 01-4435-200-70 SUPPLIES-REC Parks&Recreation $95.06 E 01-4305-050-50 EYE WASH STATION SUPPLIES Road&Bridges $9.20 E 01-4331-020-20 GRILL-PD Police $369.00 E 01-4305-040-40 GOPHER SUPPLIES-CODE Code Enforcement/Inspe $414.72 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $94.65 E 01-4400-070-70 MRPA CONFERENCE-M. LAWR Parks&Recreation $55.00 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $108.75 E 01-4305-040-40 GOPHER SUPPLIES-CODE Code Enforcement/Inspe $26.43 E 01-4300-020-20 SUPPLIES-PD Police $59.99 E 01-4331-020-20 EQUIP-PD Police $49.13 E 01-4305-040-40 GOPHER SUPPLIES-CODE Code Enforcement/Inspe $98.97 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $38.09 E 01-4305-040-40 GOPHER SUPPLIES-CODE Code Enforcement/Inspe $74.67 E 45-4335-046-45 BLDG SUPPLIES-PAR 3 Golf Course $31.24 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $12.27 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $31.90 E 01-4400-070-70 CONFERENCE EXPENSE-M. LA Parks&Recreation $7.50 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $89.97 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise -$89.97 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $27.99 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $20.97 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise -$14.98 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $27.89 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $167.94 E 01-4305-020-20 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PD Police $49.99 E 01-4305-105-15 OPERATING SUPPLIES-ENGIN Engineering Enterprise $23.96 Search Name U.S. BANK $8,354.66 Search Name WALLRAFF ELECTRIC CO. E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $227.00 page 43 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 10/28/21 1:09 PM Page 9 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/03/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount G 45-2035 INSTALL TSTAT-PAR 3 -$25.30 E 45-4335-046-45 INSTALL TSTAT-PAR 3 Golf Course $393.30 G 45-2035 IRRIGATION BREAKER REPAIR -$21.29 E 45-4334-045-45 IRRIGATION BREAKER REPAIR Golf Course $330.89 Search Name WALLRAFF ELECTRIC CO. $904.60 Search Name WEST ST PAUL PARK&REC E 01-4435-200-70 FASCINATING FRIDAYS 2021 S Parks&Recreation $435.00 Search Name WEST ST PAUL PARK&REC $435.00 $350,900.71 page 44 page 45 7a. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55115 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Reauest for City Council Action DATE: November 3, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2021 Bond Issue BACKGROUND At the September 23, 2021 city council meeting, the council authorized the public sale of $2,630,000 in General Obligation Improvement Bonds. The issue will be financing the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood street project, Equipment Certificates for a new fire truck and refunding of the 2013A bond issue. I had a conference call with Standard & Poor's on October 21, 2021. They affirmed our AAA bond rating with a stable outlook. The proposal opening will be held on November 3, 2021 and the results of the opening will be presented that evening at the council meeting. The council will take action on the sale at the November 3, 2021 council meeting. A representative from Ehlers and Associates will be present to present a tabulation of the bids received. BUDGETIMPACT The bonds will be paid with a combination of special assessments and an amount levied each year for the annual bond payments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that council pass a motion adopting Resolution 2021-86 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,630,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. page 46 page 47 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA HELD: November 3, 2021 Pursuant to due call, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on November 3, 2021, at 6:00 P.M., for the purpose, in part, of authorizing the issuance and awarding the sale of $2,630,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-86 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,630,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021 A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota(the "City") has heretofore determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient to issue $2,630,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A for(the "Bonds" or individually, a "Bond"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (i) Chapter 429 to finance various street improvements (the "Improvements"); (ii) Sections 410.32(g) and 412. to finance the acquisition of a new fire truck for the City (the "Equipment"); and (iii) Section 475.67 t to current refund on February 1, 2022 (the "Call Date")the City's outstanding General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A, in the original principal amount of$1,685,000, dated November 5, 2013 (the "Prior Bonds"); and B. WHEREAS, the Improvements and all their components have been ordered prior to the date hereof, after a hearing thereon for which notice was given describing the Improvements or all their components by general nature, estimated cost, and area to be assessed; and C. WHEREAS, each item of Equipment to be financed by the Equipment Portion of the bonds has an expected useful life of at least as long as the term of the Equipment Portion of the Bonds; D. WHEREAS, the principal amount of the Equipment Portion of the Bonds does not exceed one-quarter of one percent(0.25%) of the estimated market value of the taxable property in the City ($2,440,082,800 times 0.25% is $6,100,207); and 71453385v1 page 48 E. WHEREAS, $810,000 aggregate principal amount of the Prior Bonds which matures on and after February 1, 2023 (the "Refunded Bonds"), is callable on the Call Date, at a price of par plus accrued interest, as provided in the resolution adopted by the City Council on October 1, 2013, authorizing the issuance of the Prior Bonds (the "Prior Resolution"); and F. WHEREAS, the refunding of the Refunded Bonds on the Call Date is consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, and is necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt service cost to the City; and G. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota("Ehlers"), as its independent municipal advisor for the sale of the Bonds and was therefore authorized to sell the Bonds by private negotiation in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9) and proposals to purchase the Bonds have been solicited by Ehlers; and H. WHEREAS, the proposals set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto were received by the City Clerk, or designee, at the offices of Ehlers at 10:00 A.M. this same day pursuant to the Preliminary Official Statement, dated October 21, 2021, established for the Bonds; and I. WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that the Bonds be issued in book- entry form as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Proposal. The proposal of (the "Purchaser"), to purchase the Bonds, in accordance with the Preliminary Official Statement established for the Bonds, at the rates of interest hereinafter set forth, and to pay therefor the sum of$ ,plus interest accrued to settlement, is hereby found, determined and declared to be the most favorable proposal received, is hereby accepted and the Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. The Finance Director is directed to retain the deposit of the Purchaser. 2. Bond Terms. (a) Original Issue Date, Denominations, Maturities, Term Bond Option. The Bonds shall be dated November 23, 2021, as the date of original issue, be issued forthwith on or after such date in fully registered form, be numbered from R-1 upward in the denomination of$5,000 each or in any integral multiple thereof of a single maturity (the "Authorized Denominations") and mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2 71453385v1 page 49 Year Amount Year Amount 2023 2029 2024 2030 2025 2031 2026 2032 2027 2033 2028 2034 As may be requested by the Purchaser, one or more term Bonds may be issued having mandatory sinking fund redemption and final maturity amounts conforming to the foregoing principal repayment schedule, and corresponding additions may be made to the provisions of the applicable Bond(s). (b) Allocation. The aggregate principal amount of$ maturing in each of the years and amounts hereinafter set forth are issued to finance the Improvements (the "Improvement Portion"). The aggregate principal amount of$ maturing in each of the years and amounts hereinafter set forth are issued to finance the Equipment(the "Equipment Portion"). The aggregate principal amount of$ maturing in each of the years and amounts hereinafter set forth are issued to finance the refunding of the Refunded Bonds (the "Refunding Portion"): Year Improvement Equipment Refunding Portion Portion Portion Total 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 If Bonds are prepaid, the prepayments shall be allocated to the portions of debt service (and hence allocated to the payment of Bonds treated as relating to a particular portion of debt service) as provided in this paragraph. If the source of prepayment moneys is the general fund of the City, or other generally available source, including the levy of taxes, the prepayment may be allocated to any portions of debt service in such amounts as the City shall determine. If the source of the prepayment is special assessments pledged to the Improvements and the Refunded Bonds, the prepayment shall be allocated to the Improvement Portion of debt service. 3 71453385v1 page 50 (c) Book Entry Only System. The Depository Trust Company, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York or any of its successors or its successors to its functions hereunder(the "Depository")will act as securities depository for the Bonds, and to this end: (i) The Bonds shall be initially issued and, so long as they remain in book entry form only (the "Book Entry Only Period"), shall at all times be in the form of a separate single fully registered Bond for each maturity of the Bonds; and for purposes of complying with this requirement under paragraphs 5 and 10 Authorized Denominations for any Bond shall be deemed to be limited during the Book Entry Only Period to the outstanding principal amount of that Bond. (ii) Upon initial issuance, ownership of the Bonds shall be registered in a bond register maintained by the Bond Registrar(as hereinafter defined) in the name of CEDE& CO, as the nominee (it or any nominee of the existing or a successor Depository, the "Nominee"). (iii) With respect to the Bonds neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to any broker, dealer, bank, or any other financial institution for which the Depository holds Bonds as securities depository (the "Participant") or the person for which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds shown on the books and records of the Participant(the 'Beneficial Owner"). Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, neither the City, nor the Bond Registrar, shall have any such responsibility or obligation with respect to (A)the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, or(B) the delivery to any Participant, any Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or(C)the payment to any Participant, any Beneficial Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any amount with respect to the principal of or premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds, or(D)the consent given or other action taken by the Depository as the Registered Holder of any Bonds (the "Holder"). For purposes of securing the vote or consent of any Holder under this Resolution, the City may, however, rely upon an omnibus proxy under which the Depository assigns its consenting or voting rights to certain Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy. (iv) The City and the Bond Registrar may treat as and deem the Depository to be the absolute owner of the Bonds for the purpose of payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to the Bonds, for the purpose of obtaining any consent or other action to be taken by Holders for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all purpose whatsoever. The Bond Registrar, as paying agent hereunder, shall pay all principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to the Holder or the Holders of the Bonds as shown on the bond register, and all such payments shall be valid and 4 71453385v1 page 51 effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (v) Upon delivery by the Depository to the Bond Registrar of written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new Nominee in place of the existing Nominee, and subject to the transfer provisions in paragraph 10, references to the Nominee hereunder shall refer to such new Nominee. (vi) So long as any Bond is registered in the name of a Nominee, all payments with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond shall be made and given, respectively, by the Bond Registrar or City, as the case may be, to the Depository as provided in the Letter of Representations to the Depository required by the Depository as a condition to its acting as book-entry Depository for the Bonds (said Letter of Representations, together with any replacement thereof or amendment or substitute thereto, including any standard procedures or policies referenced therein or applicable thereto respecting the procedures and other matters relating to the Depository's role as book-entry Depository for the Bonds, collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Letter of Representations"). (vii) All transfers of beneficial ownership interests in each Bond issued in book-entry form shall be limited in principal amount to Authorized Denominations and shall be effected by procedures by the Depository with the Participants for recording and transferring the ownership of beneficial interests in such Bonds. (viii) In connection with any notice or other communication to be provided to the Holders pursuant to this Resolution by the City or Bond Registrar with respect to any consent or other action to be taken by Holders, the Depository shall consider the date of receipt of notice requesting such consent or other action as the record date for such consent or other action; provided, that the City or the Bond Registrar may establish a special record date for such consent or other action. The City or the Bond Registrar shall, to the extent possible, give the Depository notice of such special record date not less than 15 calendar days in advance of such special record date to the extent possible. (ix) Any successor Bond Registrar in its written acceptance of its duties under this Resolution and any paying agency/bond registrar agreement, shall agree to take any actions necessary from time to time to comply with the requirements of the Letter of Representations. (d) Termination of Book-Entry Only System. Discontinuance of a particular Depository's services and termination of the book-entry only system may be effected as follows: (i) The Depository may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The City may 5 71453385v1 page 52 terminate the services of the Depository with respect to the Bond if it determines that the Depository is no longer able to carry out its functions as securities depository or the continuation of the system of book-entry transfers through the Depository is not in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners. (ii) Upon termination of the services of the Depository as provided in the preceding paragraph, and if no substitute securities depository is willing to undertake the functions of the Depository hereunder can be found which, in the opinion of the City, is willing and able to assume such functions upon reasonable or customary terms, or if the City determines that it is in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners of the Bond that the Beneficial Owners be able to obtain certificates for the Bonds, the Bonds shall no longer be registered as being registered in the bond register in the name of the Nominee, but may be registered in whatever name or names the Holder of the Bonds shall designate at that time, in accordance with paragraph 10. To the extent that the Beneficial Owners are designated as the transferee by the Holders, in accordance with paragraph 10, the Bonds will be delivered to the Beneficial Owners. (iii) Nothing in this subparagraph (d) shall limit or restrict the provisions of paragraph 10. (e) Letter of Representations. The provisions in the Letter of Representations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the resolution, and if and to the extent any such provisions are inconsistent with the other provisions of this resolution, the provisions in the Letter of Representations shall control. 3. Purpose; Findings. The Bonds shall provide funds to (i) finance the Improvements and the acquisition of the Equipment(together, the "Project""), and (ii) for the current refunding of the Refunded Bonds (the "Refunding"). The total cost of the Project, which shall include all costs enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at least equal to the amount of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. Work on the Project shall proceed with due diligence to completion. The City covenants that it shall do all things and perform all acts required of it to assure that work on the Project proceeds with due diligence to completion and that any and all permits and studies required under law for the Project are obtained. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the Refunding is pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, and shall result in a reduction of debt service cost to the City. 4. Interest. The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year(each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 2022, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite the maturity years as follows: Maturity Year Interest Rate Maturity Interest Rate 2023 2029 2024 2030 6 71453385v1 page 53 2025 2031 2026 2032 2027 2033 2028 2034 5. Redemption. All Bonds maturing on February 1, 2031, and thereafter shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City on February 1, 2030, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the City and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds not more than sixty (60) days and not fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar prior to giving notice of redemption shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers so assigned to such Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of each such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar(with, if the City or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City and Bond Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing) and the City shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of the Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by the Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. 6. Bond Re ig strar. Bond Trust Services Corporation, in Roseville, Minnesota, is appointed to act as bond registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), and shall do so unless and until a successor Bond Registrar is duly appointed, all pursuant to any contract the City and Bond Registrar shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Bond Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a successor paying agent is duly appointed. Principal and interest on the Bonds shall be paid to the registered holders (or record holders) of the Bonds in the manner set forth in the form of Bond and in paragraph 12. 7. Form of Bond. The Bonds, together with the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration information thereon, shall be in substantially the following form: 7 71453385v1 page 54 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS R- $ GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, SERIES 2021A Interest Rate Maturity Date Date of Original Issue CUSIP % February 1, November 23, 2021 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE& CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: The City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota(the "Issuer"), certifies that it is indebted and for value received promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, in the manner hereinafter set forth, the principal amount specified above, on the maturity date specified above, unless called for earlier redemption, and to pay interest thereon semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year(each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 2022, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve thirty-day months)until the principal sum is paid or has been provided for. This Bond will bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or, if no interest has been paid, from the date of original issue hereof. The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the Bond Trust Services Corporation, in Roseville, Minnesota(the "Bond Registrar"), acting as paying agent, or any successor paying agent duly appointed by the Issuer. Interest on this Bond will be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name this Bond is registered (the "Holder" or "Bondholder") on the registration books of the Issuer maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given to Bondholders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. So long as this Bond is registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee as provided in the Resolution hereinafter described, and as those terms are defined therein,payment of principal of,premium, if any, and interest on this Bond and notice with respect thereto shall be made as provided in the Letter of Representations, as defined in the Resolution, and surrender of this Bond shall not be required for payment of the redemption price upon a partial redemption of this Bond. Until termination of the book-entry only system pursuant to the Resolution, Bonds may only be registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee. 8 71453385v1 page 55 Optional Redemption. The Bonds of this issue (the "Bonds") maturing on February 1, 2031, and thereafter, are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the Issuer on February 1, 2030, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the Issuer; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds not more than sixty (60) days and not fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption. Prior to the date on which any Bond or Bonds are directed by the Issuer to be redeemed in advance of maturity, the Issuer will cause notice of the call thereof for redemption identifying the Bonds to be redeemed to be mailed to the Bond Registrar and all Bondholders, at the addresses shown on the Bond Register. All Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest on the specified redemption date, provided funds for their redemption have been duly deposited. Selection of Bonds for Redemption, Partial Redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers assigned to the Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the Issuer or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Issuer and Bond Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing) and the Issuer shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of the Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by the Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. Issuance; Purpose; General Obligation._ This Bond is one of an issue in the total principal amount of$2,630,000, all of like date of original issue and tenor, except as to number, maturity, interest rate, denomination and redemption privilege, issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on November 3, 2021 (the "Resolution"), for the purpose of providing funds to finance various street improvement projects within the jurisdiction of the Issuer, the acquisition of capital equipment and for a current refunding of certain outstanding general obligation bonds of the Issuer. This Bond is payable out of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Fund of the Issuer. This Bond constitutes a general obligation of the Issuer, and to provide moneys for 9 71453385v1 page 56 the prompt and full payment of its principal,premium, if any, and interest when the same become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the Issuer have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. Denominations; Exchange; Resolution. The Bonds are issuable solely in fully registered form in Authorized Denominations (as defined in the Resolution) and are exchangeable for fully registered Bonds of other Authorized Denominations in equal aggregate principal amounts at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution for a description of the rights and duties of the Bond Registrar. Copies of the Resolution are on rile in the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Transfer. This Bond is transferable by the Holder in person or by the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing at the principal office of the Bond Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Bond Registrar, all subject to the terms and conditions provided in the Resolution and to reasonable regulations of the Issuer contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar. Thereupon the Issuer shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in exchange for this Bond, one or more new fully registered Bonds in the name of the transferee (but not registered in blank or to "bearer" or similar designation), of an Authorized Denomination or Denominations, in aggregate principal amount equal to the principal amount of this Bond, of the same maturity and bearing interest at the same rate. Fees upon Transfer or Loss. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of this Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Treatment of Registered Owners. The Issuer and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided (except as otherwise provided herein with respect to the Record Date) and for all other purposes, whether or not this Bond shall be overdue, and neither the Issuer nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. Authentication. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security unless the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation. This Bond has been designated by the Issuer as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed,precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, have been done, have happened and have been performed, in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law; and that this Bond, together with all other debts of the Issuer outstanding on the date of original issue hereof and the date of its issuance and delivery to the original purchaser, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. 10 71453385v1 page 57 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, by its City Council has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and its City Clerk, the corporate seal of the Issuer having been intentionally omitted as permitted by law. Date of Registration: Registrable by: BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION Payable at: BOND TRUST SERVICES BOND REGISTRAR'S CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the Resolution mentioned within. BOND TRUST SERVICES /s/Facsimile CORPORATION Mayor Roseville, Minnesota., Bond Registrar /s/Facsimile By: City Clerk Authorized Signature 11 71453385v1 page 58 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UTMA - as custodian for (Cust) (Minor) under the Uniform (State) Transfers to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges or any other "Eligible Guarantor Institution" as defined in 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-15(a)(2). The Bond Registrar will not affect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the transferee requested below is provided. Name and Address: (Include information for all j oint owners if the Bond is held by j oint account.) 12 71453385v1 page 59 8. Execution. The Bonds shall be in typewritten form, shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and City Clerk and be sealed with the seal of the City; provided, as permitted by law, both signatures may be photocopied facsimiles and the corporate seal has been omitted. In the event of disability or resignation or other absence of either officer, the Bonds may be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the officer who may act on behalf of the absent or disabled officer. In case either officer whose signature or facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bonds, the signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. 9. Authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless a Certificate of Authentication on the Bond, substantially in the form hereinabove set forth, shall have been duly executed by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar. Certificates of Authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same person. The Bond Registrar shall authenticate the signatures of officers of the City on each Bond by execution of the Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for purposes of delivering the original Bonds to the Purchaser, the Bond Registrar shall insert as a date of registration the date of original issue of November 23, 2021. The Certificate of Authentication so executed on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. 10. Registration, Transfer; Exchange. The City will cause to be kept at the principal office of the Bond Registrar a bond register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Bond Registrar may prescribe, the Bond Registrar shall provide for the registration of Bonds and the registration of transfers of Bonds entitled to be registered or transferred as herein provided. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration (as provided in paragraph 9) of, and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount, having the same stated maturity and interest rate, as requested by the transferor; provided, however, that no Bond may be registered in blank or in the name of "bearer" or similar designation. At the option of the Holder, Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount and stated maturity, upon surrender of the Bonds to be exchanged at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bonds are so surrendered for exchange, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration of, and deliver the Bonds which the Holder making the exchange is entitled to receive. All Bonds surrendered upon any exchange or transfer provided for in this resolution shall be promptly canceled by the Bond Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. 13 71453385v1 page 60 All Bonds delivered in exchange for or upon transfer of Bonds shall be valid general obligations of the City evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this resolution, as the Bonds surrendered for such exchange or transfer. Every Bond presented or surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of any Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Transfers shall also be subject to reasonable regulations of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar, including regulations which permit the Bond Registrar to close its transfer books between record dates and payment dates. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute the terms of said agreement. 11. Rights_ Upon Transfer or Exchange. Each Bond delivered upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond. 12. Interest Payment, Record Date. Interest on any Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered (the "Holder") on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any such interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the Holders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. 13. Treatment of Registered Owner. The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest(subject to the payment provisions in paragraph 12) on, such Bond and for all other purposes whatsoever whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. 14. Delivery; Application of Proceeds. The Bonds when so prepared and executed shall be delivered by the Finance Director to the Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obliged to see to the proper application thereof. 15. Fund and Accounts. There is hereby created a special fund to be designated the "General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Fund" (the "Fund")to be administered and maintained by the Finance Director as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall be maintained in the 14 71453385v1 page 61 manner herein specified until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. There shall be maintained in the Fund the following accounts: (a) Capital Account. To the Capital Account there shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds, less capitalized interest,plus any special assessments levied with respect to the Improvements and collected prior to completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof. From the Capital Account there shall be paid all costs and expenses of making and acquiring the Project including the cost of any construction contracts heretofore let and all other costs incurred and to be incurred of the kind authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65. Moneys in the Capital Account shall be used for no other purpose except as otherwise provided by law;provided that the proceeds of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds may also be used to the extent necessary to pay interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds due prior to the anticipated date of commencement of the collection of taxes or special assessments herein levied or covenanted to be levied; and provided further that if upon completion of the Project there shall remain any unexpended balance in the Capital Account from the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, such balance (other than any special assessments) may be transferred to the Debt Service Account provided that any funds attributable to the Improvement Portion of the Bonds may be transferred to the fund of any other improvement instituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and provided further that any special assessments credited to the Capital Account shall only be applied towards payment of the costs of the Improvements upon adoption of a resolution by the City Council determining that the application of the special assessments for such purpose will not cause the City to no longer be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. (b) Payment Account. To the Payment Account there shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The Finance Director shall transfer on or prior to the Call Date, $ of the proceeds of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds from the Payment Account to the paying agent for the Prior Bonds, which sums are sufficient, together with other funds on deposit in debt service funds for the Refunded Bonds, to pay the principal and interest due on the Refunded Bonds due after the Call Date, including the principal of the Refunded Bonds called for redemption on the Call Date. The remainder of the monies in the Payment Account shall be used to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. Any monies remaining in the Payment Account after payment of all costs of issuance and payment of the Refunded Bonds shall be transferred to the Debt Service Account. (c) Debt Service Account. There shall be maintained separate subaccounts in the Debt Service Account to be designated the "Improvements Debt Service Subaccount" and the "Equipment Debt Service Subaccount." There are hereby irrevocably appropriated and pledged to, and there shall be credited to the separate subaccounts of the Debt Service Account: (i) Improvements Debt Service Subaccount. To the Improvements Debt Service Subaccount there shall be credited: (A) all collections of special assessments herein covenanted to be levied with respect to the Improvements and either initially credited to the Capital Account and not already spent as permitted above and required to pay any principal and interest due on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds or collected subsequent to the completion of the Improvements and 15 71453385v1 page 62 payment of the costs thereof, (B) any collections of all taxes herein or hereinafter levied for the payment of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and interest thereon; (C) available City funds in the amount of$ to provide sufficient funds to pay interest due on the Bonds on or before August 1, 2022; (D) after the Call Date, all uncollected special assessments pledged to the payment of the Prior Bonds; (E) any collections of all taxes levied in 2020 for the payment of the Prior Bonds and interest thereon; (F) any balance remaining after the Call Date in the Prior Bonds Refunding Debt Service Subaccount established by the Prior Resolution (G) all funds remaining in the Capital Account after completion of the Project and payment of the costs thereof, (H) any funds remaining in the Payment Account after the cost of issuing the Bonds have been paid; (I) all investment earnings on funds held in the Improvements Debt Service Subaccount; and(J) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the governing body of the City to the Improvements Debt Service Subaccount. The Improvements Debt Service Subaccount shall be used solely to pay the principal and interest and any premium for redemption of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and any other General Obligation Improvement Bonds of the City hereafter issued by the City and made payable from said subaccount as provided by law. (ii) Equipment Debt Service Subaccount. To the Equipment Debt Service Subaccount there shall be credited: (A) all collections of taxes herein or hereinafter levied for the payment of the Equipment Portion of the Bonds and interest thereon; (B) capitalized interest in the amount of$ - (together with interest earnings thereon and subject to such other adjustments as are appropriate to provide sufficient funds to pay interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds on or before August 1, 2022; (C) a pro rata share of all funds remaining in the Capital Account after completion of the Project and payment of the costs thereof, (D) all investment earnings on funds held in the Equipment Debt Service Subaccount; and(E) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the governing body of the City to the Equipment Debt Service Subaccount. The Equipment Debt Service Subaccount shall be used solely to pay the principal and interest and any premium for redemption of the Equipment Portion of the Bonds. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments, except(1) for a reasonable temporary period until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the Bonds were issued and(2) in addition to the above in an amount not greater than the lesser of five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds or $100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Capital Account or Debt Service Account(or any other City account which will be used to pay principal or interest to become due on the bonds payable therefrom) in excess of amounts which under then applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested without regard to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions imposed by said arbitrage regulations on such investments after taking into account any applicable "temporary periods" or "minor portion" made available under the federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Fund shall 16 71453385v1 page 63 not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bonds to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). 16. Covenants Relating to the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. (a) Assessments. It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent of the cost to the City of each Improvement within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments to be levied against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefited by any of the Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one year after ordering each Improvement unless the resolution ordering the Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they may be done all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot,piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the City Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the City Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. The special assessments have heretofore been authorized. Subject to such adjustments as are required by the conditions in existence at the time the assessments are levied, it is hereby determined that the assessments shall be payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at the rates per annum not less than the rate per annum set forth opposite the collection years specified below: Improvement Designation Levy Years Collection Years Amount Rate See attached schedule in Exhibit B At the time the special assessments are in fact levied the City Council shall, based on the then current estimated collections of the special assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. (b) Tax Levy. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: Year of Tax Levy Year of Tax Collection Amount See attached schedule in Exhibit B 17 71453385v1 page 64 (c) Coverage Test. The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid,provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. (d) Covenants Relating to the Equipment Portion of the Bonds: Tax Levy: Coverage Test. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Equipment Portion of the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: Levy Years Collection Years Amount See attached schedule in Exhibit B The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Equipment Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Equipment Portion of the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Equipment Portion of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid,provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. 17. Covenants Relating to the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. (a) Assessments. The City has heretofore levied special assessments, which were pledged to the payment of the principal and interest on the Prior Bonds. After the Call Date, the uncollected special assessments for the Prior Bonds are now pledged to the payment of principal and interest on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The special assessments are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of taxes herein pledged for the payment of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The special assessments were levied as provided below,payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at the rate shown opposite such years: Improvement Designations Amounts Interest Rate Collection Years See attached schedule in Exhibit B. (b) Tax Levy. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with 18 71453385v1 page 65 and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: Years of Tax Levy Years of Tax Collection Amounts See attached schedule in Exhibit B (c) Coverage Test. The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and any other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid,provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. (d) Cancellation of Certain Tax Levies. Upon payment of the Prior Bonds on the Call Date, the taxes levied the Prior Resolution for the years 2022 through 2032 shall be canceled. 18. General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt Service Account is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service Account when a sufficient balance is available therein. 19. Prior Bonds, Security and Prepayment. Until retirement of the Prior Bonds, all provisions for the security thereof shall be observed by the City and all of its officers and agents. The Refunded Bonds shall be redeemed and prepaid on the Call Date in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Notice of Call for Redemption attached hereto as Exhibit C, which terms and conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. 20. Suplemental Resolution. The Prior Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Prior Bonds are hereby supplemented to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions hereof. 21. Defeasance. When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the registered holders of the Bonds shall, to the extent permitted by law, cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Bond Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable according to their terms, by depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full, provided that notice of redemption thereof has been duly given. The City may also at any time 19 71453385v1 page 66 discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a suitable banking institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 8, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates as shall be required, without regard to sale and/or reinvestment, to pay all amounts to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been duly provided for, to such earlier redemption date. 22. Compliance With Reimbursement Bond Regulations. The provisions of this paragraph are intended to establish and provide for the City's compliance with United States Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 (the "Reimbursement Regulations") applicable to the "reimbursement proceeds" of the Bonds, being those portions thereof which will be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure which the City paid or will have paid prior to the Closing Date (a "Reimbursement Expenditure"). The City hereby certifies and/or covenants as follows: (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of payment of a Reimbursement Expenditure, the City (or person designated to do so on behalf of the City) has made or will have made a written declaration of the City's official intent(a "Declaration")which effectively (i) states the City's reasonable expectation to reimburse itself for the payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure out of the proceeds of a subsequent borrowing; (ii) gives a general and functional description of the property,project or program to which the Declaration relates and for which the Reimbursement Expenditure is paid, or identifies a specific fund or account of the City and the general functional purpose thereof from which the Reimbursement Expenditure was to be paid (collectively the "Project"); and (iii) states the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued by the City for the purpose of financing the Project;provided, however, that no such Declaration shall necessarily have been made with respect to: (i) "preliminary expenditures" for the Project, defined in the Reimbursement Regulations to include engineering or architectural, surveying and soil testing expenses and similar prefatory costs, which in the aggregate do not exceed twenty percent of the "issue price" of the Bonds, and (ii) a de minimis amount of Reimbursement Expenditures not in excess of the lesser of$100,000 or five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds. (b) Each Reimbursement Expenditure is a capital expenditure or a cost of issuance of the Bonds or any of the other types of expenditures described in Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. (c) The "reimbursement allocation" described in the Reimbursement Regulations for each Reimbursement Expenditure shall and will be made forthwith following (but not prior to) the issuance of the Bonds, and not later than three years after the later of(i)the date of the payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure, or(ii)the date on which the Project to which the Reimbursement Expenditure relates is first placed in service. 20 71453385v1 page 67 (d) Each such reimbursement allocation will be made in a writing that evidences the City's use of Bond proceeds to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditure and, if made within 30 days after the Bonds are issued, shall be treated as made on the day the Bonds are issued. Provided, however, that the City may take action contrary to any of the foregoing covenants in this paragraph upon receipt of an opinion of its Bond Counsel for the Bonds stating in effect that such action will not impair the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. 23. Continuing Disclosure. The City is the sole obligated person with respect to the Bonds. The City hereby agrees, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule"), promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission")pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking")hereinafter described to: (a) Provide or cause to be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB")by filing at www.emma.msrb.org in accordance with the Rule, certain annual financial information and operating data in accordance with the Undertaking. The City reserves the right to modify from time to time the terms of the Undertaking as provided therein. (b) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of the occurrence of certain events with respect to the Bonds in not more than ten (10)business days after the occurrence of the event, in accordance with the Undertaking. (c) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of a failure by the City to provide the annual financial information with respect to the City described in the Undertaking, in not more than ten (10)business days following such occurrence. (d) The City agrees that its covenants pursuant to the Rule set forth in this paragraph and in the Undertaking is intended to be for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds and shall be enforceable on behalf of such Holders;provided that the right to enforce the provisions of these covenants shall be limited to a right to obtain specific enforcement of the City's obligations under the covenants. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City, or any other officer of the City authorized to act in their place (the "Officers") are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City the Undertaking in substantially the form presented to the City Council subject to such modifications thereof or additions thereto as are (i) consistent with the requirements under the Rule, (ii)required by the Purchaser of the Bonds, and(iii) acceptable to the Officers. 24. Certificate of Registration. A certified copy of this resolution is hereby directed to be filed with the County Auditor of Dakota County, Minnesota, together with such other information as the County Auditor shall require, and there shall be obtained from the County Auditor a certificate that the Bonds have been entered in the County Auditor's Bond Register and the tax levy required by law has been made 25. Records and Certificates. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the 21 71453385v1 page 68 Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts recited therein. 26. Negative Covenant as to Use of Bond Proceeds and Project. The City hereby covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to use the Project, or to cause or permit them to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment arrangements for the cost of the Project, in such a manner as to cause Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 27. Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds, Rebate. (a) Allocation to the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds, including without limitation (i)requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (ii) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds, and (iii)the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States, if the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds (together with other obligations reasonably expected to be issued and outstanding at one time in this calendar year) exceed the small issuer exception amount of$5,000,000. For purposes of qualifying for the exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements for governmental units issuing $5,000,000 or less of bonds, the City hereby finds, determines and declares that(i)the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds are issued by a governmental unit with general taxing powers, (ii)no portion of Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds is a private activity bond, (iii) ninety five percent or more of the net proceeds of the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds are to be used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City), and (iv)the aggregate face amount of all tax exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all subordinate entities thereof, and all entities treated as one issuer with the City) during the calendar year in which the Improvement Portion of the Bonds and the Equipment Portion of the Bonds are issued and outstanding at one time is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, all within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code. (b) Allocation to the Refunding Portion of the Bonds. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, including without limitation (i)requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (ii) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Refunding Portion of the Bonds, and(iii)the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States. The City expects to satisfy the six month expenditure exemption from gross proceeds of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds as provided in Section 1.148-7(c) of the Regulations. The Mayor and/or City Clerk 22 71453385v1 page 69 and/or Finance Director are hereby authorized and directed to make such elections as to arbitrage and rebate matters relating to the Refunding Portion of the Bonds as they deem necessary, appropriate or desirable in connection with the Bonds, and all such elections shall be, and shall be deemed and treated as, elections of the City. 28. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are issued after August 7, 1986; (b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (c) the City hereby designates Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (d) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c)(3)bonds as not being private activity bonds)which will be issued by the City (and all entities treated as one issuer with the City, and all subordinate entities whose obligations are treated as issued by the City) during this calendar year 2021 will not exceed $10,000,000; (e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during this calendar year 2021 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; and (f) the aggregate face amount of the Bonds does not exceed $10,000,000. Furthermore: (g) each of the Refunded Bonds was designated as a "qualified tax exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (h) the average maturity of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds does not exceed the remaining average maturity of the Refunded Bonds; (i) no part of the Refunding Portion of the Bonds has a maturity date which is later than the date which is thirty years after the date the Refunded Bonds were issued; and 0) the Refunding Portion of the Bonds are issued to refund, and not to "advance refund" the Prior Bonds within the meaning of Section 149(d)(5) of the Code, and shall not be taken into account under the $10,000,000 issuance limit to the extent the Refunding Portion of the Bonds do not exceed the outstanding amount of the Prior Bonds and therefor the Refunding Portion of the Bonds are "deemed designated" within the meaning of Section 265 of the Code. The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designation made by this paragraph. 23 71453385v1 page 70 29. Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Bonds prepared and distributed by Ehlers is hereby approved and the officers of the City are authorized in connection with the delivery of the Bonds to sign such certificates as may be necessary with respect to the completeness and accuracy of the Official Statement. 30. Payment of Issuance Expenses. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses to Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, California, on the closing date for further distribution as directed by Ehlers. 31. Severability. If any section,paragraph or provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. 32. Headings. Headings in this resolution are included for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and, after a full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 24 71453385v1 page 71 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of the City, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as the minutes relate to considering proposals and awarding the sale of$2,630,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A. WITNESS my hand on November 3, 2021. City Clerk 25 71453385v1 page 72 EXHIBIT A PROPOSALS [To be supplied by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.] A-1 71453385v1 page 73 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULES [To be supplied by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.] B-1 71453385v1 page 74 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2013A CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that by order of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on February 1, 2022 those outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A, dated as of November 5, 2013, having stated maturity dates or subject to mandatory redemption in the years 2023 through 2034, inclusive, and totaling $810,000 in principal in principal amount and having CUSIP numbers listed below: Year Amount CUSIP 2023 $135,000 586771 AHO 2024 140,000 586771 AJ6 2025 140,000 586771 AK3 2029 160,000 586771 AP2 2034 235,000 586771 AU1 The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to February 1, 2022, on which date all interest on the bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the office of Bond Trust Services Corporation, 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113. Dated: November 3, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director `The City shall not be responsible for the selection of or use of the CUSIP numbers, nor is any representation made as to their correctness indicated in the notice. They are included solely for the convenience of the holders. C-1 71453385v1 Sale Day Report for City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1 COMPETITIVE SALE RESULTS Purpose: For the purposes of: (i) acquiring a new fire truck; (ii) financing various street improvements within the City; and (iii) a current refunding of the City’s 2013A General Obligation Improvement Bonds. Rating: S&P Global Ratings "AAA" Number of Bids: 3 Low Bidder: Northland Securities, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota Comparison from Lowest to Highest Bid: (TIC as bid) Low Bid 1.1723% High Bid 1.3151% Interest Difference $21,643 Summary of Sale Results: Principal Amount*: $2,630,000 Underwriter’s Discount: $12,636 Reoffering Premium: $211,327 True Interest Cost: 1.1812% Capitalized Interest: $30,792 Costs of Issuance: $56,614 Yield: 0.30%-1.45% Future Value Savings: $110,198 Present Value Savings: $85,614 Savings Percentage: 9.413% Total Net P&I $2,900,342 Notes: * Subsequent to bid opening, the issue size was decreased to $2,420,000.00, due to receipt of a premium bid (reduction of $210,000). Closing Date: November 23, 2021 City Council Action: Adopt a resolution awarding the sale of $2,420,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A. Attachments: Bid Tabulation Sources and Uses of Funds & Updated Debt Service Schedules Refunding Savings Analysis Rating Report (Distributed in City Council Packets Bond Resolution (Distributed in City Council Packets) BID TABULATION $2,630,000* General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota SALE: November 3, 2021 AWARD: NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC. Rating: S&P Global Ratings "AAA" Tax Exempt - Bank Qualified NAME OF BIDDER MATURITY (February 1) RATE REOFFERING YIELD PRICE NET INTEREST COST TRUE INTEREST RATE NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC. $2,845,869.45 $186,701.66 1.1723% Minneapolis, Minnesota 2023 3.000% 0.300% UBB D.A. Davidson 2024 3.000% 0.400% 2025 3.000% 0.500% 2026 3.000% 0.680% 2027 3.000% 0.800% 2028 3.000% 1.000% 2029 3.000% 1.130% 2030 3.000% 1.220% 2031 2.000% 1.300% 2032 2.000% 1.350% 20331 2.000% 1.450% 20341 2.000% 1.450% BAIRD $2,838,328.65 $194,242.46 1.2219% Milwaukee, Wisconsin BERNARDI SECURITIES, INC. $2,824,226.80 $208,344.31 1.3151% Chicago, Illinois * Subsequent to bid opening the issue size was decreased to $2,420,000. Adjusted Price - $2,618,690.76 Adjusted Net Interest Cost - $175,768.68 Adjusted TIC - 1.1812% 1 $125,000 Term Bond due 2034 with mandatory redemption in 2033. Mendota Heights, Minnesota $2,420,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Issue Summary New Money & Current Refunding 2013A GO Imp Bds Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 11/23/2021 | Delivered 11/23/2021 Improvements Equipment Current Ref 2013A GO Imp Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $985,000.00 $905,000.00 $530,000.00 $2,420,000.00 Reoffering Premium 87,021.95 89,337.00 34,967.80 211,326.75 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Funds --260,000.00 260,000.00 Prepaid Assessments 136,675.00 --136,675.00 St. Paul Regional Water Funds 570,472.77 --570,472.77 Storm Water Utility Funds 131,620.00 --131,620.00 Total Sources $1,910,789.72 $994,337.00 $824,967.80 $3,730,094.52 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.522%)5,143.16 4,725.44 2,767.39 12,635.99 Costs of Issuance 25,594.25 18,819.34 12,200.41 56,614.00 Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund -30,792.22 -30,792.22 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 1,880,052.31 940,000.00 -2,820,052.31 Deposit to Current Refunding Fund --810,000.00 810,000.00 Total Uses $1,910,789.72 $994,337.00 $824,967.80 $3,730,094.52 Series 2021A GO Bonds CR | Issue Summary | 11/ 3/2021 | 10:25 AM Mendota Heights, Minnesota $2,420,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Issue Summary New Money & Current Refunding 2013A GO Imp Bds Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/23/2021 ----- 08/01/2022 --46,534.44 46,534.44 - 02/01/2023 115,000.00 3.000%33,775.00 148,775.00 195,309.44 08/01/2023 --32,050.00 32,050.00 - 02/01/2024 310,000.00 3.000%32,050.00 342,050.00 374,100.00 08/01/2024 --27,400.00 27,400.00 - 02/01/2025 320,000.00 3.000%27,400.00 347,400.00 374,800.00 08/01/2025 --22,600.00 22,600.00 - 02/01/2026 225,000.00 3.000%22,600.00 247,600.00 270,200.00 08/01/2026 --19,225.00 19,225.00 - 02/01/2027 230,000.00 3.000%19,225.00 249,225.00 268,450.00 08/01/2027 --15,775.00 15,775.00 - 02/01/2028 235,000.00 3.000%15,775.00 250,775.00 266,550.00 08/01/2028 --12,250.00 12,250.00 - 02/01/2029 235,000.00 3.000%12,250.00 247,250.00 259,500.00 08/01/2029 --8,725.00 8,725.00 - 02/01/2030 245,000.00 3.000%8,725.00 253,725.00 262,450.00 08/01/2030 --5,050.00 5,050.00 - 02/01/2031 250,000.00 2.000%5,050.00 255,050.00 260,100.00 08/01/2031 --2,550.00 2,550.00 - 02/01/2032 130,000.00 2.000%2,550.00 132,550.00 135,100.00 08/01/2032 --1,250.00 1,250.00 - 02/01/2033 105,000.00 2.000%1,250.00 106,250.00 107,500.00 08/01/2033 --200.00 200.00 - 02/01/2034 20,000.00 2.000%200.00 20,200.00 20,400.00 Total $2,420,000.00 -$374,459.44 $2,794,459.44 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $14,162.11 Average Life 5.852 Years Average Coupon 2.6440934% Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.2411192% True Interest Cost (TIC)1.1812120% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.0377328% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.5851655% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.0573154% Weighted Average Maturity 5.864 Years Series 2021A GO Bonds CR | Issue Summary | 11/ 3/2021 | 10:25 AM Mendota Heights, Minnesota $2,420,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Issue Summary New Money & Current Refunding 2013A GO Imp Bds Detail Costs Of Issuance Dated 11/23/2021 | Delivered 11/23/2021 COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL Municipal Advisor $31,200.00 Bond Counsel (Taft Stettinius & Hollister)$13,000.00 Rating Agency Fee (S&P)$11,637.00 Paying Agent (Bond Trust Services)$777.00 TOTAL $56,614.00 Series 2021A GO Bonds CR | Issue Summary | 11/ 3/2021 | 10:25 AM Mendota Heights, Minnesota $530,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Current Ref 2013A GO Imp Debt Service Comparison Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings 02/01/2022 --(260,000.00)(260,000.00) 02/01/2023 132,952.22 132,952.22 162,050.00 29,097.78 02/01/2024 131,650.00 131,650.00 163,000.00 31,350.00 02/01/2025 128,050.00 128,050.00 158,800.00 30,750.00 02/01/2026 24,450.00 24,450.00 54,600.00 30,150.00 02/01/2027 23,850.00 23,850.00 53,300.00 29,450.00 02/01/2028 23,250.00 23,250.00 52,000.00 28,750.00 02/01/2029 17,650.00 17,650.00 50,700.00 33,050.00 02/01/2030 22,200.00 22,200.00 54,400.00 32,200.00 02/01/2031 21,600.00 21,600.00 52,600.00 31,000.00 02/01/2032 21,200.00 21,200.00 50,800.00 29,600.00 02/01/2033 20,800.00 20,800.00 54,000.00 33,200.00 02/01/2034 20,400.00 20,400.00 52,000.00 31,600.00 Total $588,052.22 $588,052.22 $698,250.00 $110,197.78 PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net) Gross PV Debt Service Savings.....................345,614.10 Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.038%(Bond Yield).....345,614.10 Transfers from Prior Issue Debt Service Fund......(260,000.00) Net Present Value Benefit $85,614.10 Net PV Benefit / $909,514.99 PV Refunded Debt Service 9.413% Net PV Benefit / $810,000 Refunded Principal...10.570% Net PV Benefit / $530,000 Refunding Principal..16.154% Refunding Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 11/23/2021 Refunding Delivery Date 11/23/2021 Series 2021A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2013A GO Imp | 11/ 3/2021 | 10:25 AM Mendota Heights, Minnesota $253,825 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A Assessments 2.0% over TIC - Equal Principal Assessments Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12/31/2022 25,382.50 3.250%8,249.31 33,631.81 12/31/2023 25,382.50 3.250%7,424.38 32,806.88 12/31/2024 25,382.50 3.250%6,599.46 31,981.96 12/31/2025 25,382.50 3.250%5,774.52 31,157.02 12/31/2026 25,382.50 3.250%4,949.58 30,332.08 12/31/2027 25,382.50 3.250%4,124.66 29,507.16 12/31/2028 25,382.50 3.250%3,299.72 28,682.22 12/31/2029 25,382.50 3.250%2,474.80 27,857.30 12/31/2030 25,382.50 3.250%1,649.86 27,032.36 12/31/2031 25,382.50 3.250%824.94 26,207.44 Total $253,825.00 -$45,371.23 $299,196.23 Significant Dates Filing Date 1/01/2022 First Payment Date 12/31/2022 Series 2021A GO Bonds - A | SINGLE PURPOSE | 11/ 3/2021 | 10:16 AM page 75 1101 Victoria Curve I Mend 8a. 651.452.1850 phone I www.rncndota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 3, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-85 Adopting and Confirming Assessments for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to preside over an assessment hearing and adopt the assessment roll for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND Council ordered the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements at their March 2, 2021 meeting, and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for this street reconstruction project. The plans were approved and authorized to bid at the April 6, 2021 meeting. Council accepted bids and awarded the project to Alcon Excavating at their April 20, 2021 meeting. DISCUSSION The Public Hearing for the consideration of special assessments for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements was advertised for the City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M. on November 3, 2021. The project is substantially complete with all paving, curbing, restoration, and appurtenant work. The contractor is planning to complete the final wear course and trail construction in spring 2021. BUDGET IMPACT The Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements are proposed to be financed by Special Assessments, Municipal Bonds, and Utility Funds. The total cost for the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements is $1,560,477.72. The project costs are further expanded to include indirect costs for administration, engineering, finance, legal, etc.: page 76 PROJECT COSTS ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL STREET REHABILITATION $751,797.10 $187,949.28 $939,746.38 CURB REPLACEMENT $162,131.45 $40,532.86 $202,664.31 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION $45,189.90 $11,297.48 $56,487.38 STORM SEWER $105,296.00 $0.00 $105,296.00 WATER MAIN $496,063.27 $74,409.49 $570,472.76 Totals $1,560,477.72 $314,189.11 $1,874,666.83 * Includes 25% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance. Watermain indirect cost at 15%. FUNDING SOURCES COST UTILITY ITEM ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT MUNI.BONDS FUNDS S.P.R.W.S. STREET REHABILITATION $939,746.38 $390,500.00 $549,246.38 CURB REPLACEMENT $202,664.31 $202,664.31 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION $56,487.38 $56,487.38 STORM SEWER $105,296.00 $105,296.00 WATER MAIN $570,472.76 $570,472.76 Totals $1,874,666.83 $390,500.00 $808,398.07 $105,296.00 $570,472.76 Staff is proposing that residential assessments be capped at$5,500. All proposed assessments are payable over a 10 year period at an interest rate not to exceed 5% (percent). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council conduct the required Public Hearing and adopt the attached assessment roll as prepared, or amend them if Council deems it appropriate to do so. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST STREET IMPROVEMENTS. This action requires a super majority vote. page 77 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-85 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS,pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law,the Mendota Heights City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement to rehabilitate Brompton Place,Downing Street,London Road, Sutcliff Circle,Winston Circle, and Winston Court referred to as the Ivy Falls East Neighborhood Improvements. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,by the Mendota Heights City Council that: 1. Such proposed assessments,copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof,is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual principal installments extending over a period of 10 years.The first of the installments shall be the annual principal plus interest calculated from the public hearing date to the end of this year plus twelve months of the next year and shall bear interest at the rate of up to 5%per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution.To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,pay the whole of the assessment on such property,with interest accrued to the date of payment,to the City Finance Director,except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution. The property owner may, at any time thereafter,pay to the City Finance Director the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid,excepting the installment portion appearing upon the current year's property tax statement. 4. The City Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate of said assessment rolls with each then unpaid installment and interest set forth separately,to be extended upon the proper tax lists of the County, and the County Auditor shall thereafter collect said assessments in the manner provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this third day of November,2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine,Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 78 City of Mendota Heights - Assessment Roll Hearing Date: November 3,rNRI9 Street Rehabilitation = 10 years Ivy Falls East SA#270428 Interest Rate = Job# 201906 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement Amount 2715200 Jeffrey D. Gustafson & Brompton Courts 1 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01010 Angela E. Scott 1034 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2715200 Mark W.&Alyssa G. Dunnigan Brompton Courts 2 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01020 1040 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2715200 Joseph &Jennifer Fitzgerald Brompton Courts 3 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01030 1044 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2715200 Micheal Thomas Tste Flood & Brompton Courts 4 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01040 Elisabeth Connell Tste Flood 1043 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2715200 Micheal Thomas Tste Flood & Brompton Courts 5 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01050 Elisabeth Connell Tste Flood 1043 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2715200 Michael G. Casserly& Brompton Courts 6 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01060 Sonya A.Jaworski 1033 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 1 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt 2737650 Anthony P. &Sharanne J. Calabrse Ivy Falls East Addition 1 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01010 524 Huron Avenue N Spring Valley, MN 55975 2737650 Thomas G.& Phyllis J. Dosch Ivy Falls East Addition 1 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02010 1028 Brompton Place Saint Paul, MN 55118-1002 2737650 Michael &Angelique Ohmes Ivy Falls East Addition 2 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02020 1022 Brompton Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1002 2737650 Brendan S. Mclnereny& Ivy Falls East Addition 3 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02030 Sarah C.Ahlers McInerney 1020 Brompton Lace Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Benjamin John& Mary Elizabeth Ivy Falls East Addition 4 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02040 Thomas 1007 London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Ronald D. & M. Celeste Riley Ivy Falls East Addition 5 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02050 1013 London Road Saint Paul, MN 55118-1016 2737650 Manke William&Carole Trust Ivy Falls East Addition 6 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02060 1017 London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1016 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 2 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAMount 2737650 Thomas C.&Jodi M. O'Connor Ivy Falls East Addition 7 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02070 1023 London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Margaret E. Keys& Ivy Falls East Addition 8 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02080 Nicholas B. Wanka 1027 London Road Saint Paul, MN 55118-1016 2737650 John A.& Mary A. Markert Ivy Falls East Addition 1 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03010 1020London Road Saint Paul, MN 55118-1017 2737650 Steve L. Gawron& Ivy Falls East Addition 2 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03020 Kathleen L. Widman 1014 London Road Saint Paul, MN 55118-1017 2737650 Violetta V. Shorina Ivy Falls East Addition 3 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03030 1010London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Michael D.Tste Dooley& Ivy Falls East Addition 4 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03040 Marlys M.Tste Dooley 1004 London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1017 2737650 James R. &Rita M. Konen Ivy Falls East Addition 5 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03050 989 Downing Street Saint Paul, MN 55118-1004 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 3 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAMunt 2737650 Chad F. &Carolyn A.Taylor Ivy Falls East Addition 6 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03060 993 Downing Street Saint Paul, MN 55118-1004 2737650 Michael T. & Katherine M. Noyes Ivy Falls East Addition 7 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03070 1001 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Daymond D. Dean & Ivy Falls East Addition 8 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03080 Valerie J. Dean 1007 Downing Street Saint Paul, MN 55118-1007 2737650 Joseph A.Tste Meltzer& Ivy Falls East Addition 9 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 03090 Esti M.Tste Koen 1015 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1007 2737650 Matthew R.& Hannah L. Kull Ivy Falls East Addition 1 4 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 04010 613 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1039 2737650 James B.& Emily Wallace Ivy Falls East Addition 2 4 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 04020 1000 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Patrick& Nancy Schacherer Ivy Falls East Addition 3 4 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 04030 994 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 4 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt 2737650 Loren L. & Michelle R. Frisch Ivy Falls East Addition 4 4 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 04040 990 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 Brett R.& Maia Hendel-Paterson Ivy Falls East Addition 1 5 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 05010 1024 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1006 2737650 Thomas A. Hartley& Ivy Falls East Addition 2 5 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 05020 Kristine A. Hartley 1022 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1006 2737650 Yong Chin Denn Ivy Falls East Addition 3 5 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 05030 1018 Downing Street Saint Paul, MN 55118-1006 2737650 Joel Tstee Patros& Ivy Falls East Addition 4 5 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 05040 Charlotte Tstee Patros 1012 Downing Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737650 David A.Zimmerman & Ivy Falls East Addition 5 5 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 05050 Lisa L.Zimmerman 1006 Downing Street Saint Paul, MN 55118-1006 2737770 Donato& Patrice L. Bataglia Ivy Keep North 1 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01010 1035 London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1016 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 5 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paA@Lount 2737770 Michael D. Haverkamp& Ivy Keep North 2 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01020 Jolene Novak Haverkamp 1039 London Road Saint Paul, MN 55118-1016 2737770 Gregory M. & Nicole R. Erickson Ivy Keep North 3 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01030 1043 London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1016 2737770 Paul J. & Robin Marie Tstes Loes Ivy Keep North 4 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01040 1046London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737770 Kenneth D. Mahoney Ivy Keep North 5 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01050 1040London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2737770 Robert Michael Jr.& Debra M. Ivy Keep North 6 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01060 Curran 1036London Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2744400 Elizabeth A.Tetzlaff Lametti Addition No 2 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00010 995 Diego Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2744400 Ryan R. Sullivan Lametti Addition No 2 3 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00030 547 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 6 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt 2744400 Eric E.Schiller Lametti Addition No 2 4 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00040 553 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2744400 David M. Bloomquist Lametti Addition No 2 5 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00050 557 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2744400 Eric M.Gydesen Lametti Addition No 2 6 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00060 561 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1038 2744400 Ronald R.& Kay B. Nagel Lametti Addition No 2 7 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00070 565 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1038 2744400 Kate C. Lentsch& Lametti Addition No 2 8 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00080 Matthew G. Lentsch 569 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1038 2744400 Shawne K. Baccari Lametti Addition No 2 9 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00090 568 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1037 2744400 Elizabeth J.Shaughnessy Lametti Addition No 2 10 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00100 562 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1037 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 7 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAMunt 2744400 Nicholas Asay& Lametti Addition No 2 11 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00110 Sara Gonzalez Rodriguez 558 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1037 2744400 Berit Thorkelson & Lametti Addition No 2 12 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00120 Clint Buckner 554 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2744400 Timothy J.Tste Barott& Lametti Addition No 2 13 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00130 Sandra A.Tste Barrott 550 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2744400 Nicholas T. Nadeau & Lametti Addition No 2 14 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 00140 Joann A. Nadeau 546 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1037 2749200 Joseph M. &Amie L.Juba John H Morrisons Addition N 90 ft of Lot 1& 2 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01020 L-2 B-1 542 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752200 Christopher&Carolyn H.Tste North Ivy Hills 1 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01010 Bingham 605 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1039 2752200 Sheila M. Manahan& North Ivy Hills 2 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01020 Edward C. Olson 995 Winston Circle Saint Paul, MN 55118-1035 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 8 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt 2752200 Joseph R.&Winifred Schumi North Ivy Hills Lot 3 Blk 1 Ex Beg NE Cor W 30 3 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01033 c/o Jennifer Schumi Ft S 01D32MOOS W to Pt on E'LY Line N of E'ly Line to Beg Y all of Lot 4 Blk 1 513 Grand HL Saint Paul, MN 55102 2752200 Michael Distad North Ivy Hills Pt Lot 3 Block 1 Beg NE cor W 4 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01041 30 ft S 01D32MOOS W to pt on E'ly Line N on E'ly to beg&all of Lot 4 Blk 1 994 Winston Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752200 James N. & Kathryn L. Packer North Ivy Hills 5 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01050 1000 Winston Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752200 Daniel Bisanz& North Ivy Hills 1 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02010 Jana Kern 610 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1037 2752200 Ann L. Sechter North Ivy Hills 2 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02020 600 Winston Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752200 George& Molly Doyle North Ivy Hills 3 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02030 590 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1037 2752200 Dean C. &Susanne H. Miller North Ivy Hills 4 2 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 02040 580 Winston Court Saint Paul, MN 55118-1037 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 9 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt 2752201 Rebecca Fichtel & Matthew Johnson North Ivy Hills 2nd Add Lot 1 Blk 1 Ex E 10 Ft L- 1 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01011 1 B-1 623 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752201 James A. &Terese Annette Radford North Ivy Hills 2nd Add E 10 FT of Lot 1 Blk 1 2 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01021 & & Pt of Lot 2 Lying W of Line Beg 8.93 Ft W of James A. Redding SE Cor N 80 Ft NW To Pt on N Line 30 Ff W of N E Cor&There Term 613 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118-1000 2752201 Duy A.Vu& Nhu Q. Lam North Ivy Hills 2nd Add That pt of Lot 2 Lying 3 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01031 E of line Beg 8.93 Ft W of SE Cor N 80 ft NW to pt on N Line 30 FT W of N E Cor&There 605 Sutcliff Circle Term&all of Lot 3 Blk 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752201 Paul C.Tste Himmler& North Ivy Hills 2nd Add 5 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01050 Ann C. Falkenberg-Ols Himmler 588 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752201 Joseph F. & Ruth A. Campion North Ivy Hills 2nd Add 6 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01060 596 Sutcliff Circle Saint Paul, MN 55118-1000 2752201 Marlys J.Tste Anderson North Ivy Hills 2nd Add 7 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01070 606 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752201 Robert J. & Karen O. Folkes North Ivy Hills 2nd Add 8 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01080 614 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 10 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt 2752201 Michael M. Sargent& North Ivy Hills 2nd Add 9 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01090 Katherine M. Eichenberg 622 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 2752201 Allen M.Tste Stern North Ivy Hills 2nd Add 10 1 Rehabilitation $5,500.00 01100 630 Sutcliff Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 11 of 12 Parcel ID Owner and Address Legal Lot and Block Improvement paAWunt Number of Properties: Total Assessment 71 $390,500.00 10/27/2021 Pending Ivy Falls East Rehabilitation Page 12 of 12 page 91 9a. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota H 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 3,2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator Jacobson FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2021-20 Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for 1125 Orchard Circle INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to adopt a resolution approving a critical area permit(CAP)to construct a new single family dwelling on land situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area(MRCCA)Overlay District, along with conditional use permit(CUP)to allow an oversized attached garage up to 1,444-sf in size. BACKGROUND Stephen and Michelle McHale are seeking approval to build a new single-family dwelling on the vacant lot located the end of Orchard Circle. The lot is 21,175-sf. in size, and is generally flat and gently slopes upward from the front edge to the back corner of the parcel. The new single family dwelling is proposed with a footprint area of approx. 2,900-sq. ft., with a four-car attached garage up to 1,444-sq. ft. in size. A CUP is required to approve any attached garage more than 1,200-sf.but no more than 1,500-sf. in size. On October 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, whereby a planning report was presented and received by the commission, and comments from the Applicant and public were allowed. A copy of the 10/26/2021 planning staff report and meeting minutes are appended to this memo. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the critical area (MRCCA) permit to allow for the new single-family dwelling, along with a conditional use permit to allow for an oversized-attached garage not to exceed 1,444-sq. ft.in size,with certain conditions and based on findings- of-fact supporting said approval. DISCUSSION The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this critical area permit and conditional use permit, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. ACTION REOUESTED If the City Council wishes to affirm the recommendation from the planning commission, and there are no other issues related to this application,make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO.2021-87 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE. page 92 page 93 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-87 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-201 WHEREAS, Stephen and Michelle McHale(the"Applicant/Owner")requests approval of a critical area permit (CAP) and conditional use permit (CUP) as proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-20, and for the property located at 1125 Orchard Circle, legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District; and WHEREAS,pursuant to City Code Title 12-3-1: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, a critical area (MRCCA) permit is required for all development activities necessitating a building permit or special zoning approval, and the Applicant is seeking permission to construct a new single-family residential dwelling, subject to the requirements of the applicable zoning district and related Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District standards; and WHEREAS,pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C., any attached private garage in a residential zone more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) and up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet is allowed via a conditional use permit, and the Applicant/Owner is requesting to construct a 1,444 sq. ft. attached garage; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed critical area permit and conditional use applications, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (7-0 vote)to approve the critical area permit and conditional use permit, which would allow the Applicant to construct a new single- family dwelling in the MRCCA Overlay District, along with an attached garage up to 1,444-sf. in area, with certain conditions and specific finding-of-fact to support said approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-20, may be approved, based on the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the general purpose and intent of the new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area(MRCCA) Overlay District. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Overlay District. page 94 3. The proposed oversized garage requested under this application can be considered a reasonable request, and will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Zoning Code that allow such structures by means of a conditional use permit. 4. The proposed single family dwelling with over-sized garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The overall construction of this proposed residential home with over-sized garage will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals for residential land uses; fits well with the current developed character of the neighborhood; and will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council, that the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit proposed under Planning Case No. 2021-20 which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling in the Critical Area Overlay District with an attached garage 1,444-sf. in area, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. 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. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 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 and permanent ground cover immediately after the dwelling project is completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of October, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine,Mayor Res. 2021-87 Page 2 of 4 page 95 ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights,MN 55118 Res. 2021-87 Page 3 of 4 page 96 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1125 Orchard Circle, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property ID No.: 27-81275-02-061 Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 2; along with the West Thirty-two feet(32') of Lot 5, Block 2, VALS ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota [Abstract Property] Res. 2021-87 Page 4 of 4 page 97 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651,452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendata-hei ghts.com . It CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Planning Staff Report DATE: October 26, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2021-20 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Stephen &Michelle McHale PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1125 Orchard Circle ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: December 1, 2021 INTRODUCTION The McHale's are seeking approval of a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District,along with a conditional use permit(CUP)to construct an oversized attached garage up to 1,444-sq. ft. in size. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this application. BACKGROUND The subject property is generally located at '.�} the end of Orchard Circle, addressed as 1125 Orchard Circle (refer to aerial/location image right). i s.. 4T The lot is 21,175-sf in size; completely "� , vacant or absent of any structures; and is r . generally flat and gently slopes upward f , from the front edge to the back corner of ;, the lot (approx. 4% grade difference). There a few trees in the middle of the lotr and a number of different varieties situated •+AP along the outer perimeter. x The property is situated in the R-1 One - " '� Family Residential zone, and is in the page 98 Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area overlay district. This is an existing lot of record,which has been vacant for a number of years. The McHale's wish to build a new single family dwelling with a living area footprint of 2,900-sq. ft. The new four-car attached garage contains 1,444-sq. ft. of area. With the new driveway, patio, and walkways the total impervious surface cover is 6,115-sq. ft., or 28.0%of the total lot area. The survey/site plan calls for the home to ,mrw Or,. ,,, fiENLYI have a setback of 30-ft. off Orchard Circle; WILIRAnpv,rm� I.,.VK-°°" bt%L05Y�7,7 r 19-ft. off the east line; 30.7-ft. from the rear ` ` E R""` line; and 34.7-ft. from the west line. �' - 157"0 �aswrzY°e — xo�o sr J The plans call for the removal of a small 6" dia. crab tree near the front edge, and a large y 1 ,• 38' dia. walnut tree near the center. Two dead crabapple or apple trees, along with a small, unkempt growth of shrubs along the w ^> x) r west edge are being removed to accommodate the new on-site stormwater • r y4�y .,= Y i basin to be placed in the northwest corner of t. } the lot. a95.o m � r,� Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Subpart C.1; residential dwellings with an attached private garage are allowed to have "more — ORCHARD than 1,200 up to 1,500 square feet via a cIRcDe aeu.e 78.00 s88� 2'2Y'W conditional use permit. The Applicant is sm to " "'' "„o n°" E"� Ellt ii':'.01 - requesting to provide a 1,444-sf garage o under this new home plan. The proposed garage is also shown with four, 9-ft. wide overhead doors. City Code limits garage I�VI&Ep grtgRfr2�EA iNF1ETHAFgN Ff�NGH Scde n Eeel doors to 36-ft. (lineal)in length, so these four r+IAMI]1aMMI AWED FWEEWREPLRCEMENT5 doors are acceptable. Planning Case#2021-20(McHale) Page 2 page 99 ANALYSIS Critical Are Permit ♦ As the Planning Commission is aware,with the recent 2040 Comprehensive Plan update,the city included a new Chapter I I —Miss. River Corridor Critical Area Plan. This plan set the beginning stages for the City of Mendota Heights to update its own Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance found under City Code Title 12-3-1. On September 23, 2021,the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 568,which essentially replaced old Title 12-3-1 with a new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area(MRCCA)Overlay District ordinance. This critical area permit requested by the McHale's is the first to be processed under this new ordinance. The new ordinance provides for new rules and standards for new developments, which may include a Site Plan, Land Alteration and Vegetation Management permit. Per Code Sect. 12-3-12,the site plan must include a detailed survey, location of any existing and proposed structures, existing and proposed contours; a new stormwater management plan; descriptions of soils and types;a tree removal and landscape(replacement)plan,and other features. The Survey/Site Plan must also include the location of any bluffs or steep sloped areas, which may include any Bluff Impact Zones (BIZ) or Shore Impact Zones (SIZ)on the lot. The plan must also identify or map out any Significant Vegetative Stands,Vegetation Restoration Priority Areas or Native Plant Communities. This parcel does not contain any bluffs, steep slopes or shorelines; nor any significant and native plant areas; nor any restoration priority areas. Since the subject site does not contain any BIZ/SIZ or Significant/Priority Areas, a land alteration or vegetation management permit were not needed. The construction of this new residential dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during and after construction of the new home. The Applicants have submitted a Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Sisu Engineering, which includes information on soils, soil types, and proposed drainage features and their related calculations. City staff feels this Survey and Site Plan submitted under this new MRCCA/Critical Area Permit appears to be in order; and the information provided in the stormwater report appears to be accurate and acceptable for on-site storm management under this proposed land development. Zoning Code limits the heights of homes to 2-stories, and 25-feet in overall or measured height. The proposed home is shown with a 23'-11' measured height,which meets code. The plan calls for the limited removal of some trees and vegetation on the site. Plans call for the planting of four(4)new silver maple trees,which are considered native in Minnesota. For all intents and purposes,approving this critical area permit and allowing construction of this new single- family dwelling at this location should have little,if any effect upon the Mississippi River Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood and environment. Conditional Use Permit The proposed attached, private garage requires a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed the maximum allowed size of an attached garage in the R-1 District. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.1;residential dwellings are permitted to have one attached private garage up to 1,200- sq. ft. in area, and provides an allowance for owners to request up to 1,500-sq. ft. by means of a CUP. Under this request,the Applicant is seeking to provide a 1,444-sq. ft. garage. Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request,with the following principles to be taken into consideration: Planning Case#2021-20(McHale) Page 3 page 100 ■ The effect of the proposed use upon the health,safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; ■ existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and ■ the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met: ■ The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; ■ will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; ■ will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and ■ the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. The new garage proposed by the Applicant is designed to fit within the overall footprint of the dwelling structure,and should easily accommodate the needs of parking personal vehicles and added personal storage and equipment. All setbacks will be met under this plan. City staff believes the new single-family residential dwelling, with the oversized attached private garage, will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community; or cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The proposed dwelling appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan; and the CUP as presented herein is supported and may be approved. INTERAGENCY REVIEW Under the new MRCCA Ordinance,the city is required to give DNR and the National Park Service at least 20-day notice of any new MRCCA/Critical Area Permit application requests. These notices were emailed (10/05/2021)directly to the appropriate staff,and indicated no comment or issues with the requested single- family development. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1125 Orchard Circle, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an oversized attached garage, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the City Code with certain conditions; or 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1125 Orchard Circle,based on the findings of fact that the applications do not meet certain policies and standards of City Code, as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the site plan for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1125 Orchard Circle (Alternative No. 1),with the following conditions: 1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work. Planning Case#2021-20(McHale) Page 4 page 101 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. 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. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 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 and permanent ground cover immediately after the dwelling project is completed. Planning Case#2021-20(McHale) Page 5 page 102 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit for 1125 Orchard Circle The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the general purpose and intent of the new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area(MRCCA) Overlay District. 2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Overlay District. 3. The proposed oversized garage requested under this application can be considered a reasonable request,and will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Zoning Code that allow such structures by means of a conditional use permit. 4. The proposed single family dwelling with over-sized garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The overall construction of this proposed residential home with over-sized garage will comply with all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals for residential land uses; fits well with the current developed character of the neighborhood; and will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Planning Case#2021-20(McHale) Page 6 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE City of (Location/UtilitiesMletlands Map) o 140 N Mendota 10/4/2021 Heights SCALE IN FEET * `'do AL YA 11 v J- +. µV KINGS-LE a , + � APWt •r �F i � tr 4 89' wAL . CHARD CIR i � - , Ir 49. n v �.� +� "�K+I� '+IF Its ,..�" , ! � •�,. ,,, _. �.. � ��ti ' � � � �" fi " p �99' �itus�� g�;yF i� y yrigN7t�u :�ci lier�seu by Ne p US I c,w e i e e fi hoof Iih"�e:� "�`iy.—lt-is�being p o�ided b D k u she - nder is , T,7 '2 -+"r7! ",-;, -' _ p p UNr —r-G n , ge sera iee b fflit.6-i, e ddut o-fc�r�cmn a fter p re provided t e se ckn�Ow edg a will be u it 41 c ibu red 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 contained in this data.The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained,assumes no liability for any errors or 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. 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN page 104 t Land Use/Land ] ,,;� Development Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area " (MRCCA) Districts CA-RN µ,,a . 44+ CA-ROS rr ,..�., �`� 00 CA-RTC CA-SR . r or CA-UM «. Water P/ •ni 4'a' W rJy. 'L JOS T MRCCA Bluff Impact Zones 0 � 14 MRCCA Shore Impact , Zones or r Property Information Addresses Parcel Lines �a Tax Parcels Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. Map Scale This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,or 1 inch=219 feet for zoning verification. 10/4/2021 Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area - Native Plant Communities and Significant Existing Vegetative Stands page 105 City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County r , 1 � Lilydale 1 1 � i St. Paul i 55 - 1 1 I % 62 \ er,.ii II i Riv � Nlississipp � � �.` Mississippi River /; � 55 West e� 6 ' P,innesotaRJ/�� St. Paul � - Mendota 55 - _ - 1125 Orchard Circle F,ort'� 110 snening - (approx. location) (unorg.) Mendota Heights 5 55 55 1 ® � Eagan 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles MRCCA Boundary DNR Native Plant Communities MRCCA Significant Existing Vegetative Stands L-- County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries NCompass Street Centerlines Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area - Vegetation Restoration Priorities City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County page 106 _ f Lilydale �. - St. Paul !" ss E s" s2 .q f 55 '' .. West s - . St. r r Paul Mendota ss Fort/ 110 Snelling (unorg.) Mendota Heights 0 ss ss Eagan 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles MRCCA Boundary DNR Native Plant Communities& Significant Existing Vegetative Stands Vegetation Restoration Priorities (Bulff and shore impact zones,floodplains and wetlands not already covered by native plant communities and significant existing vegetative stands) County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries NCompass Street Centerlines page 107 ST RI 1 WATER MAN GEIVjtEI4 ' PLAN AND AIjCT L►A T'I N' FOR Mendota Helkflhts, MN tD September 28, 2021 Prepared By: Sisu Land Surveying and Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. P Chaska,MN 55318 612-418-6828 l I hereby certify that this plan,report,or specification was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed engineer under the s2Ia of the State of Minnesota. . 'fi License No,26909 Curtiss J.Kallio t 4 page 108 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND CALCULATIONS Requirements This project is located in the City of Mendota Heights. Per the City Engineer,below are the requirements: 1. Volume Reduction. 1.1 inch of runoff over all new impervious surfaces. Existing Site The existing 21,175 sq. ft. lot is currently vacant. The majority of the site drains to the northwest corner of the parcel with some runoff draining to the cul de sac. Existing Soils The majority of the soils on site are silty loams which have a hydrologic soil group B according to the NRCS Soil Survey. Approximately 4.5 feet below grade at the location of the proposed infiltration trench,the soils are gravelly sands. An infiltration test was performed approximately 4 feet below grade with an infiltration rate of 0.6 in/hr. Based on the soil observations,the infiltration rate in the gravelly sands is anticipated to be greater than 1 in/hr. Proposed Improvements Proposed improvements to this site include construction of I-single family home. The total proposed impervious surface is 6115 sq. ft. Volume Reduction To meet volume reduction requirements, an infiltration trench will be constructed in the northwest corner of the site. As previously mentioned,the required volume reduction is 1.1 inch of runoff from newly created impervious surfaces. The proposed increase in impervious surface is 6115 sq. ft., so the required stormwater volume reduction is 561 cubic feet. The proposed infiltration trench has 568 cubic feet of volume reduction. To achieve natural infiltration,the soils at the infiltration trench will be'excavated to the gravelly sand Iayer approximately 4.5 feet below the existing grade. The trenches will be backfilled with clean sand obtained from the basement excavations to 1 feet below finished grade. The maximum depth of the infiltration trench is 0.7 feet. For a 48-hour drawdown, the minimum design infiltration rate is 0.175 in/hr. The anticipated infiltration rate will exceed 1 in/hr. The top 1 foot of the trenches will be a planting media consisting of 70%washed sand and 30%MnDOT Grade 2 Compost. The trenches will be seeded and stabilized as shown in the plans. An infiltration trench overflow will be constructed as shown in the plans. 2 Page page 109 The infiltration basin bottom will be field verified to be at least 3 feet above the seasonally high water table. No water table was encountered within 6.5 feet of the existing ground where the proposed infiltration trench is Iocated. If a high water table is observed during construction,the infiltration basin design will be re- evaluated. Pretreatment of the runoff entering the infiltration basins will be provided by grassed swales. Construction The following are requirements for constructing the infiltration basins: • The infiltration basins will be constructed after upstream grading activities have been completed and are stabilized 0 Excavations will be performed using a backhoe situated outside of the basins. • The topsoil mixture will be blended outside of the site and placed with a tracked skid loader • The basins will be seeded and stabilized immediately after placing the topsoil mixture Sediment will be kept away from the proposed infiltration areas • Soils compaction will be avoided • The basins will be watered as necessary for plant establishment Attachments 1. Volume reduction calculation/Infiltration basin volume calculations 2. Soils map 3. 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr Post-Development HydroCAD report 4. Post Development Infiltration Trench Drainage Area Map 31Page page110 1125 Orchard Circle, Mendota Heights 9/28/21 Volume Reduction Requirements 1.1" of runoff from new impervious surfaces Proposed Impervious 6115 sq. ft. Required Volume Reduction 561 cu. ft Vol. Reduction Provided 568 cu. ft See below Infiltration Basin 1 A P Area Voiume -umm uka. WQ anikour< w NSF}.. CI`'. .. Voi. CI~ Re.marks; 893.0 226 8932 543 77 77 893.4 977 152 229 893.6 1184 216 445 893.7 1284 123 568 Inf, Volume 893.8 1384 133 702 page 111 1a � �= z '+Q 4970400 49765CC AN03 7 49707M 49T)EC0 437Q3t7(] 4971000 4971100 > 93'9 25-W 93°g 2T W C) z {/ � C (n w d p y CD 7 O w z `o CD _.!D 6 .e S ET CD 3 v v N � z � 4 e CD a. CD� N O Coco CD wl 2 �I CD {{ 0) • i rr ■r y: 8 S� gg w � cm O � 93°W W%N _- 93'S 31'W ,p 49- "fCO 49/Lff; 49733CO 4WOUD 4j4G 7 4971100 z z page 112 Ida 0 z o s; ago m m o N O O O cn CD s m � m m si o -u i n 0 to w (D4. co 0) D m a 0 m 3 m a m 0 � � m 3 w 0- m m m o o 'n 0 o m m o ?l = _ a ¢ m o n enui ¢ o '� V C] o w 'o a v O m o o Q ' a > > > m CL m v H m r -p _ co a 1 -b m m cn G) o ■ F t � m a a � z acu =" o m w tCn ' v w Encn a 7� -0 C y 3 G D 6'1 o 'L 3: 0 W N Cl CD -n a paj d (D O N � 0 N 0 cr (!7 -0 fn O m N b N .0 L. w W C w U)(D 0 cn c 3 m n � K 0 0 C j m 0)to o w D a a n cn 3 C1 �+ n — 3 to j to D O n v cn G c Cl 0• �'3 O Er.`N. w 0 m 0 CD IN 00 = m N C] 3 En (D m N w m (n m U) (D -0C f~n O o w a n w w N 7 (p Co M S O O w N .0.- '-G C 'C i= C -y .+ -., M C m N Cl 7 C] o 7 pp C7'o N N 3@ (D ¢ m 0 P31 0 0 N LI m m (o o C ©. m w in c m cn rn �° @ U7 � 0 ? w w m w w a' m o s c o N eo 0 d. c w c N n � �. a — D o N. v w 0 m c 2 a in n o — ° cmw mm oCx wv wv Cl o; m m = � �' w Qm CD m m �u CD o• w aa � m m - �� 3 -ow ww � M mm NoD <o6 � � m0 °« CA ErCv Cm 0UOr.-Oo cmn f0n r ,w (D — c i 0n (3D gmcr� iom m `oo. 0 O u m -0 CLm cn o u oC m 0- wmaG vnCj . CL CL Zv n erom 0 m ( rn - a c "Tm sr cn o m N 0 0 3 < w Z — w C,- m O OD3w 7 N CD C om rn33vN y w N O =r m O w w+ CD o o "a (Dm N Nn D wc `nCL, a 3 Oo 3 D �' w o0 om w i1m N a U) m o miO in F o - Ci3 oNw No0 Z cry =rQ G3 m 0 :E rnw3 w m MA -« 3 m 1 w O 0 sii m rmn w is CD O w m Q 0 -0 cs m a C3 co c m m w a 00 -00wm3 � _wa m � c m a m v 0 w n w Z w m a m m n w O o w n -0 mo a No_ m 0 omm rn o co 3 n — m 3 c Ln a 2 w m i n N pnj m o N C1 O [) p o Q O �c (7 w C) CD m p(n m C CZ fU 3 a- m f0 � -^0�2 W40 N m fn a ? 0 ,C7.. In N n w uP y mN c �, l< w s o Q 0. m Ck? 7 O N N _ 0 C] page113 Soil Map-Dakota County,Minnesota,and Ramsey County,Minnesota Sails Map Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres.in AOI Percent of AOI _ . Y 1.3%7C Hubbard loam sand,6 to 12 ? 1 9' percent slopes 7D Hubbard loamy sand, 12 to 18 f 4.8 3.4% percent slopes 3982 Wadena loam,2 to 6 percent 21.2 14.9% m slopes,eroded 100A Copaston loam,0 to 2 percent 2.01 1.4% slopes 250 Kennebec silt loam 4A 3.1% 344 Quam silt loam 2.3 � 1.697% 411A Waukegan silt loam,0 to 1 5.8 4.1% percent slopes 415E Kanaranzi loam,2 to 6 percent 0.0 0.0% slopes 415C Kanaranzi loam,6 to 12 T30.7 21.7%', percent slopes 4 B w Crystal Lake silt loam, 1 to 8 11.0 7 8% percent slopes ..._ 1463 Minneiska loam,occasionally 2.01 1.4% flooded 857A Urban land-Waukegan 1.9> 1.3% complex,0 to 1 percent slopes �i 857B Urban Sand-Waukegan 29.9� 21.1/o complex, 1 to 8 percent 1 _._ slopes �I 96F Kin sle -Mahtomedi complex, , 139 9.8/ F I 25 to 40 percent slopes 1027 i[ldorthents,wet 0.4 0.3% 1824 Quam silt loam,ponded 0.1 0.0% 1898E Etter Brodale complex,25 to j 7.5 5.3% 60 percent slopes W Water 2A 1.5% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 141.8 100.o% Totals for Area of Interest 141.8 100.0% Map Unit Symbol Map lJn�t Name Acres in AOf Percent of AOI W Water 0.0 0.0% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 0.0 0.0% Totals for Area of Interest 141.8 100.0% uSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/28/2021 +� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 _ .. .. ��� .. .. :,�,. ® — � 9 �,��a �� �' �a 1 , � f,. ,� ,� � l !I F I � � lyy � � �� � � � f , I� + �' l �! F _ �` � � � 1 t �r� �� � �4 a tl Jf + II��d��� I'.. �: ,� _ �. � �� r � � A y 'r�ti� ...�r' � �.. ti't S ti� ._� �, , --f � � .�. � _: � � � �• � 3 ,.,..,. �. � _ � � G � �� _- R � • � � � 1 i i � .. _ 1 ., - ,. i _. � � .. ..�. � � c •� Y pagE EAST UNE Cr' 7 LOT 5 CNI Zoe- 162.5" N00'31'58"'W L) rl L-Z- TO-p OF tm -WEST LINE OF LOT "P-- C4 LU Ov�W5 u 'y aGm 00 Do 11377 N00!3VS8'14 A tjl 21, f 2� 9 S:; 9.2 2 R .1 t - 13�3 i .1 A 404 Z Ln 2,2 z & 2 & 0 CY IV m C) a. <1 2 0 6 'o a oj rq v �Ej a 06 VkD N 0> r U) x u z a� co P$ < 0 N Q3 Z 0 Cl C) S8 S H € Re 11 0 0 w o x p WO v�k� ~z�z �� ¢� ¢ >>z Ow OLL O~ fn�m gg r� - 0 �' H 0ocI wo �- m �QwO �m�z .08 �x`-O f [[ n �! y F� zZ,azz aua Fu'aw gcv po oN ¢zO�aw¢� ¢O dWp l �sl�l�€ iL a00Ca U¢ w LLz_ OF ¢zo t O Q >O¢ Om O a U -- ��� riWoW o ?xCi] D CL W'-�0 uu U ¢ ¢w m inU O3`" 0����a O OLL ltly4la !'O D U 0< F1 a� O�w O-C7Q-LL 'zdc40WW -W Qp ¢ a a�� ¢po WWy WZzOWO �� U 2—0 �a oz� wasz 3oFo°�amw O UU �� fUQWQ QQ p W= O.0 zmO�aFpa�pO Soo 8�g 0 1� x0� rcxz�F O>»¢���z�z 9 z ozo 00 z ~—O�5 �k�znm»000 oz 0 O a �.wWwz�HOQQ� O rc�wo �o� ova=� z0000�m LLz�LL�oPQcS �'>F-�ooP �� UI�I�F-� ¢y'' LLLLZFzwzz uio- aoOLLcv zti- pm<z,<,o'��N � ea wx��, �O>COO W'.7pW F4 z Q_ozz aQ LL0w �pQac7¢mzm UZUQ 7�x pa gg€ i{�e ! z U W c4 w �qq// w�z�0�� zp, z- ¢ a a--' O ee ! i 3 W W o o U o o U Z O (A F W ¢Z¢M U U Q O HIM _ F'.r' OONN N toN N J(A�� zM N� 2-�O�. W W W-�w�z && a VCNNNCQ7�N oLLOF 0000 w<10 ?a?a�?�? 3 i r Z = d oc�2€ ®o < a �000m ,I Eo1 a 0 0 "o g s W O ¢ Z Q Z <'�000 mo Oz -a ¢ w W w < W w d z z ¢ O > p O W \I O 0 � w ¢ u�i .0J ~w Q ¢ ¢❑ < O NW 0, ¢? x W urm Uw > W n p Z H LL O O mdp0 m < <O z zr GGG J ¢W ¢� zwaOO Q Qw W �¢O Z Q d w❑o¢❑ U W U LL W ❑ a W z Q LLwo>> ¢ m¢ ¢¢vU ¢ 1 � > z¢ 015O m <mawz Q QO¢ W ¢O zw m w c7 ww= �_ = W p �U Z<d u=i z z p m w O o z¢ ~ o ¢�❑ > ❑ Z W Z D M¢ Z¢�O z g p WO pw O ¢ , ¢Wz a zgO 0 � pQ p¢w�m Oww�O Gw OU <w Zp Oz u=i < m o¢¢w <z C¢7 0 0 U w J O a >Qz OQ�¢Q���mz� �u! \ yZZQ�QJ❑x�NgyMM a�0wS ' ircio»m>�c7 a,«LL�¢¢Q 0 > O>O wOO �QO O x z x O ¢p �z wQOW¢ 2wr OQ z=§>Ox� mw�zOx7 Q �<w �Q moO a ro ��=¢ z N¢Q , <W¢¢ te � On ¢0 i O00 Q 0 0 � 0❑ �Q a!¢¢ ¢m¢ ' 000 °=UO z U Z0 Q> r zOwz OF z z z 9 p zW ¢ x<� wQ Opw= 1>zZm¢ ¢ M C, O<OI Q J-Q w� ¢ - o d>W Q < Q QQQ =-Q �-wr <, m Z w Z M g � Or1�W ��QN- Mm 0-4 N zM¢o N OJ N Z Q N Q O 11 ^ p_O_p Z Z y EJ I�IVIUI lUltiti�l S O Z O p U > Q p x �+ z ¢USLL 0 W w O Z ,f a<OD d w LL N Z 2 m W 3:W m Z Q U O N= > w [n W OZ� W Z O dm❑ H U W ¢p¢ 0. p N O ❑ = Z w O .Op Z, w ¢¢w F �. ir ❑ Oz�1 N r a pQ� W O R a w z¢Z w y U ❑ W O O Q _ ~O w W❑ > < C7 ¢ C,¢¢ g U 3 4 z W MOW Z Z Z p z 0 O LL a Cl) ❑�O= Q O o O OJZ ❑ Cl) u)NLL g U _ O W x^Om O Z O ¢ wLL� m Z ❑ ¢ m U ❑❑N LL '- p Q¢Zw ❑ WWI O ❑ e w ZSF.z, O p0 w <z< H ❑�Z w Q ¢ < = LL d Ty Ty W p O p > W W W m U j� �OW Z>¢o Z �O-❑ooz, zQ�p U g w Q Q r❑ Y Q W W Q p N Q 7 W Y H H O > xzM H=~Y Z W YL�H H Hr U O �� ¢ yy d [� W O C7 Q = d Y O Y Y Y LL ❑W ¢ m Z Z z _U❑ W W=t o W U U U U Z x Z y O Q F �+ U��z<xO�w d mw�2<<0¢ 05- N �gpQ O¢U Q x-m w m O m j- N M U W LL LL n¢ Q O LL 5 W H d a Q LL W m OF m Z m LL W O Q 3 mOuiwm Nm¢�uip ow ❑O¢0 , n n n z <¢ 0� � Z¢ O Romwo—ow m Om¢ NW, c7=mw U or �W m¢ ¢ ��O ��� �Q ZOgF- ¢ Qw�J�J LL [JZ<J�aSW Z�ZH 0 W x Zr HUW Q ¢W�Q Rid �7/ QpxQw0Qx0W¢ o�z x0 0 Z �¢Z3 � /f-� �H`i'= =QzmQ Qp- = H LLQ�� w UU z � tl1¢¢z CO O J=JOrw ¢¢C7��Nw F�Zm= ¢OU� w O a-¢O ZZ W W N �W z v a°�, O w ¢ Z N y Q 5 'f�ti/ zw0¢pW¢w¢p¢00¢¢w 000¢U wUOOw O^OWpz 2 t9 x~"w x w�¢¢a w w u=i�a O� ~W O o z Z .0 WW¢��O w 3 _W m Q w w,Z H¢¢Q,w m¢ R��D w ¢m m ¢W LL w �m .� xJx00w ¢ O a O��W¢pwcnZ�❑ w?� Zq Q O�Q Q N Q W o 0=w d LL O Q LL�O Q d O¢Z Z Q W fn efn a•. LL�pN tOLLLLnp W W 0 cm comd V¢N tO I�R� d_ad page 117 ' ® wz z DE gg� - --—-- V. - �ooaw . „ ,o 0 a �MNU2 °°. o a ao �000�3�® a DE I TE a -- - -- -_ s . z, al roll F11 El ® 0 ® ® � r ® ® ® 1FTI L . > ?a a __________- U e Ty=Ty ,Ty Ty ¢m O m o O p ii ii 00 � O a02 �� 3 uiz Ua w "jp a0 4 g`s v C.) 2 ya z-LL 2 rcg �q x.O two a ar rm to a° V Z m p z rc O '.m m z¢ F w m¢O U, N Q o O p° � g aid ooa� �ooa a owzoaLL LLomoo oo a w a°aaNCYim�uiom3 �k g tW a a Z Z J Z O r/j U F F ¢F Z U m Z=- Z 7 0 N Z 2 ,w 0 m xUaaLLa� oFLLa OmazLL OFFQ�LLLL¢Qa Om am ��w �aao am w waN'm°owNz�a°nzQoaoa�c' xzac'crya o�apj �R3 �Ra9 p ge 118 0 m w � a 9i 3�3eo a s E as Z 'z 55' z �4evY ooe aAa -e .m� „a obi �C"zp€�� 1 A4 < z ---------- ------� €g §Sd g aee`• i q �i €�� aa° -- s a W, 41 < _I I TV - �e A N a„ . s ,.... _ �U L� zo 10 rF s� e F�a a a Uw Zw OO m JQ W O r r N R U mU O� W I=- UO O�U a_r = a0 ow U O am o02 0 5o a r mw Fm o mawN orr R Z N W K 0 U w 00 mo r["mzy Ow0 Om gON ZuWO wFoO� a5mOOo�v I°N0Um2�Qm� o�w�r O oaF=LL�m Z~SNTi O�mo2`n zmwow0m�m 0mmm 3b3�„ a so ZZ N. a zzao wmQw W Nmyr i- mm 33spz ow aaOOm z 2U? eh ug Bg ZLLOO Z� o O0Z 00maUo So H zz z J` o R o�LL o ai ai000 o NOwo 000 �as5-o,gdde` M13� k a 0OQz < m XQH Ne c� ��5 page119 C) PLANNING CASE 2021-20 STAVE AND MICHELLE MCHALE, 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE — CRITICAL AREA(MRCCA) PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the McHales are seeking approval of a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, along with a conditional use permit (CUP)to construct an oversized garage up to 1,444 square feet in size. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated that the plan shows four silver maples and asked if that is the extent of the planting that would be done. She asked what the soil would be covered with. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that two trees would be planted in the front yard and two in the backyard. He stated that the applicant can provide additional details but believed that turf and other landscaping would cover the soil. Commissioner Johnson referenced the description of the unkempt shrub and had some concerns. She stated that those are actually native shrubs, elderberry to be specific. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that could be included in the replacement plan as a condition if desired. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Steven McHale, 1125 Orchard Circle, stated that they began the process to acquire the property with the intent to build a home last January. He stated that since that time they found out the property was within the MRCCA and there was a moratorium on building within the corridor, which placed their plans on hold. He stated that he and his wife have attempted to design a home that would produce as much, or more energy, on the property than they plan to consume. He stated that they also take external landscaping very seriously. He recognized that anything removed would need to be replanted with native vegetation and that is their full intent. He stated that they have had discussions with three landscapers but do not yet have a plan in place as they have spoken with the neighboring property owners and are currently working with those properties in order to create a cohesive landscape over the three properties that works together. He stated that they will replace each tree removed with at least two new trees. He stated that his children like pollinator gardens and they plan to have a pollinator garden and vegetable garden on the property. He noted that they need to see how the home will lie on the property and see where sunlight hits in order to October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 29 page120 plan appropriately for those elements. He referenced the proposed four car garage, noting that they have two vehicles, and the remaining space would be used to create a space for his wife to play basketball. He stated that this has been quite an ordeal as they have been renting a home that has a lease that will expire in the summer of 2022. He stated that they would most likely need to find a second rental until the home construction is completed. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, stated that it would seem that a recommendation for the City and Planning Commission would be to require a landscaping plan from the beginning to prevent further delays. She noted that the last case was tabled and perhaps that could have been alleviated by staff ensuring a landscape plan was provided. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that as with the previous case there is a checklist of what is required to review an application. She reviewed the details that would be required in order for the Commission to make its decision that are not included in the application. She stated that she would like to review applications consistently and therefore the required information should be provided. Commissioner Petschel referenced the diameters shown of the trees removed which would provide an indication of the current conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated that information is needed for proposed plantings as well. Commissioner Petschel asked if that information is dictated in the City Code. Commissioner Johnson replied that she believed it is. Commissioner Katz commented that even though some of those items related to landscaping are not shown, this is new construction therefore he would be willing to provide approval for construction and the applicant could bring back details about the landscaping. He stated that the issue he would struggle with is the necessity of the four-stall garage, other than the desire for the property owner to have a large garage. He stated that allowing a large garage for that reason would seem to set precedent for future requests. Commissioner Johnson stated that 36 feet of garage door is allowed, therefore the four nine-foot doors meet that requirement. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 29 page 121 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that any resident in the R-1 district can ask for a garage greater than 1,200 up to 1,500 square feet with a CUP. He stated that there does not need to be a rational reason, other than ensuring the effective standards of the CUP Code are met. Commissioner Johnson noted that this would meet all the requirements for that garage size request. Commissioner Katz asked if it could be required for the applicant to come back with the landscaping plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the applicant indicated that he is working on a cooperative landscaping plan with the neighbors. He believed that a recommendation of approval could still move forward, and staff could work with the applicant on the landscaping plan, or it could be brought back for a cursory review. He noted that this is a vacant lot and does not have bluffs or shoreline on the property. Commissioner Johnson asked if a condition could be added that there would need to be approval of the landscaping plan and the other items on the checklist prior to moving to City Council. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he believes the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit could be approved to allow this to move forward. He stated that staff could work with the applicant to ensure the landscaping plan is sufficient would be a part of the building permit process and bring it back for the Commission to review. He stated that the applicant is unable to provide that landscaping plan at this time as they are attempting to work cohesively with the neighbors. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the last request was tabled for lack of landscaping plan and asked how it would be justified to move ahead without a landscaping plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is technically a landscaping plan showing two trees removed and four additional trees planted. He stated that an additional landscaping plan is being developed and staff will work with the applicant on that. City Attorney Eliott Knetsch commented that there is a landscape plan, it would be the decision of the Commission as to whether that plan is adequate. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the previous applicant submitted a landscape plan. City Attorney Elliott Knetsch replied that the Commission found that plan to not be sufficient. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 29 page 122 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. 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. 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 6. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN AS VERBALLY MENTIONED AND IN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED THE COMMISSION IF PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM A LANDSCAPING PLAN OR WHETHER THEY ARE BOUND TO THAT. HE ASKED IF PEOPLE COULD CHANGE THEIR LANDSCAPING AFTER BEING IN THEIR HOME FOR A YEAR WHEN THEIR NEEDS OR DESIRES CHANGE. HE STATED THAT HE CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT SOME FLEXIBILITY AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SHOULD DICTATE OR MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW PEOPLE WANT THEIR YARDS. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BUT WOULD FIND THAT THE CONDITION REQUESTING A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN WOULD MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THE PLAN SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT. SHE STATED THAT PERHAPS THAT CONDITION IS REMOVED AND THE APPLICANT CAN STILL WORK WITH STAFF IF THEY WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME AND THE FOCUS IS NOT ON THE PLANTINGS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THIS PLAN IS SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHERS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION, NOTING THAT LANDSCAPING PLANS ARE NOT THAT DETAILED FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE DETAIL AS THIS IS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES BUT BELIEVES THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AND PROCESS OUTLINED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS TO ALL RESIDENTS. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 29 page123 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS ABOVE THOSE SHOWN ON THE EXISTING DRAWINGS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT THE CHECKLIST SPECIFIES TYPE AND DIAMETER OF ALL PLANTINGS. SHE STATED THAT IN THE CRITICAL AREA, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT ON THE BLUFF OR SHORELINE, THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOUND IN THE AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE CHECKLIST. SHE NOTED THAT PERHAPS THAT LIST NEEDS TO BE REVISED BUT THE CITY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE MRCCA ORDINANCE AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE CITY WOULD DO THE ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE BY NOT FOLLOWING THE CITY PROCESS. COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITH APPLICATIONS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS A LIST INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT ONCE RECEIVED, STAFF REVIEWS THE APPLICATION TO DETERMINE IF IT IS COMPLETE AND SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. HE STATED THAT STAFF FELT THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE AND IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TYPICAL NEW FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN ALTHOUGH PEOPLE TYPICALLY PUT IN TREES AND LANDSCAPING. HE STATED THAT THE TREE REMOVAL WAS INDICATED, ALONG WITH REPLACEMENT PLANTING OF FOUR TWO INCH BALLED AND BURLAPPED SILVER MAPLES. HE STATED THAT IF THE TREES ARE MOVED, HE WOULD NOT REVOKE A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE. HE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO CREATE A COHESIVE PLANTINGS PLAN, ALONG WITH A POLLINATOR AND VEGETABLE GARDEN. HE STATED THAT WHILE THOSE THINGS ARE GREAT, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A PLAN WITH THOSE DETAILS. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED IF COMMISSIONER KATZ WOULD BE WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION WITH THE ADDED CONDITION, AS THAT WOULD IMPLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT COMPLETE. COMMISSIONER KATZ EXPLAINED THAT HIS MOTION IS BASED ON THE INTENT THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERMIT. HE STATED THAT HE ALSO UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION WAS ADDED TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE HOME CONSTRUCTION TO MOVE FORWARD. CHAIR FIELD ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR INPUT. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 29 page 124 CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH STATED THAT HE WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING THE CONDITION IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THE PLAN IS ADEQUATE AND THAT STAFF WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THEIR MENTIONED PLAN. HE STATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS NOT COMFORTABLE WITHOUT SEEING THE PLAN, THE ITEM SHOULD BE TABLED. HE STATED THAT THE REQUEST COULD BE APPROVED AND THE PLAN COULD BE BROUGHT BACK ON AN INFORMATIONAL BASIS. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE PLAUSIBLE TO HAVE THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST NOT CURRENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR, PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPLIED THAT WOULD BE A FAST TURNAROUND, AS THE ITEM WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING WEEK. COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE A CATCH 22 AS THE ADDITIONAL PLAN WILL NOT BE FULLY DEVELOPED UNTIL THE HOME IS CONSTRUCTED. HE STATED THAT HE FINDS THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS CASE DIFFERENT AS SIZES, LOCATIONS AND SPECIES ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN. HE STATED THAT PERHAPS THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT IS AN ERROR IN THE PROCESS AS IT WOULD SEEM TO FORCE SOMEONE TO CREATE A PLAN THAT WOULD PLACATE THE COMMISSION BUT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE CHANGED DEPENDING ON THE HOME CONSTRUCTION. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THIS IS AN MRCCA CASE AND ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO APPROVE THIS WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN. HE NOTED THAT IF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLAN, WOULD THE HOMEOWNER NEED TO COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE MRCCA. CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH COMMENTED THAT IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND IF THE ORDINANCE TRIGGERS SUCH ACTION, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT THE ORDINANCE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. HE STATED THAT IF ADDITIONAL TREES WERE GOING TO BE PLANTED, HE WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AS THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. HE STATED THAT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT, STAFF WORKS TO ENSURE THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PLANS MEET CITY CODE. HE STATED THAT IF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED A PLAN WITH THE NEIGHBORS, STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT AND PROVIDE COMMENTS,BUT IF THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL WORKING WITH THEM, THEY WILL PROVIDE SOMETHING EFFECTIVE THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. HE STATED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 29 page125 COMMISSIONER KATZ WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. 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. 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE IN TERMS OF DETAILS. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday,November 3, 2021 meeting. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 29 page 126 page127 9b. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Mely[Rb,MIN 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 3,2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator Jacobson FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of an Amendment to Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Planning Case No.2021-12 (Phase II/58-Unit Apartments) and Planning Case No.2021-13 (Phase III/89-Unit Apartments) Introduction The City Council is asked to give consideration of a conditional use permit (CUP) authorizing an amendment to a previously approved planned unit development(PUD)for two separate sites located within the Mendota Plaza Mall project area. This original Mendota Plaza PUD was created in 2009. At Home Apartments,in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates,is seeking this amendment in order to provide two,new multi-family residential developments. City Code Section 12-1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. Background The Mendota Plaza PUD project site encompasses 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009, Mendota Mall Associates (Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development,which included a new overall land use and zoning category of Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development(MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential development area, which would include the large retail (strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf. high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant pad sites,various sized offices,childcare center and a pharmacy (refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD Master/Final Development Plan 2009). Since 2009,the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments, with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment No.6 in 2016,and the latest No.7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. The Reserve apartment development under Amendment No. 6 was approved as the 4-story, 139-unit apartment building seen today,and redefined the area of the vacant,triangular shaped parcel to the west,with"Restaurant"and "Retail/Restaurant" for future developments. The proposed development for the northerly 2.05 acre vacant parcel located along Hwy. 62 and next to The Reserve apartment,is identified as Phase II of The Reserves. This Phase II is planned to be a three story, 74,400-sq. ft. apartment building,with 58-living units, and a smaller fourth floor of 3,250-sq. ft.to contain indoor pickle-ball and bocce ball courts;wine bar,patio with fire pit,fitness area and common lounge space. The apartment will have luxury,high-end finishes harmonious with The Reserve, and provide indoor and outdoor parking. (Please refer to attached Planning Report Case No. 2021-12 for full details and plan sets related to this proposed 58-Unit project). page128 The proposed development on the vacant 2.04 parcel located behind the main mall building, is identified as Phase III,and is proposed as a four story, 89-unit apartment building,with 139,126 gross square feet of indoor parking and living area. The building will consist of one and one-half levels of underground parking, with 110 stalls and 47 outdoor parking stalls. (Please refer to attached Planning Report Case No. 2021- 13 for full details and plan sets related to this proposed 89-Unit project). On August 24, 2021, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on these two planning case items; whereby a planning staff report was presented on each project site; and received by the commission. Comments from the Applicant/Developer and public were received and noted for the record, and both planning case items were tabled to the October 26, 2021 meeting, in order for the Developer to bring more information to the commission for further consideration. At the October 26 meeting, the planning commission was presented with the additional (requested) information from the Developer; and upon a brief update by city staff,the commission re-opened the public hearings on both items; and allowed for additional comments from the general public. Appended to this memo report are the August 24 and October 26 meeting minutes. This report also includes copies of a number of email/letters from local residents and business owners expressing support or concerns with these new apartment proposals. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation At the October 26, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of Planning Case No. 2021-12 (by 5-2 vote), a conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to the Mendota Mall Planned Unit Development, which would allow the development of a proposed Phase II -/ 58-Unit Apartment project,including a related Wetlands Permit allowing work adjacent to a wetland feature(Interstate Creek), with findings-of fact supporting such recommendation(see attached Exhibit-A to this memo report). Subsequent to this action,the Planning Commission also recommended denial of Planning Case No.2021- 13 (by 6-1 vote), a conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to the Mendota Mall Planned Unit Development,which would allow the development of a proposed Phase III-/89-Unit Apartment project, with findings-of fact supporting such recommendation(see attached Exhibit-B to this memo report). Action Requested The City Council should consider Planning Case No. 2021-12 and Planning Case No. 2021-13, separately. Appended to this memo report, are the findings-of fact for denial related with each planning case, along with additional Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D, which contain findings-of fact for approval on each planning case. The City Attorney recommends that the City Council give consideration to both project areas presented herein, and once the Council decides to make a motion to either deny or approve these two planning cases, the Council should reference the specific list of findings-of-fact related to each case, and make a motion accordingly. The Council may choose to modify or verbally add to these findings as deemed appropriate. Once a motion has been made and decided on,the Council should then direct the city attorney to prepare a resolution on each case with all the preferred and final findings-of-fact in a final resolution document. This resolution will be brought back to the City Council at the November 16 regular meeting for final action and adoption. Any motion or action to deny or approve these planning case items requires a simple majority vote. page129 EXHIBIT-A FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-12 PHASE II/58-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit Lot 1,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion 2°d Addition The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 1. The 58-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses,natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. page 130 EXHIBIT-B FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR DENIAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-13 PHASE III/89-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD AMENDMENT Lot 7,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 7. The 89-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 8. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 9. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 10. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 11. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses,natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 12. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. page 131 EXHIBIT-C FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-12 PHASE II/58-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit Lot 1,Bloch 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion 2°d Addition The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 58-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza,is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community;provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD(Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area, and overall density of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. page 132 EXHIBIT-D FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-13 PHASE III/89-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD AMENDMENT Lot 7,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 12. The proposed amendment to allow a new 89-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza,is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 13. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community;provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 14. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD(Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 15. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 16. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 17. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 18. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area, and overall density of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 19. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 20. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 21. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 22. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. page 133 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei ghts.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT (Supplemental) revised 1 012 812 02 1 MEETING DATE: October 26,2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No.2021-12 & No.2021-13 New Apartment Developments Phase II&Phase III of The Mendota Plaza APPLICANT: At Home Apartments/Mendota Mall Associates,LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: Highway 62& South Plaza Way Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE: December 25,2021 (Extended Review Period by Applicant) INTRODUCTION This report packet contains additional information submitted by At Home Apartments, the Applicant/Developer of the proposed Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 24t1i meeting, these two planning case items were presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the commission determined additional information was needed from the Applicant/Developer, and voted to table both cases to a future meeting date. The additional (requested) information was determined as follows: 1) Provide an overall and proposed Impervious Surface calculation; 2) Provide a Lighting Plan; 3) Provide a Traffic Circulation Plan; 4) Provide an updated Parking Analysis or parking data on the existing site; 5) Provide an updated Traffic Analysis; 6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap stalls; 7) Provide an updated Landscape Plan; and 8) Address fire protection and safety measures(with city's Fire Department). page 134 This report also includes an update on the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24t1' hearing; along with a legal opinion from our city attorneys addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. Please note the Site Development and Elevation (Architectural) Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those presented at the August 24t1i meeting (attached to the August 24'1i Planning Report). The Commissioners should also refer to the information and analysis contained in the original August 24'i'Planning Reports,which are included in this Supplemental Packet. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1) Impervious Surface Calculations According to the Developer, the original Mendota Mall Planned Unit Development was approved or allowed to have up to 75% impervious surfaces. The Developer has determined the total impervious coverage within the existing overall PUD is currently at 62.4% of the site. The Developer has also determined(and states)the with the two proposed apartment projects,the total impervious coverage within the PUD area will increase slightly to 65.5% of the PUD area, which is within the 75% overall impervious value approved in the 2009 PUD. The Developer also provides a comparison of what the proposed lots (individually) would have been had they been developed vs. the new or proposed apartment developments on each site. For Parcel 2/Phase II,the original restaurant/retail centers was intended to have up to 62.8%of impervious,while the new 58-unit apartment and its facilities would only be approx. 51.5% of impervious cover. For Phase III/Lot 7 site,the current parcel consists of 21.6%impervious due to the perimeter roadways, and the new 89-unit development adds 47,980-sf. of cover, totaling 67,115-s£, or 75.7% impervious coverage. Overall,the total added surfaces for both Phased II and III sites increases to 65.5% of impervious area over the entire PUD project area,which is still below the 75% approved under the 2008 PUD approval. 2) Lighting Plan The Developer has provided for the commissioners review a Lighting Illumination (or Photometric) Plan for both sites, and has submitted their choice of proposed light heads or luminaries for both building wall and pole mounted lighting sources. City Code Section 12-1I-15 LIGHTING states: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. For the Phase II site, it appears the lighting meets or exceeds the 0.2 candle standards per Code. On the Phase III site,it appears some lights along the north side of the apartment—facing towards the back side of the main mall building,have projected readings between 0.2—0.3 candles along this share line. This slight increase is nominal, and city staff does not have any concerns or issues with these lighting values illustrated on the plan. All new luminaries or light heads will be equipped with energy efficient LED lighting, and are seamless/down-cast fixtures that help direct lighting downward and avoid glare or spill-out. City staff has no additional comments or recommendations with this lighting plan. page 135 3) Traffic Circulation Plan Even though the proposed project(s)do not change existing access points or change the interior roadways within the Plaza PUD,the Developer has provided a circulation plan for the commission's review(See attached Exhibit C with the 10/13/2021 Updated Narrative). The traffic circulation plan denotes existing or current vehicle movements within the PUD by the "wide blue"lines; current pedestrian movements(i.e. sidewalks)as the "narrow red"lines; and the "green"lines represent new or proposed vehicle movement areas; and the "yellow"highlights the additional pedestrian paths that will be provided with the construction of the proposed projects. City staff has no additional comments or recommendations with this circulation plan. 4) Parking Analysis Numbers As was noted in the August 24t1i Report,the proposed Phase II/58-unit development includes a total of 118 spaces,equating to a ratio of 2.03 spaces/unit;while Phase III/89-unit development provides a total of 157 spaces,equating to a ratio of 1.76 spaces/unit. City Code requires a standard of 2 spaces /unit for residential uses; while the R-3 High Density Residential districts requires 2.5 spaces/unit. The required amount or standards used for parking with a development in a PUD request can be flexible, as was allowed with the 2002 Village PUD by granting 2 spaces/unit; The Reserves of 2016 approved with a 1.6 space/unit; The Heights Apartments of 2017 approved with 2 spaces/unit; and the recent Linden Apartments of 2020 were allowed 1.4 spaces/unit (for residential use). As was noted in the previous August 24'Report,starting with the high density residential uses approved in the 2002 Village PUD, and based on the Stantec parking study/analysis submitted with The Reserve project in 2016,parking needs for high density housing developments can be accommodated in a range between 1.5—2.0 spaces per unit. The Aug.24'Report included a recommendation to provide the same 1.6 spaces/unit or 1.2 spaces/bedroom standard granted under The Reserves in 2016, which calculates as follows: PHASE II(58-unit) • 1.6 Spaces/Unit: 58-units x 1.6 =92.8 or 93 spaces or • 1.2 Spaces/Bedroom: (28-1 bed units @ 1.2=34)+(30-2-bed @ 2.4=72)= 106 spaces PHASE III(89-unit) • 1.6 Spaces/Unit: 89-units x 1.6= 142.4 or 143 spaces or • 1.2 Spaces/Bedroom: 62 one bedroom units @ 1.2 =74.4,or 75 spaces 27 two bedroom units @ 2.4= 64.8,or 65 spaces TOTAL: 140 spaces Based on the previous studies and analysis performed on The Reserves, The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years, and on-site observations of these development uses, it remains the opinion of staff that the 118 spaces proposed in Phase II and 157 spaces in Phase III should be adequate to serve the residents of these individual development sites. page 136 Parkinz Stall Standards/Sizes: Per City Code Section 12-1D-16-D-4, Size Of Spaces: `Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet(9)wide and twenty feet(20)in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet(24) in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway." Code Section 12-113-2: Definitions also provides the following for handicapped parking spaces: "A surfaced and maintained area(12 by 20 feet)for the parking of one standard automobile and identified for use by handicapped individuals." The submitted plans with the Aug.24'Report illustrated stall lengths of 9'x 18'in size. As part of this update, the Developer has indicated they have revised their plans so that the majority of the interior (underground) stalls meet the 9' x 20' standards;however they are requesting at least 30% of the stalls remain at 9'x 18'to allow for compact parking stalls.The Developer also requests outside parking stalls remain at 9 'x 18'in size,due to the consideration of curb bumpers and front overhang of the vehicles. Handicap stalls will be 12' x 20' for interior, and 12' x 18' for exterior; with a total of 2 interior and 2 exterior handicap stalls to be provided for Phase II and 2 interior and 2 exterior of handicap stalls provided for Phase III. This request by the Developer is supported by their intent to reduce hard-surface/impervious cover,and create more green space. The Developer feels these reduced stall standards are consistent with what was approved in The Reserves, The Heights and also The Linden/Copperfield Diner. The planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on the number of spaces provided, reduced stall sizes, and reduced setbacks for parking lot areas. Parking Needs Analysis/Tabulation The Developer has provided an updated parking analysis to demonstrate that current parking is adequate to serve the needs of the individual developments and the entire PUD. This update includes a parking summary and analysis addressing the parking at the Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota Plaza PUD area. The Parking Data Tables show the amount of parking that could have been required vs. the parking provided on certain sites/areas of the PUD. The Main Mall and surrounding land uses are shown to have 385 stalls required, but only 341 have been provided, and The Reserve Apartments may have needed up to 278 spaces, but only 245 were provided. It is important to note these current parking numbers were approved or allowed under the original 2009 PUD approval and its subsequent amendments for different land uses. Based on the 957 spaces that may have been required versus the 861 spaces proposed,this results in a 11%reduction from required to proposed space counts. The Developer has also provided a detailed Daily Avg. Use (Parking) on the various uses in the Mall Property, which is based on an initial morning, peak noon, mid-afternoon, and peak evening time frames. The comparisons between Week 1 and Week 2 appear very similar, with little fluctuations even during these different time frames. The table includes a detailed count of parked vehicles at certain times of the day and locations inside the Mall Property. 5) Traffic Analysis The Developer included in the August 24t'PC Packet, a Technical Memorandum(Traffic Analysis) from Biko Associates(dated 08/09/21). According to the Developer,the proposed apartment uses appear to actually work better than the current approved uses when it comes to traffic,especially during peak times. page 137 The Developer have now also provide an updated analysis(also from Biko Assoc.—dated 09/09/21) that reviews current daily vehicle trips on Dodd Road and how the proposed apartment projects may impact these daily amounts. The Developer shows the level of service (Daily Trips) along Dodd Road in both the"Approved/Adopted Scenario" and a revised or"Proposed Amendment Scenario" as 7,700 vehicles. However,the Approved daily trip generation(restaurants+childcare center) shows a Daily Trip generation of 1,024 vehicles vs. 798 attributed to both apartment project uses. The "Impact of DT's"on Dodd Road go from 8,724 down to 8,498,which represents a 3% drop between both scenarios. The Developer's traffic engineers conclude the level of service of either 13%vs. 10% is not significant; and further conclude "...if there is a concern that vacant parcels within Mendota Plaza should be developed with uses that generate the least daily traffic volumes, Scenario #2 (the two apartments)should be the preferred alternative." City staff has no additional comments or recommendations with this Traffic Analysis information. 6) Landscape Plan Updates The Developer has submitted a revised landscape plans for both sites. Prior to the preparation of these plans,the Developer was encouraged to discuss any new landscape designs and planting materials list with local resident Master Gardener Sue Light. Ms. Light provided an initial review memo dated 08/22/2021, which was added to the August 24t1i Report and presentations; and has amended this original recommendation with "Landscaping Planting Plan Recommendations for Mendota Plaza" — dated 08/13/2021 (attached). According to the Developer's Narrative Update,each plan maximizes the use of over story,ornamental and coniferous trees while providing native plants and foundation plantings above and beyond what is required by City Code requirements. The current landscape plans include the following: • Twenty-five (25) species of trees have been proposed over the two sites with an average of 16% per species. (City requirement is not more than 50% of trees shall be comprised of one species). • Amended planting soil will be incorporated within the planting beds to promote a healthy soil that allows root growth and plant establishment. • 82 % of the plant species specified are native to the area, with over 77% of the total individual plants being native. In addition to the individual plantings,the plans incorporate 8,800 square feet of central Minnesota wildflower seed mix that is proposed on Lot 2. (There is no City requirement and GreenStep Cities Program requires a minimum of 75% native to the local area.) • Planting surrounding the parking lots exceed the City Zoning Code requirements and also meet the GreenStep Cities program requirements of providing landscape islands(at the end of each row)of over 180 square feet. (This exceeds the City Requirements.) 7) Fire Protection The Developers met with Mendota Heights Fire Chief Dreelan on October 12,2021 to review the plans for the two new apartment projects,and discuss any fire protection measures and plans. This discussion included identifying the proper placement/locations for fire hydrants and the locations for the FDCs (fire department connections) and confirmed that two proposed buildings would be completed sprinklered with standpipe systems. The Developer indicated Chief Dreelan was comfortable with their fire protection services and plan. page 138 As was indicated at the August 24' meeting, there was some concerns raised about traffic on Dodd Road and the potential impact(s)this development may have on emergency vehicle leaving the nearby fire station. A suggestion was made to have an Opticom system installed,which would trigger the stop lights at Hwy 62 and Dodd Road in a certain direction,in order to free-up or release any queued vehicles sitting along Dodd Road,thereby opening up the area in front of the station. City staff has indicated to the Developer that any Opticom or similar system will require MnDOT review and approvals(as Dodd Road is a state highway), and this system would be the responsibility of the city,not the developer. Wetlands Permit The proposed Phase II project includes grading and construction activities within 100-feet of a wetland resource - Interstate Valley Creek,thus a Wetlands Permit is needed to be approved. A concern was raised at the August 24'meeting of the "wetland in the back corner of the parcel, and the setbacks from the pond and creek edges. This pond feature is actually a man-made pond that was installed as part of the sheet-pile wall system construction in 2017; and is not recognized as a"wetland" or system on the City of Mendota Heights official Wetlands Map,therefore,no buffering or setbacks are required. As indicated in the August 24'Report,the northerly area or creek edge was stabilized and improved with a very large and considerable steel sheet pile wall along this north embankment(see image—below). F � Y[2 � y �� a The areas near the bottom of the wall and along the flattened or sloped creek banks are heavily vegetated, and will remain so during and after construction. The creek channel measures anywhere from 15-ft.to 27- ft. away from this wall. Developer has no plans to impact or affect this waterway or wall during the construction of this project. The building along this creek/wall edge is shown with a 15-foot setback,while the parking lot is setback 25- ft. from the lot line and approx. 20-ft. from the wall edge. This open/green space,plus the vegetated buffer created along the creek bed, should provide the added protection called for along this waterway. No additional buffers are required. The stormwater pollution prevention plans(SWPPP)indicate extraordinary measures will be used to protect and safeguard this area during and after construction is completed,and all disturbed areas have been restored. page 139 PUD Agreement Timeframe Issues At the August 24t1i hearing, a comment was made addressing the five year time frame for completing a planned unit development. City Code Section 12-IK-6: Procedure for PUD indicates a provision as part of the written statement accompanying the PUD Concept Plan application process,noted as follows: "3.d.: A general indication of the expected schedule of development including progressive phasing and time schedules which shall not exceed five (5) years from the date of approval of the final development plan for the planned unit development to the completion of all construction." City staff asked our city attorneys to review the original 2009 Mendota Mall PUD Agreement, and its subsequent amendments (all seven). The attorneys found that under the original 2009 PUD Agreement between the City and the mall developers,a Section 3.2 was include that provided for"The Project shall be fully completed no later than five (5)years after the date of the approval of the final development plan by the City." The first,second,third fifth and seventh amendments did not amend or change this or any other timeframes. The fourth amendment however,did delete and replaced Section 3.2 with the following: 8. < 3_2 is hcrclby deleted in its n .:7c SUJk Mt to ttie-}7::r,, iii.r rUclu:remen:s out_i;rctl r rv,r, the Projcct shrill be fully complrr'•r+ r;, '',i!:;r ±hr:n \�ov!:ibv: 15, 2026. ,Ary 1�'rrasas of the Projcct yet 1,3 L7c c -r=t;.3ctc:l a;at 1`10 date ofthis t�otirta;i.im::OmL,irt,may be conuncneed by..;-,%dL p --ni :giny Limc prior to N>VC'1lh(:- 15, 2023„but nwu i b 1)eveloper thirtty-six (36) ni th= irmm 11-pe issuance of:he buiLdirg I-cirm i1. The City Attorney states the five-year requirement for completion in Section 3.2 of the Original PUD was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. The sixth amendment, which was created as part of the 2016 The Reserves development, included the following language: IL. t:.:ili''I '.I { i:11511'iti1.4t'11;::11 irk iICI;^'11. 1_t. �s'4'?:on 3.1 is het`L'•by delcicd to its. LTAircty and rep6LLLC L'AdLi7.1ts4 it h�titiin�: ;I•.%'L'L to Un.Aiv•:iil .!�[e Delays,th-e 1), tr : . 4:,-r r, i .• Lh� lnfr:,.:!::�.!::.: .1:11'�:. am• .�s•:14 a�rJ rl;r .�.,,.,...;I ... I�:icrn __ , . :I;.• . . 1'.t.: ._ i; . it ,.I',r 1:, i. i.:.i r..::i in,_ sIL il. _ iI,P..4 �,i:J aal�nl,�n7u�t� 1 , . ..,.... .- iI ; reas ,:iable tii.:. _i7-e_°• 13. Section 3.2 "completion of DevelpMent. Section 1.2 is hereby duitted in its entirety,as said Section relatcLs to die Second Addition. The City Attorney concludes that the Phase III/ 89-unit development or any other approved development is allowed to be completed by November 15, 2026. The Phase II/ 58-unit project is situated on that part governed under the Sixth Amendment (2"d Addition—Mendota Mall); and therefore since this timeframe was deleted under this 6t1i PUD Agreement, this property does not have a deadline or required completion date for any development or project. page140 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein,based on the attached finding-of-fact,with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this hearing was tabled at the August 24t1i meeting,the Planning Commission should make a motion to re-open the public hearing; allow for additional comments; and if enough information has been given and discussion has concluded,make a final motion on one of the alternatives noted above. The following are suggested conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council; and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G—Structural,Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re- established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. 5. A park dedication fee of$4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half(11/2)times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. page 141 9. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal,state,and local regulations and codes,as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction. 14. All applicable fire and building codes,as adopted/amended by the City,shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the city's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Developer's Updated Narrative+Attachments- 10/13/2021 2. August 24,2021 Planning Staff Reports for Planning Case Nos.2021-12 and 2021-13 page 142 at home APARTMENTS October 13, 2021 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Attn: Mr. Tin?Benetti Re: Update: At Home Apartments Planning Application &Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. Dear Mr. Benetti: This letter is being provided to you as an update and response to certain matters raised during the Planning Commission meeting held on August 26, 2021. At this meeting, At Home Apartments presented two housing development proposals for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve at Mendota Village and Parcel l/Lot 7 located within the Mixed Use Mendota Plaza PUD. During the discussion with the Planning Commissioners we were asked to provide additional information as it related to our application and/or provide further clarification. Below we have separated out each of the areas we were asked to address. Impervious Surface: During the August 26th meeting, Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for specifications on the impervious surface calculations, not just for the two proposed projects, but for the entire Mendota Plaza PUD. We did not have that information available to us during the meeting, but promised to follow up with the desired calculation. When the original PUD was approved the overall development was approved to be 75% impervious. The total impervious coverage within the existing overall PUD is currently 62.4%. With the PUD as it is currently constructed combined with the two proposed apartment projects the total impervious coverage within the PUD area would increase to 65.5%, still well within the 75% overall impervious value that was approved in 2009 with the original PUD. When looking at each of the proposed lots individually, Parcel 2/Phase II proposes to decrease impervious coverage from 62.8% to 51.5%. Parcel 1/Lot 7 is proposed with 75.7% impervious coverage. The two parcels together have 65.5% impervious. One objective of a PUD is to allow flexibility between lots to account for unusual circumstances. Parcel 1/Lot 7 is completely surrounded by existing access drives, which cover more than 20% of the lot. The impervious area of the remainder of the Parcel 1/Lot 7 is only 69.0%. Please see Exhibit A. �jp e 143 at horde APARTMENTS Lighting Plan: During the August 26th meeting, Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about the lighting plan for the two proposed projects. The lighting plan was not provided with our application at the time of submission, but it has been attached to this letter for review and comment, The lighting plan consists of pole mount lights at the parking areas and wall mount lights at the building. Please see Exhibit S. Traffic Circulation Plan: Our application did not provide a circulation plan as we did not believe it was warranted since the proposed projects do not change access points or change the interior roadways within the Plaza development. However, we do realize that information is helpful when reviewing the requested PUD amendment. Included with this letter is a traffic circulation plan which denotes vehicle movement within the PUD, current pedestrian movements (i.e. sidewalks) and also highlights the additional pedestrian paths that will be provided with the construction of the proposed projects. Please see Exhibit C. Parking Analysis: During the meeting, several commissioners had questions and comments regarding parking at the Reserve at Mendota Village, the parking ratios for the proposed projects, and also the availability for the Mendota Plaza PUD as a whole. It was requested that we provide a parking analysis to demonstrate that current parking is adequate to serve the needs of the individual developments and the entire PUD. With this update we have included a parking summary and analysis addressing the parking at the Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota Plaza PUD area. Please see Exhibit D. Traffic Analysis: With the submitted application, we provided a detailed traffic memo that showed that the proposed uses are actually better than the current approved uses when it comes to traffic, especially during peak times. Further analysis was done to review the current daily car trips on Dodd Road and how the proposed projects impact that daily amount. Please see Exhibit E. Parkin Stalls and Handicap stalls: During the parking discussion, it was noted by Commissioner Lorberbaum that the stalls provided for in the proposed projects were shorter than what is required under the municipal code. The stalls detailed in the application showed stall lengths of 9' x 18' whereas code requires parking stalls to be 9'x 20.' The last PUD approval did allow for 9' x 18' stall lengths. We have been able to revise the plans so that the majority of the interior parking stalls (the underground parking stalls) will be 9' x 20', however we are requesting that 30% of the stalls remain at 9' x 18' to allow dedicated compact parking stalls. We also request that the outside parking stalls remain at 9'x 18' as there is additional length that is automatically provided when you take into consideration the curb bumpers and front overhang of the vehicles. The reduced asphalt at the exterior will create more green area, less impervious area and would be a benefit to the residents and the community. These requests would be consistent with what was approved in 2016 with the PUD Amendment for the Reserve at Mendota Village. Additionally, granting of these requests would be consistent with the deviations that were approved for The Heights and also The Linden/Copperfield Diner. The Heights Apartment was /rpp e 144 at home APARTMENTS approved with 9' x 18' for its underground stalls and 9' x 20' for the outdoor stalls. The Linden, which is both a residential and commercial use, was approved with 9' x 18' stalls for both interior and exterior parking. The Handicap stalls will be 12' x 20'for interior, and 12' x 18' for exterior. A total of 2 interior and 2 exterior handicap stalls will be provided for Phase 2 and a total 2 interior and 2 exterior of handicap stalls will be provided for development located on Lot 7. Please Exhibit F. Landscape Plan Update: Revised landscape plans have been provided for both sites. Each project maximizes the use of overstory, ornamental and coniferous trees while providing native plants and foundation plantings above and beyond what is required by City Zoning Code requirements. The current landscape plans include the following, but are not limited to: a Twenty-five (25) species of trees have been proposed over the two sites with an average of 16% per species. (City requirement is not more than 50% of trees shall be comprised of one species). • Amended planting soil will be incorporated within the planting beds to promote a healthy soil that allows root growth and plant establishment. ■ 82 % of the plant species specified are native to the area, with over 77% of the total individual plants being native. In addition to the individual plantings, the plans incorporate 8,800 square feet of central Minnesota wildflower seed mix that is proposed on Lot 2. (There is no City requirement and GreenStep Cities Program requires a minimum of 75%native to the local area.) • Planting surrounding the parking lots exceed the City Zoning Code requirements and also meet the GreenStep Cities program requirements of providing landscape islands (at the end of each row) of over 180 square feet. (This exceeds the City Requirements.) Additional conversation was had with Susan Light on September 20, 2021 discussing the GreenStep Cities Program Requirements identified in her amended response and what is proposed in the current landscape plans. Our discussion revolved around utilizing the Greenstep requirements as a guideline and implementing improvements where it best fits these sites and the long-term vision of the area. The proposed landscape plan provides an approach that exceeds the City's Zoning Code requirements, strives to comply with additional pollinator and native plant recommendations and provides a long term sustainable product that can be maintained for the best aesthetic quality of the surrounding environment. Please see Exhibit G. Fire Protection: We met with Mendota Heights Fire Chief Dreelan on October 12, 2021 to review our fire protection plan. This discussion included identifying the proper placement/locations for fire hydrants and the locations for the FDCs (fire department connections) and confirmed that two proposed buildings would be completed sprinklered with ^plrge 145 at home APARTMENTS standpipe systems. With this information and the agreement on where the hydrants and 1'D['s should be located, Chief Dreelan was comfortable with our fire protection flan. As it relates to his concerns about traffic on Dodd and what Inlpaet these developnicnts the desire to have an Opticom systems installed that is located outside the Iire station r 'as discussed. It is our understanding that there are preliminary conversations at a statT level about installation of an apticom system. A more detailed summary of this niecting will be provided shortly. We hope this letter provides the additional clan-ificatio n nccded by the Planning Comur�ission. If there are any questions or comments concerning t I i i s letter or the cc)rre sponding materials, please contact me directly at 651-294-3282 or via cnia'll at Istefaniak(&aha-nin.com. qRestfully submitted, �M. Stefaniak, sq. nt of Real Es ate and Development eral Counsel At Horne Apartments,L.L.C. /purge 146 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT A Impervious Surface Calculation Impervious Surface Calculations (calculated by Anderson Engineering) The total area of the Mendota Plaza PUD is 21,2 acres. In 2008, when the original PUD was filed,the existing site was 31% impervious, The 2008 stormwater report prepared by RLK-Ine. was used to size the ponds that currently exist on the site. These ponds were designed to support a full build-out of the 21.2-acre PUD with an overall impervious surface of 75%, which is 15.9 Ac. or 692,604 SF of impervious. The current Mendota Plaza PUD is 62.4% impervious, (578,330 SF impervious of 927,120 SF of total site area),. The area of Lot 1 is 88,920 SF, The existing gravel area on that lot is considered impervious. So, existing impervious coverage of Lot 1, including the area of the normal water level of the existing pond measures 59,285 SF or 66.7% impervious. The proposed development of Lot 1 will actually decrease the impervious surface to 45,800 SF, which is only 51.5%. The total area of Lot 7 is 88,680 SF and currently has an impervious coverage of 19,134 SF for the perimeter roadways, or 21.6%. The development on Lot 7 is proposed to add 47,980 SF of impervious surface, which will would increase the impervious surface to 67,115 SF, or 75.7%. Overall, the impervious coverage proposed on Lot 1 and Lot 7 would increase the impervious coverage within the 21.2 acre PUD to 552,903 SF, or 65.5%,which is still well below the overall 75% impervious coverage that the 2008 PUD was approved for, �e 147 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT B Lighting Plan Attached. i I toil- page 148 1. . 1 I. SOUTH PLAZA 7MVE :MM'1 ha 24 r, jl L[S dl; i MENA—, M, J.t­ M Ci Oa 001 nh-so nx independent lab 451%vtikh(low 11�L 111111111.1 r Ax.r,,,,,,I qu umid.a m m .�­ j j,�' t -n '�"' ;4'V"' I d aro un f hy,-P ma uffflctuwm. page 149 El 11ZV E=,, O V I., 1 2 SOJTH PLAZA FFIVE Z P 2 a) (D These drawings are for conceptual use only and are not 0 0 intended for construction.Fixture runs and quantities '0 M should Id be verified prior to order.Values represented C C d) a) are an approximation generated from manufacturers photometric inhouse or independent lab tests with data supplied by lamp manufacturers. cseszsaae Opulence Series of Architectural Luminaires '� t y }dam ti.��'� 's �,�..�► 1. ,.. ,fir. v.� !4, •% _ OPULENCE SERIES OF LUMINAIRES x�- ` '• Opulence combines a visually stunning fixture with five different mounting styles.The result is a lighting solution that bolsters the richness of every environment in which the luminaire is installed. Regardless of configuration,each product in the Opulence series r ^ features the same beautifully curved fixture with a clean housing ' At a,nd,a neLLseamless W. z: POST TOP PENDANT 4 r , ti w � d �.. , r. SIDE ARM SURFACE "a �"' r WALLIF s .. Lsl... ttiec?+ 000 Alliance ati,OH 45242•www.isicorp'.com page 151 Opulence Series of Architectural Luminaires EXCEPTIONAL STYLE PENDANT WITH CONTROL SENSOR Ideal for parking facilities,low glare pedestrian walkways and landscaping projects.The Opulence series consists of matching surface,pendant,wall mount,area and post-top luminaires that are purposefully designed to accentuate every space where it is installed with architectural beauty and high-performance illumination. EASE OF CONTROLS Integral to luminaires • Standalone or Mesh Network VISUAL COMFORT Simple to use software and apps • Large Aperture Lens POST TOP Pre-commissioned solutions available • Dense Recessed LED Array — ^ — — — — — — — — • Optional Diffuse Lens • Low Lumen Outputs Available 41!7- &W 7!91 5 STANDARD CCT's - 80 CRI C*11_��� FLOWING FORM • Smooth transition regardless of mounting • Clean housing design with no visible heat fins • Styling complements surroundings • Well hidden hardware I IS, 2701 000 UNMATCHED PERFORMANCE • True IES Distributions • Very High Efficacy LEDs 8 STANDARD PAINT FINISHES Programmable Drivers • IP66 Rated Lumenaire ust m c available. 0 0 Black Dark Graphite Gun Metal Metallic Platinum White satin Verde Bronze Silver Plus Green • ! ,q�y '� ,,� as '' ��"" -, y /��'� '�. � �'��.' � � •• - - -. .. F - AC • ! ... � � /Fi; r '� �i s•,�P.y�� y �, j 11 r y� XX DY " +F fin',�ii ' 'L�Yj''�� �j�✓�-�' 4 II FBI}� t ;! • ram ® r x ��•I..!l11M1111� rra �N Friv �r� iD �ll p!`I 'k�D;i��u�'�-��' 'lll�lllllllll III ��Ilw!P011111111��� POST : r In adcRion to its stylish,contemporary appearance,the Opulence Post Top delivers exceptional light distribution for uniform illumination.Ideal for campus and park settings,this high-performing luminaire enhances the pedestrian experience with elegant style. CONTEMPORARY POLE• & BASE COVER .. - - Goes - 0 page 153 ` Opulence Area Lighting AREA LIGHT i� `4 With its dense LED arrangement and precision optics,the Opulence Area Light delivers high-performance illumination and extraordinary visual comfort.Like all Opulence configurations,this luminaire was designed to }, pp give you exceptional optical control for maximum uniformity. 17 l I-A u 1 t �N _ MOUNTING OPTIONS LSI's Opulence pole mounted luminaires are available with upswept side-arm and decorative pendant mounting configurations. Contemporary and sleek styling help the Opulence blend into any t w�• { '4* i G ' Z. -- aAYLi1,.. i , e t._- /Npdge 154 at home APARTMENTS I?XIIII3I1' C, 'Fraffic Circulation Ilan Attached. page 155 STA TE H IGHWAV110 62 — m - ���`� � — � � .�• ANDERSON -- -- �EIDO IE�AV nwezRor, www.coliagearch.com \ A 4TRAVCET° l ��I I'1D\R'AR KING. / l`� ` soTn 1 oFmNNE �EEFUNOEarHE uws oFTHE STnTE N. l r p PRINT NAME LEE KDPPVPE Au TAT I A Y+ '. !.•, '" f \ / �. �V ��. �, I siGNATuae NOT Pofl CON6IFlUCIIOPI DATE U9'U3I2U21 LICENSE NO- 41261 sza I .•, ^.;!• a _ �� ` / ` ` � ` ENTRANCE TO JD R / PARKING DOESNOT CC ECT TO LOWER PARKING LE,E_ MENDOTA HEIGHTS m APARTMENTS Mmtlob 11ai9nE.M1TI YAW ENTRANCE TO INDOO 0 oe , 'PAR ING ES NOT O'J T KO UPER•LEVEL PARKING EET ✓• i:: �a �v r lr `\ �A P 44. i �: .. Ao NRe l a¢hitmts u IArcnReols Pete z I 1 661.4 nTl..OG0 aE 1' � �•' f �'i'i Y,I_t i�- �� ]6616ihAveenueNE • 1' AJ� � , � Minneapolis,MN 65d13 z I Eo GATE AUGUST 19,f011 jp j y I �a�'t1 LAND USE p r, f ✓ �. APPLICATION w 1\; I REVISIONS p / EEGI`. E AT r� I u'1` I � > 1 It I 1.1EITNII 1— N.T.Sf f I. \ 1 I l I ov ' e io r i 0 E� lT 1 �> %✓ b, TRAFFIC .RIE o„ sa — E.Dovewnv�r w, CIRCULATION r -----. ry it EXHIBIT E `v I /OhQe 156 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT D Parking Analysis Attached. Mendota Reserve PUD Parking Summary LAND USE PARKING BUILDING SIZE/ REQUIRED PARKING Comprised of:203 REQUIREMENTS UNIT COUNT PARKING PROVIDED interiorResident stalls,22 interior Guest Stalls,&20 surface stalls Residential 2 Stalls/Unit 139 278 Total Registered Cars o-e. cars'belonging to current residents) 193 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Summary LOT LAND USE PARKING BUILDING SIZE/ REQUIRED PARKING DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS UNIT COUNT PARKING PROVIDED Existing Retail 7 Stalls/1,000 SF 14,820 SF 104 Stalls 73 Stalls Walgreen's (gross) Drug Store Existing Gemini Office[Warehouse 1 Stall/200 SF 10,000 SF Office 54 Stalls 60 Stalls Medical (net) and + 1 Stall/2,000 SF 7,700 SF Warehouse Existing Retail Retail/Restaurant 7 Stalls/1,000 SF 45,000 SF Total 227 Stalls * 208 Stalls Center (gross) and Floor Area 1 25,000 SF Retail Stall/employee/sh + ift plus 20,000 SF 1 Stall for each 3 Restaurant (at 12 seats Employees/Shift + 120 seats) TOTAL PARKING Required Parking based on full occupancy,and does not account for vacancies r � Proposed Apartment Parcel 2/Phase 2 LANCE USE PARKING BUILDING SIZE/ IREQUIRED PARKING REQUIREMENTS UNIT COUNT PARKING PROPOSED Residential 2 StaflslUnit 58 Units Proposed Apartment Parcel 11Lot 7 LAND USE PARKING BUILDING SIZE/ REQUIRED PARKING REQUIREMENTS UNIT COUNT PARKING PROPOSED Residential 2 Stalls/Unit 89 Units TOTAL . . . . . . Combined PUD Parking Total 957 861 PROVIDED & REQUIRED ` ! ' / ■ -- .DAILY AVERAGE USE SUMMARY - Week 1 LOT DESCRIPTION 9:30-10:00am 12:30 PM-I:OOpm 3:30-4:00pm 6:00-7.30pm Reserve at Mendota Village Surface Lot 7.33 vehicles 8.33 11 15.5 South Plaza Way(in front of Reserve) 3.7 vehicles 2.7 3 5.75 Dirt Lot 4.33 vehicles 4 3 9 Wallgreen's 13.33 vehicles 17 19.33 27.5 Gemini Medical 17.33 vehicles 15 10.7 0.5 Mendota Plaza 44 vehicles 81.33 64.7 87.5 DAILY AVERAGE USE SUMMARY - Week 2 LOT DESCRIPTION 9.30-16c00am 12.30 PM-1:00pm 3:30-4:00pm 6:00-7:30pm Reserve at Mendota village Surface Lot 8.33 10.75 13.33 14 South Plaza Way(in front of Reserve) 3 3.25 3.7 6 Dirt Lot 3.7 3.5 3.33 4.33 Wallgreen's 13.33 19.75 17.33 13.67 Gemini Medical 24 12.25 23 4.33 Mendota Plaza 37 76.5 64.67 115.33 ""full data linked vo �0 t+ �) w ( �,,� page 159 TU1ErS•DTA,Y (+ WEDNESDAY THURSDAY SATURDAY Date: 9/14/20210 Date: 911512021 Date: 9116/2021 Date: 9/18/2021 Time:Approx: 10:00am Time Approx: 9:30am Time Approx: 9:30m Time Approx NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 14 Walgreens 12 Walgreens 14 Plaza Large Lot 47 Plaza Large Lot 46 Plaza Large Lot 26 Plaza Rear Lot 4 Plaza Rear Lot 5 Plaza Rear Lot 4 Lot 8 Lot 8 Lot 6 Gemini Lot 14 Gemini Lot 21 Gemini Lot 17 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza.Way 4 South Plaza Way 4 Dirt lot 5 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 4 TOTAL 95 TOTAL 100 TOTAL 75 Time:Approx 12:45 Time Approx 12:30pm Approx 12:30pm Time Approx NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 14 Walgreens 17 Walgreens 20 Plaza Large Lot 58 Plaza Large Lot 80 Plaza Large Lot 81 Plaza Rear Lot 7 Plaza Rear Lot 9 Plaza Rear Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 11 Lot 5 Gemini Lot 16 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 14 South Plaza Way 2 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 Dirt lot 5 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 3 TOTAL 111 TOTAL 139 TOTAL 135 Time Approx: NIA Time Approx 3:30pm Time Approx 3:30pm Time Approx 3:15PM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 18 Walgreens 27 Walgreens 13 Plaza Large Lot 61 Plaza Large Lot 51 Plaza Large Lot 47 Plaza Rear Lot 12 Plaza Rear Lot 10 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 7 Lot 12 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 16 Gemini 1 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 3 Dirk Lot 2 TOTAL 127 TOTAL 117 TOTAL 91 Time:Approx 6:45pm Time Approx 7:30pm Time Approx 6:05pm Time Approx 7:30PM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 16 Walgreens 14 Walgreens 20 Walgreens 0 Plaza Large Lot 79 Plaza Large Lot 59 Plaza Large Lot 106 Plaza Large Lot 46 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Plaza Rear Lot 15 Plaza Rear Lot 18 Plaza Rear Lot 14 Lot 17 Lot 13 Lot 15 Lot 17 Gemini Lot 0 Gemini Lot 0 Gemini Lot 1 Gemini Lot 1 South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 7 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 9 Dirt lot 7 Dirk lot 7 Dirt lot 3 Dirt Lot 19 TOTAL 136 TOTAL 115 1 TOTAL 166 TOTAL 106 kj �(y�. page 160 TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY SATURDAY Date: 9121/2021 Date: 912212021 Date: 9/2312021 Date: 9/25/2021 Time:Apprx 9:30am Time Approx 9:40arn Time Approx 9:40am Time Approx: NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 11 Walgreens 15 Walgreens 14 Plaza Large Lot 28 Plaza Large Lot 37 Plaza Large Lot 28 Plaza Rear Lot 4 Plaza Rear Lot 7 Plaza Rear Lot 7 Reserve Surface 7 Reserve Surface 11 Reserve Surface 7 Gemini Lot 25 Gemini Lot 23 Gemini Lot 24 South Plaza Way 2 South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 3 Dirt lot 6 Dirt lot 2 Dirt lot 3 TOTAL 83 TOTAL 99 TOTAL 86 Time: Approx 12:30pm Time Approx 1.2:40pm Time Approx 12:30pm Time Approx 1:OOPM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 20 Walgreens 27 Walgreens 19 Walgreens 13 Plaza Large Lot 69 Plaza Large Lot 65 Plaza Large Lot 79 Plaza Large Lot 50 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Plaza Rear Lot 11 Plaza Rear Lot 10 Plaza Rear Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 8 Surface Lot 17 Gemini Lot 19 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 0 South Plaza Way 2 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza 5 Dirt lot 5 Dirt lot 3 Dirt lot 3 Dirt Lot 3 TOTAL 137 TOTAL 139 TOTAL 137 TOTAL 97 Time Approx 3:40pm Time Approx 3:30pm Time Approx 4:00pm Time Approx: NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 18 Walgreens 18 Walgreens 16 Plaza Large Lot 62 Plaza Large Lot 42 Plaza Large Lot 48 Plaza Rear Lot 19 Plaza Rear Lot 10 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Lot 15 Lot 13 Lot 12 Gemini Lot 23 Gemini Lot 22 Gemini Lot 24 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 4 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 3 Dirt lot 3 TOTAL 144 TOTAL 112 TOTAL 120 Time: Approx NIA Time Approx 6:30pm Time Approx 6:45PM Time Approx 7:OOPM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens Walgreens 16 Walgreens 18 Walgreens 7 Plaza Large Lot Plaza Large Lot 126 Plaza Large Lot 86 Plaza Large Lot 92 Plaza Rear Lot Plaza Rear Lot 14 Plaza Rear Lot 17 Plaza Rear Lot 11 Lot. Lot 11 Lot 15 Surface Lot 16 Gemini Lot Gemini Lot 5 Gemini Lot 8 Gemini Lot 0 South Plaza Way South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 6 South Plaza 8 Dirt lot Dirt lot 3 Dirt lot 5 Dirt Lot 5 TOTAL 0 TOTAL 179 1 TOTAL 155 TOTAL 139 '� �ICI{- a rn►v� page 161 MENDOTA PLAZA PUD PARKING SUMMARY PARKING BUILDING SIZE/ REQUIRED PARKING LOT DESCRIPTION LAND USE REQUIREMENTS UNIT COUNT PARKING PROVIDED Existing Reserve Apartments Residential 2 Stalls/Unit 139 Units 278 Stalls 245 Stalls Existing Walgreen's Drug Store Retail 7 Stalls/1,000 SF(gross) 14,820 5F 104 Stalls 73 Stalls Existing Gemini Medical Office/Warehouse 1 Stall/200 SF(net)and 10,000 SF Office+ 54 Stalls 60 Stalls 1 Stall/2,000 SF 7,700 SF Warehouse 7 Stalls/1,000 SF(gross)and 45,000 SF Total Floor Area Existing Retail Center Retail/Restaurant 1 Stall/emplayee/shift plus 25,000 SF Retail+ 227 Stalls 208 Stalls 15ta[i for each 3 seats 20,000 SF Restaurant(at 12 Employees/Shift+120 seats) Proposed Apartment Lot 1/Parcel 2 Residential 2 Stalls/Unit 58 Units 116 Stalls 118 Stalls Proposed Apartment Lot 7/Parcel 3 Residential 2 Stalls/Unit 89 Units 178 Stalls 155 Stalls TOTAL 957 Stalls 859 Stalls Required Parking based on full occupancy,and does not account for vacancies I page 162 � — AHbLRSQH LOT 11 t L '.II,'"n((G9 :-� j� Ii �+• j RA_RML2 ti F cn.�n.mine v+n it-ra-.s F E1tl5TING I �'77- w_ ~•'` A[Cif[kinL'09 I ,'•' � 1c1C Ft/i I I �ul{h 44. rma DAM Ljce's- w TS MEAPARTMOTA HEhN IMIGHTS `. .. �., B.new lWglrey Nl gas i• �� �ti 194 UNrrs -• �l �� i � �V�� :• � -� 1 `�_ ,., r.� Dos nit 4 { J o.,y2nn�n NE 1 �-�. i 1 t 55.0055. ,t! � _.�.� - L.._, �..• fI ANL.S""l.:J:' ND y .r PARrXL LAND USE •v � X1C PA,{;NG$CAI,L.$1 ~ / k AREA FoornR, APPLICATION oa ss ONL ° x NT SENIOR �CQ � j - k - .....:PA rtl`.i�:,:7UNT Lq =Y. of ' pie 163 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT E Traffic Analysis Attached. BIKO ASSOCIATES � � page 164 L-LI- I NCO RPO RATE D Technical Memorandum DATE: September 9, 2021 TO: Leanna Stefaniak, President Real Estate & Development,At-Home Apartments FROM; William Smith,AICP RE: Comparative Daily Traffic Impact Introduction This memorandum was prepared in response to questions raised about traffic circulation by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission at its August 31,2021 meeting. The memorandum compares the impacts of two alternative development scenarios on daily traffic circulating on. Dodd Road (TH 149)south of TH 62. The first development scenario land uses includes the already approved and adopted 2008/2009 PUD and the already approved and adopted 2016 Mendota Plaza Expansion program. The land uses included in second development scenario are uses proposed in At Home Apartments' amendment to the previously approved and adopted uses. These are the Mendota 2 and Mendota Lot 7 developments. Most Current Two-Way Daily Traffic Figure 1 on the following page shows the most current daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of Mendota Plaza, on TH 62 and Dodd Road. With the exception of the traffic volume shown for the segment of Dodd Road that is north of TH 62, the illustrated daily traffic volumes are more current than those presented in the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS GRALN BELT BRE«'ERY BOTTLMG HOUSE 79 13th AVENUE N.E. STUDIO 107 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413-1073 PHONE:612-623-4000 FAX:612-623-0200 ww w. bikoassoeiates . c o m page 165 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak September 9, 2021 Page 2 Figure 1: -` Most Current Two-Way Annual r Average Daily Traffic Volumes ' 7.. • •f a C7 ,x ? Y�-. - •- Collected, seasonally adjusted, and annualized by MnDOT 34000 r 30(}f� ON" +r. Q � rr 41* IAN a e 4 1i] r 4;n ',.r-... ' A page 166 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak September 9,2021 Page 3 Daily Trip Generation Comparative trip generation analyses were conducted in a previous memorandum, which was discussed at the August 31 Planning Commission meeting. Table 1 summarizes the results of the analyses and focuses on daily trip generation for the two development scenarios. Table 1 Comparative Daily Trip Generation for Two Development Scenarios Alternative Development Scenario Daily Trip Generation Approved and Adapted Scenario 1: ■ 2008/2009 Approved and Adopted PUD (10,130 SF Childcare Facility) 482 ■ 2016 Approved and Adopted Mendota Plaza Expansion Program: - 6,000 SF Restaurant 422 - 4,826 SF Retail 120 • Total 1,024 Proposed Amendment Scenario 2: • Phase 2 of the Reserve at Mendota Village (58-Unit Apartment) 314 • Mendota Lot 7 (89-Unit Apartment) 484 • Total 798 Source: Biko Associates, Inc., September 9, 2021. As shown in Table 1, the already-approved and adopted developments will generate 1,024 daily trips, and, by comparison, the currently proposed amendments will generate 798 daily trips; essentially 226 (22 percent) fewer daily trips. The trip generation analyses, which are documented in Biko Associates' August 9, 2021 memorandum, were conducted with inputs provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in Trig Generation:10th Edition. Information provided in this resource,which is nationally recognized as the most reliable source of trip generation rates, is based on studies that correlate land use type, land use intensity, and geographic setting against daily and peak hour trip generation. The geographic settings considered in the nation-wide studies include both central city and suburban environments. Impact on Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Were the daily trips 'identified in Table 1 to exit and enter the development site to and from Dodd Road, the volumes shown on Figure 1 would increase. Table 2 shows what the comparative increase would be for each of the two alternative development scenarios. page167 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak September 9, 2021 Page 4 Table 2 Comparative Daily Traffic Impact for Two Development Scenarios Alternative Most Current Daily Daily Trip Impact on Dodd Percent Above Development Traffic on Dodd Generation Road Daily Most Current Scenario Road Traffic Daily Traffic Approved and 7,700 1,02.4 9,724 13% Adopted Scenario 1: Proposed 7,700 798 8,498 10% Amendment Scenario 2: Source: Bik❑Associates, Inc., September 9, 2021. What Table 2 Tells Us: The Scenario 1 development program, which is already approved and already adopted,will result in a daily traffic volume of 8,724 vehicles on Dodd Road. By comparison, implementing the proposed amendment to Scenario 1 (At Home Apartments' Phase 2 of the Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota Lot 7) will result in 8,498 daily vehicles on Dodd Road; 226 (approximately 3 percent) fewer daily vehicles. The additional volume of daily traffic from either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 is not significant and does not represent any substantial change in the daily traffic volume on Dodd Road. Neither a 13 percent increase in daily traffic nor a 10 percent increase in daily traffic is a significant change, at this particular location. However, if there is a concern that vacant parcels within Mendota Plaza should be developed with uses that generate the least daily traffic volume, Scenario 2 (i.e., uses included in the proposed amendment) should be the preferred alternative. / p 'fie 168 at home APARTMENTS FXHII3IT .h I'arkiI g Stalls Attached. page169 ['XVV4 LUW9609—'NIA WW98tr9] 'X`dVV ,OZ--'NIA ,21 N[mm9Q2l T w _ r� J l Ln E n m N � j w ¢ u z c� V7 Z m Ln ¢ E� V) < V) E cy- L.1 U x no a a 0 ¢ o� n �,a E ¢ ¢ � < to ¢ 00 m y - 0 Q a w Ld a N � L 1 m V7 u p CD ¢ D m E',5 a: W a C� z z 4 tI) r� J Q r E ww WQ co ¢ N r'i z (n ch � w co z w LA cc w <uj r-n¢ V) z w Z w ¢ �- Ecn ¢ m < � m Q V) r-� N 0 5 W ¢ d cn E W O Z D Fn 7 Li Ln U? _ Z_ C) L7 w LU E --J v Q L W W L¢L Lam] Lo E J n Ni- a- V7 (4 V) ¢u N O 0 © Z 4 C� Z—LL5Z0 �IV130 dad dais -IJ3HM/d3un0 8?Un0 NOliVN19AOO DETAIL TITLE /PARKING STALL LAYOUT SCALE :NONE DATE ISSUED: DECEMBER 2008 GAD DETAIL NO.: SD321723-0i.DWG al e 170 at ome APARTMENTS EXHIBI'[' fY Landscape and Planting; Plans .Attached, page 171 Landscaping Planting Plan Recommendations for Parcel 2 Mendota Plaza September 13, 2021 1 am amending the recommendations I submitted on August 23, 2021 because case # 2021-12 and 2021-13 was tabled until the September 28 meeting. This has allowed more time for me to review the plans. I know that the City of Mendota Heights does not require many of the following recommendations. However, I listened to the public comments at the last Planning Commission meeting. The citizens who are concerned about light and noise pollution, increased traffic and loss of green space will all benefit if these recommendations are adopted. The development would be more park-like and less parking lot. Residents of the apartment buildings will enjoy their outside environment, and commercial space may be easier to lease. The entire city will benefit. Our residents appreciate the sense of well being that comes from living in a green city. This space can be developed for the benefit of the developer AND the citizens of our community. Because Mendota Heights does not yet have a comprehensive landscape ordinance for developments, I am basing my comments and recommendations on the Model Landscape Ordinance from the GreenStep Cities Program in partnership with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In March 2021 , the City Council passed a Resolution authorizing the City of Mendota Heights to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program. Mendota Heights is planning to develop a similar landscaping ordinance in the near future. My recommendations in this document are specifically for Parcel 2. 1 have not seen the planting plan for Parcel 1 , but the same comments and recommendations can be applied to both parcels. General Comments: A minimum of 75% of vegetation, including trees and shrubs should be native to the local area. Native is defined as naturally growing within a 200-mile radius of the site. All vegetation must be guaranteed to be free of systemic and topical neonicotinoids. (a class of insecticides that are long-lived and highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects). I understand that by agreement with the city, the owners are responsible to replace dead or dying vegetation. If the owners sell the property, the agreement page 172 extends to the new owners. I would ask Planning Commission to confirm that dead or dying vegetation will be replaced in perpetuity. Tree Diversity - The Model Plan recommends that the developer use the 5-10-15 rule to increase species diversity in development projects. The rule suggests an urban tree population should include no more than 5% of any one species, 10% of any one genus, or 15% of any family. This diversity will minimize the potential losses from insect damage and disease. I recommend selecting trees as close to this model as possible. A minimum of 2 cubic feet of un-compacted, biologically healthy soil that allows healthy tree root growth shall be provided per 1 sq. ft. of mature tree canopy. Trees should be a very important feature of this development. They clean the air, reduce stormwater runoff, and mitigate the impacts of the urban heat island effect. Trees create privacy and emphasize selected views while screening out objectionable ones. Trees reduce glare and reflection. They provide background to and soften, complement, or enhance architecture. Street trees increase the comfort of the pedestrian environment, provide unity to public spaces, reduce crime, and create a sense of place in our communities. They also provide important habitat for our local wildlife including bees, butterflies and other beneficial insects. The bottom line is that the right number and species of trees planted correctly can add value for the development and for the people living in the buildings as well as the rest of the community. Tree and Shrub Density The GreenStep Model Plan recommends the following number of trees on this approximately 2 acre site with approximately 62,300 sq. ft. not occupied by buildings. a. Two overstory trees per 3,000 sq. ft. of site not occupied by buildings b. Two evergreen trees per 3,000 sq. ft. of site not occupied by buildings C. Two ornamental trees per 3,000 sq. ft. of site not occupied by buildings d. One deciduous or evergreen shrub per 100 sq. ft. of the site not occupied by buildings. page 173 Model Plan # Plaza Parcel #2 Difference current planting plan Overstory Trees 40 11 29 Ornamental Trees 40 14 26 Evergreen Trees 40 36 4 Shrubs 623 185 438 I understand the developer is not obligated to plant these numbers of trees and shrubs, but I think this development can do much better to get closer to the numbers in the Model Plan. It looks like there is an opportunity for more trees to be planted along South Plaza Way. It also appears that smaller ornamental native trees can be planted behind the building along the north and west sides of the parking lot. Over the whole site there is an opportunity to plant more trees. For example, it looks like there can be more trees planted on the slopes surrounding the existing pond on the NW side, even though it is outside the parcel boundary. Surface Parking Lots - Heat Island Reduction To minimize impact on microclimate and on human and wildlife habitat, shading of parking lots is strongly recommended. The Model Plan calls for 2 overstory trees planted for every 5 stalls on site. There are 2 surface lots in the Parcel 2 plan. The southern most lot has 22 stalls which would mean 8 overstory trees . The plaza plan includes 5 overstory trees and 3 ornamental trees. There may be space for another overstory tree in the sod area that juts into the entry of the lot. The larger lot has 28 stalls. This lot should have 10 overstory trees according to the Model Plan. The plaza plan looks like it has 2 overstory trees and 2 ornamental trees. There may be space for more trees on the west and north sides of the lot. Additionally, the Model Plan recommends a parking island for lots with more than 25 stalls. Accordingly, the larger lot should have a parking island at the beginning and end of each row. The islands should be a minimum of 180 sq. ft. with a min. width of 9 ft. with 1 overstory tree planted per island. The islands should be prepared with healthy topsoil and be irrigated. page 174 1 have not seen the plans for Parcel 1 , but I think there is a surface parking lot planned for that Parcel. I would make the same recommendations for that parking lot. There should also be a buffer between the proposed building on Parcel 1 and the back of the existing retail buildings. The buffer should provide opaqueness of 80% during all seasons. The recommendations from my email of August 23 still hold. I would like to see many of the Miss Kim Lilacs replaced with chokeberry or a similar native shrub, and the butterfly milkweed should be the straight species, not a cultivar. The plan calls for a wildflower mix and I recommend adding a mix of native grasses and sedges to the wildflowers. There will be less opportunity for weeds to germinate if grasses and sedges are in the mix providing more cover. Thank you, Sue Light Dakota County Master Gardener page175 12-1 G-6: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (from Mendota Heights code A. Landscaping Plans: All areas of any lot or combination of lots which comprise the site for one or more buildings, except those areas used for parking or buildings, shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plans prepared and signed by a landscape architect. B. Bond: A bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the cost of landscaping and screening shall be required to guarantee the placement and construction thereof as required in this chapter. C. Maintenance Required: In addition, the owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition at all times. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) 12-11-14: MAINTENANCE: In all districts, all structures, required landscaping and fences shall be maintained so as not to be unsightly or present harmful health or safety conditions. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) page 176 page 177 _--- Ji — —— — — — — ----— -- — — -- _ --- — — -- _ I�ILFL EX6TINs MOUME N T-- -- ------- — --_ —— _ SIGN ANDERSON — ——_— — —— — — _ I www.coliagearch.com �— --- — --- 'T --- �' ❑ I T��NOFHTMFIaa EXISTING e SEE PLAN SHEET L1.1 rTT `. PRINTNAtaEFWJEFFREYW)EIT' Pa NS d AVATT \V`� POND \V�A` V\V` — — �\ y ✓• SIGNATURE �TFORC �0" \��� \\�� �— �\ DATE C®'G3PM21 IJGENSEN0- 51699 VYA SHEET L1 2 v i _ o EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS I 4 j \ Mmtlota Heights,W SEE PLAN SHEET L1.3 Q` PROPoseD _ -A .� RETAwwswALL � LEGEND GARAGE _. - _ W/GUARDRAIL _ _ ENTRANCE ———— PROPERTY LIMITS ADJACENT PROPERTY uo /\\\\\ �:• •~ � A. \ - - — CONSTRUCTION LIMITS yl MATCH LINE yl VAA �i� UILDING SETBACKS PARKING SETBACK ��/ \\ I O L DEEP,SHREDDED 6 0 HARDWOOD MULCH i � COIlage architects �o LANDSCAPE POLY-EDGER Archthc 00 \ �\ �,.. �J Pete Keely v T 651.47005] _ LF NOTES ]W 1Sth Aveenue NE 1 ALL P ANTNSS SHALL PENCE VE BATON mm.eaPOlia,MIN 55a19 %o ExISTING SH EET P IZE (SEE X FOR RR SAT ON NOTESL RR RETAIN INS WALL 2 REFER TO PLAIN SHEET F3 FOR SODDING SEEDING,FERTILIZER Ea W/GUARD PAIL A L ��- ANDTOPSOLNOTES 3 BEYOND THE NEW PLANTINGS DATE: AUGUST 19,N21 v �v K: �I ��-- SHALL BEREPLACEDNAND LAND USE v TYAPOLUNATORSAND NATIVE PEENTRE DUI REMENTS APPLICATION T, 5 SOU PCE PLANTS THAT HAVE N OT NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES. REVISIONS'. CITY CODE:REQUIRED PLANTING ZONE HIT CUP �� �� ', :� �j � � � v ,IOHOEN=.vaENOENTATP�NEDHNTDEAETOPMENTDnANT §121EgR3ITGH DEN STYRES DEN TALDSTRCT 0- nAEENNOOT�HN�3 HToHT= E_ ::=�REEN'NNOTMETH�T� 3T i IAl All PLIT"AT11 M M...THTAHH.��H„Hw.H Hw.H H.HHHMH�TH�THT..H �M �ATTT.�T \ i �� HTENTG1)11THlL-1—THNAPARHNNAREAAKA�PI ❑ „��P= THH.=HHaw� �� w v WOTTHE�AHAED �I PARCEL 2 OVERALL v X v aE`°"`o`°°`°"`=PECE= PLANTING PLAN EA ��PARCEL 2 OVERALL PLANTING PLAN o zo ao l THE FLOF0OR AR 3EETR D �.S.'T_ E.CEPTPHE CH DoNEE oTAT�D E,_2 .31 P P R3IZq ® N.HENA fETRTE L1 page 178 ANDERSON .F..F. 2 — ,o ...._....._ _ www.coliagearch.com r' \ PRINT NAhE�3EEEREV WaDEIiNER PIAE uws + / SIGNATURE: HOT FancansmAlcnoH DATE: 0903/2921 LICENSE NO. 51B99 2 + }+ / o MENDOTA GHTS APARiMEN�TS � , 2 Menao�Height,rvN Lu _ Sb AT / �. 7 B os z E ° I e E % �/ .../ / REMAIN TO a W � S /� REMAIN(TV.) e' W — I � P a 1 o° Vx H n Ai 2 5 � 3 Sn 2— -- - �Ls %r x LEGEND 5 PROPERTY LIMITS o L �_—— t 3 i � ��� �/ ADJACENT PROPERTY //// CONSTRUCTION LIMITS Collage architects L Architech r LL MATCH LINE Pete Keely ° ob 00 BUILDING SETBACKS 651.d]2.6056 2 s !2/�/ 2 ]IN 151h Aveenue NE / — — PARKING SETBACK � i Minneapolis,MN 55C13 / ^/ 0 3"DEEP,SHREDDED oR — �% f� A' � HARDWOOD MULCH Ea -A,_ A— ----—— —/r————_——�—— �\ /-. �� (D LANDSCAPE POLY EDGER DATE: AUGUST 19,31111 I =IFT iIr � _ LAND USE Al CONT ,SAL SEE PLAN SHEET L1.3 ( PE NAL '%%'TAC„Ex BLUEEORrUNE APPLICATION REVISIONS'. PARCEL 2 NORTH EAST PLANTING PLAN 0 10 20 / /� (D "E ASCLEPIAST%B SA CONT ,SAL LSLr,=,o az:tea PAPEaeIz ® �� 1� Ck 27 a,u,MASBos"xATHE"CIT eA 'ASS ECL BsrEB CONT ,SAL C „Rues CODE _ _ Nr _ oDLITIE OHK NICE, C ONr 5 AL O p EC„INACEAPURPUREA CONT ,SAL REEs TTLEUC DANEA HCS �ANSEAPANICJ1 LITTL oUI KEIRE ONr SSAL � A AMElNC„IE-GRANeIELo� AUrUMNeRI IANCE B� L ) 9 oSrAxSUACAMOLE ONr ,SAL 5 T.DAEBrICILLArALIMDANDY ONr SSAL (J CEBCIACANADENSIB IrBUNK B� L k �CNIIUMBCOPABIUMB ENEAkEN ONr ,SAL 0 6 'EkkEBrICI ATE=SPBIrE CONT SSAL L= 19 LUNIPEBUSSCOPULOBUMSKYBOCkEr B&BSEDUMkAUTUMNEI� CONT ,SAL PARCEL 2NE P' 7 PE—SK—TICPSP ME'USUCIEOUAUrrLESPIR oNr ,oAL ALUBkBCECE AN B8 L SPoBOBoULCIA IE HErEBOLEPIeEED CONT ,oAL PLANTING PLAN rNULAOCCDENTAUS TECNNY B 8 C. Ok oUEBCUSBICoLoB B 8 O L AEBoNICASPICATABLUES_ALkEB oNr 1oAL L1.1 page 179 —— __ �T ✓ f? ANDERS -------- P\ �2 ON 5v5 — f J -> � _ www.colla earch.com -- — TREES CODE ALL COMMON GOTANICAL NAME CONT C Ul I P�son:a,Ecr�uu�oEa TME�uws B, 2 T TRUNK eae 6 HT s55TE A BETuwNGRA PRINT NAhE_JEFFREV W_DEITNER PIA Q Ce 2 EASTERCERN PNEADDBEUNDSMSULTI TRUNK eae 1-1/2 CAL SIGNATURE NOTFCRCCN6RiUCI1IXi r I - a { q, DATE 0 3/M21 LICENSE NO 51B99 JUN PERKS SCOPULORUM SKYROCKET eae 4 IT CE eae 6 HT PCEAAB . EB MENDOTA HEIGHTS °° SUERSlAMCUBBCGLOTOAK eae L APARTMENTS v, OO REN A— aCOMMON I BOTANICAL NAME Ck M-111 Hei9hh,NN�i Ir PE NA BLU 'OCHER BLUEFORTUNE CONT. 1GAL AT AL ASCLEPAS TUBEROSA CONT 1G. APRIL REPLIED AL - O Ck 43 CALAMAGROST S x ACUT FROERSTER CONT. 1G LORA KARL \ 0 Ep 26 CH ENACEAPU RPUREA CONT. GAL Y y r 9 10 HOSTA. UP O E M oNT 1 G AL z — T � scHZACHYRUMscoPARUM BLUE HEAVEN T Sh a1 CONT. 1 G ao \ z I 0 SPOT BOTH HETEROLEPIS L Collage architects J 1 \ Arch tech l Pete Keel AERON C45P CA TA BLUE SKYWPEEDALKER coNT. 1GL ]081CiM m� � � � �— -_-- --• sHRues C ON COMMON/BOTANCAL NAME Mnaolis,MN 5513 �° 11 AM e BIACK CHOKEBERRY CONT. 5GAL. ARON AMEIANOCARPA -- .. 10. v � _ HYORANGEAPANCUTATAUTTLEOUCItRRE HI T CONT 6G AUGUST { L DATE: GUST 19,31111 Th 6 BBB A LAND USE SEE PLAN SHEET L1.3 THo�AOCCGENTAKB HOLMBTROP APPLICATION IT 6 UZAOCCG ENTAus TECHNY B&B a T aEvNsloes. TH \ \ V vH 5 coNT. 5G \ � � veuRNUM GENTATUM swNESTveGT TM LEGEND PRO PERTVUMITS \ ADJACENT PROPERTY - — — - CONSTRUCTION LIMITS MATCH LINE A 2 BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING SETBACK \ 03"DEEP,SHREDDED PARCEL 2 NW AR° °°DMULCH PLANTING PLAN PARCEL 2 NW PLANTING PLAN 0 10 20 0 LANDSCAPE POLY-EDGER ALE 1 11 12 11a PROBE SIZE, ® L1.2 page 180 CA GOV GRAD IE AG } -- A� e + Bm E6 --�' � T�' www.coliagearch.com E n vm SUPE�saN No,RAT a M a a,. L� i° 5 B + r �.0.L PE aN_ aBa, NNOEB,REO,ws + (++ '.�" / Ro�THESTATEo�MNNE�TA E P� PRINT NAME_JEFFREY W-DEITNER PIA 2 / � �� SIGNATURE NOT FOFt CGNfi1FRIC71IXi A B AT A ob — /, f f,. DATE 09Y1312f121 LICENSE NO 51888 r F� t r Am �EG v SL MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS V \ \ 1 ' \ MendoU 11ei9his,5N an 2 LL '� — — --r—�---- ---� -- QTy COMMON/BOTANICAL NAME aB CAL EA CETOSC NAOENss TRUNK B B 1 1/2 CAL YL 1/2i ' D NDC DUBDD UMNB ER TM B&B E TY CAL GO B RW DUEBBCOLOR B&B E_„ECAL SHRUBS CODE ALL COMMON/BOTANICAL NAME AM 6 BICKCHOKEBERRY ARONAM—NOCARPA colt/T. SCAL AOhiftelarchitects \ / / cb 5 colvT 5cAL Be.K..Iy F L - 651.4M.M m \ / c Cowv US SER CEA BA wDEUNE TM 7%15t Av....NE Minmzpolis,MN 55C13 DI - DERV uA LON CERA CKLE CONT. 5 GAL 26 �-N m BVRNCAMEVERVA BUBN coNT 5cAL DATE: AUGUST 19,11111 .. TL YARBDR TAE B&B A HT LAND USE \ \ THUJAOCCDENTADB TECHNY APPLICATION N Am 15 VBu ENUM SHE'DENTA N A"TUM BLUE MUEENR US colt/T. 5cAL REVISIONS'. LEGEND ONT SOAL PROPERTY LIMITS \ a,'. - VBURN DENTATU M SYNNEsrvEDT TM ADJACENT PROPERTY \ •� - — - CONSTRUCTION LIMITS MATCH LINE I A 5 ALASTACHER aLUEEORTUNE colt/T. i GAL -- ————- BUILDING SETBACKS \\ ✓ 0 AT 16 BUTTEEFTY MIRLYAPED CONT. 1 GAL - PARKING SETBACK \ ou ASCLEv AS TUBEROBA 10 3"DEEP,SHREDDED y _ 6 HARDWOOD MULCH \ -3- _ EP CONT 1 GAL A A EOHNAOEAPURPUREA LANDSCAPE POLY-EDGER V A Eo v P= PANCU ATGAT TS D�BB DNT ,DAL PARCEL 2 SOUTH PAN CUMV HSWT BHENANDOAH' v SO BB BDNT ,DAL PLANTING PLAN ���11CCC + ry E ��PARCEL 2 SOUTH PLANTING PLAN o 10' 20 BSCH LUEHEHYDUMSCOPAR M B SCALE 12"13a PROBE DI G ® ' RUMBC PAR UM BLUE O BN 46 HER IED EGGS EED SONT 1DAL L1 D .3 page 181 LEGEND ---- PROPERTY LIMITS ANDERSON ADJACENT PROPERTY - — — - CONSTRUCTION LIMITS . MATCH LINE ——— BUILDING SETBACKS www.collagearch.com \ � _ PARKING SETBACK ��\ 0 3"DEEP,SHREDDED - HARDWOOD MULCH - o'• O LANDSCAPE POLY{DGER hEr INOEB THE uws of THEST l—INN_US NOTES PRINT NAME:JEFFREY W.DE I TNER,PIA \ 1. ALLPUNTNOS SHAoNECE cnnoN SIGNATURE: NOT FI�l (SEE L3 FOR RR o4T oN NOTES)RR \.\ 2. AN B TODSO LN SHEET La FORs000rvG SEEDING,FERTuzER DATE: 9993/2f121 LICENSE NO. 51899 AN LNOTES ' 4 3. ALL UN DscAPN O DSTURBEO BEvorvOTHE NEW PUNTNcs \ SHAILBEREP G E NKND. RNALPIANUNG PLAN tN UATDES GNED-REQ RE.E /� „�- ., •., _ -- �� - CIT^s POLLINATORS ANO NAT VE PLANTINGS REa1 REMENTs / f SEE PLAN SHEET L2 1 v D MENDOTA HEIGHTS \ I NEONCoTNDDPEST DE5 TBEENTRATE W APARTMENTS W CITY CODE:REQUIRED PLANTING Me°ao.Hei9n..r PARCEL 1 ZONE R-PND #7 ,'. xcxxErv=TYmENxErv,aP�wrvEx°rvrxE��PmErvrxNrmNr wW I � g GHDENS TRESDENTALDSTRC N — a Q ..=<eEErvrvcaE�Exc��cxT= LL ••scaEEry rvc aE E mcxuu rnLun�T Mb NT S rnrvmum Aa osuwco N ^ ,orrxE wo wEnwm ry EN N L.L PROPOSED 4-STDRYIT APARTMENT BUILDING - �" �aE TxE aEou aE xn� -- 28800 SF I • / I � �com PasEocraxESPEC Es m '4 116UNITS v mE=Ea�oFamF°r°�a°�rvcEX 1 ER .IETxI E TYPE�ErvT,� era« ... o w=rvoI.E.a o Pm ITI.=�TE.=xI.e Rm P.TaEEAcxry I. ° Q- T m na� x�PT�E Tm=EPH=E Ew nmE w�nausreTE. ARlh gel architects sxu�sE PaohoEO Ecan aNEo a i SEE PLAN SHEET L2.3 �I / �/ � i— Pe<eK.y u5lnznu5n ....Wlis,MN 5M13 SEE PLAN SHEET L2.2 LOT#6 OATE'. AUGUST 19,2011 LAND USE APPLICATION � I �a A I� our000R e - s„ Ul^)vJ � REVISIONSNo '. ov Qo I i t ° \ tis �Q ISTING \\ J\ _ NDERGROUNDD M ONUM ENT SIGN • \ MOTIUMENT SIGN INFILTRATION m J T > J / SHEET TILE S - CHAMBERS SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE �� ��� / ��� PARCEL OVERALL PLANTING PLAN PARCEL 1 OVERALL PLANTING PLAN 0 20 40 =zo(zz'=34PAPE11I1EI ® L2 page 182 PLANT SCHEDULE NORTH PLANTING A AN D E R S O N A-T-,=,.u 11 TEulN I I—AL .00,5"11.1NA 55 .41,00.0 T ll�.:00 1 1 16 3 112 1010 2 11 2 I—AL ++ www.coliagearch.com A SP L'�SG.�MoRWMCG SM­W�I I I OAK 2 I—AL A ,ARM�p W S_L. �IEI�11.Allll ITAT T11.11N IIIIIIIIN 11 El— E A LNE'I.I=L AN—IT A TLE ++I+ 1HE— ­­1—TANI-1— AM 12 A LK�­ I ­11 "y ARI. PRINT NAME JEFFREY WE.DEITNERPIA T�_ -NI A., NOT FM CCINSTRUCTICIN I _RRDAN`rvus ERE� G= �DT. A NE SIGNATURE 11 A S A 5A5 I HI DATE �XM21 LICENSE NO. 518N THULlMA.­PDER`=TH`T­TEUP 5LUE MUFF N­­�I�DEM­,UFRFMM�M C­ ­L _RNUMDANTATUM I, LE, T, C�xURNUMC­LDSTANRTEATURMR?RYNN�OEOsDT�5.UT�TMUM C-T ­L MENDOTA HEIGHTS PERENNI— I GAL— ­­Nl5.TANl­LN.E + .1 1, N%ALN SE­ APARTMENTS UE F. -MT III NE I. 2 ­NT ,GAL W .�d. Heigh..Vill �fE I F�TMU AP I E 0 1, cNEZAL�=URPU REA ­NT ,GAL. ,A AcH A I 1� 21 IL 5LUE HEA'M L 5LUE'Am IMT I GA I M PAR I M75MLUE HE—N 7 Al (D lh 1. =R.SSEHE W R.LA­ ­MT ,GAL S LU LL 1. 5LUE SK—I.—INA—E—ELL -MT I GAL IR.N—--TA ELUE IN-1.I LEGEND PROPERTY LIMITS + ADJACENT PROPERTY CONSTRUCTION LIMITS LE MATED LINE C.11.p I—hit- -———————- BUILDING SETBACKS Anhift. P­Kmly PARKING SETBACK 661.47ZOOM + �T 70 lftAve...NE 3'DEEP,SHREDDED Minneapolis,MN 55,H3 HARDWOOD MUTED T_ 2 LANDSCAPE POIFY{DGER DATE AUGUST 19,2021 2 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS 2 E LU 3 LU ----- ----- - J) z ha j < -ET TILE LU UL! J) PARCEL 1 NORTH SEE PLAN SHEET L N PLANTING PLAN PARCEL PLANTING PLAN 272—n 0 10, 20'ZE) L2.1 page 183 SEE PLAN SHEET L2 1 PLANT SCHEDULE SE PLANTING' ��,,��' ANDERSON � / aaa �� T A. �Rarvn�nnRP�aRrv� naRLLArvrE �a I—A� • E •' www.coliagearch.com 9 ' A / oe oUERrUsarc aR �a I—AL Dil f °° sa anelA Am 1e ARax AF RED rne�AracARaA caxr. sang seq�IraP—A­"—E. sT RAViEcr u-aL.uws ' SIGN `4\ a Ce '" c R'ry E_AeuLroELNE Tn conr. scAL. PRINT NANEA JEFFREV WADEIiNER PIA N of za rcic conr. aw sra�.FaUsrcrcanE Ur • � is � b I a oERrlw,nry cERA SIGNATURE ��� + a —Tscu DATE: 0�'0312121 LICENSE NO. SiS99 W-FK. A' RITE —T -AL r■ ■■■ ■u■■■■■ n■'■r '■ _ I; Th TxU,A�rnErvT s xc�ns RUP HT Txx,AcrrnErvT s,Erxrvr �a •xr MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS ■ / conr s�E Mendo,a Heights.NN a J ewE nu FFry Aeacwwcco�nau Rnue z rl / / a✓ veuRrvun o[rvTATun ewE euFFn (}'�J / / \ r.� a'. �� � �II l l/ vs , cx cA-wsrREARRawwoou 3.U'RTUe conr. scA� N N / " 4 e veua'U.oErvTATun srrvrvcsrscorrn a 1 II/ ■ I I ' I PERarvry Ais ccoE oTr com N ecTA—AL—E corvT sa W ' / / \\\ I �I • Y I Ar AOA -HEx ewc ra RTUrvcLU cax T. ,cu. OAT a �P TxaERosA —T ,c a - ■ ■ I ` 'J O r 1-Ra T, TF.RArc F.—TER onr ,� ■ w0 —T ,GAL U) ITi %/ C? �EAPURPUREA P, .a PA.� �rcEnA.n conr ,GI Se s, U.�RCArU. oArc conr ,cAR 6 \ \ \\—__i : i,. 11 Q S. 's sEounx Auru nry FIRE conr. ,GAS Collage architects ■ \ — y / 1` Architects 06 _ / ■ P­Kmly sn 7ZOO M PE ' / ■ \ N t i^ �I 0 s, sac R. ws xETER—Ps 70 conr ,cAc. 15th A] veenue NE 5, j ' — ■ --------- �� Mnrieapolis,MN 55d13 0 � IT � � II LEGEND _ . PROPERTY LIMITS Vs ,2 ■ r / // / r l ADJACENT PROPERTY DATE: /� AUGUST 19,1021 CONSTRUCTION LIMITS LAN USE ■ oz / \ _ _ _ _ MATCH LINE APPLICATION `` ■ Sh V5F ' --------- BUILDING SETBACKS ,o + / / ,/ s .t• I I \ --- ----------- — — PARKING SETBACK REVISIONS'. / // \ I 0 3"DEEP,SHREDDED y / IF „,�j. \ r ` HARDWOOD MULCH o„ ■ 31 vs i PS LANDSCAPE POLV{DGER e 0 ha - _ � .�� -� .� _ —,_-� •� .�.. .�- �� �� _ ­EPARCEL1 SE PblkNTING PLAN PARCEL 1 SE PLANTING PLAN 0 1a za (22—PARERSIZE) IN L2.2 page 184 PLANT SCHEDULE SW PLANTING A SEE PLAN SHEET L2.1 0 As A�.T i='IRELRL�GCa^�.P1`.`=U=Ry ILL IAI I " '.— .1 S`=I= A�Ily.LS�`E'M IS 11—M A IT I R — I I—AL ANDERSON TR K� REE —E..0RTHUKSE`=UCMOMF EME TR — 11CAL E G,'M .11163.111.IoLlo III 7 1. 11 �UKIl­`—'cU.MP'U'l--- — • HT www.coliagearch.com —TAN—LIAME �m 11 =_K�5. —T _E11.A1111 1AT TII.EIN 11-1111N 11 .`—T I AV A—TME L.N— r. ­MT —AL NE G I.E=L I—E A-1—U-1 (D _RRDAN'E RE_ —.—E.'I.E— _ �5. —T—HNH��NRA-- —T PRINT NAME JEFFREY W DEITNERPIA uP ER, SIGNATURE. NW FM CIONSTRI H i e � RE —T . DATE 21= Z = i LICENSE NO. 51899 -D R.l`S�R TTE!=`=ReYR ITE —T GI Th I HT HoULIMA==H�L—Ul T­1HA Yc��.o`= H MI HT MENDOTA HEIGHTS f 11 C � NU. 5.URTMU M ­NT GI�C— oEoS% U R L=?=M APARTMENTS Ml Heights.GIN PErvPAis I-- .1 5 U N%�i E —T I GI %U,TFZHTE F.H- A LU RTUNE T 11 10 RF�TM—El' —T I GI GRILLS U5 ER.S 0 1k C­I.FZ RTTl=RF LR.RA R—R -MT ,GAL 0 -H`EM`AfWE1RUR1U REA —T I GI 4 V I 4 0 G-TA­=o=LE —T I G S.N=D=ATWU�1S=.AH 2 \ -MT ,GAL Sh I P RA RR.E."=SHEEET`R.L�P i LEGEND C.Illipl—hil Ck E Ar Ihift. PROPERTY LIM ITS P-K,,Iy PATIO 661.47Z0050 z (D ADJAGENT PROPERTY 70 16thAVl,....NE YII\ CONSTRUCTION LIMITS Minneapolis,MN 55,H3 MATED LINE AR-LIFICIAL— —A.R0FtCAL. BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING SETBACK-1URE —————-FURF- DATE AUGUST 19,2021 3'DEEP,SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULGH LAND USE THE L111 -FIRE ITANDSGAPE POIFYT�DGER APPLICATION /W1 Ld-P, I 11-1 ttill ill f4T— LU LU REVISIONS N. and a z LU LUL, T, E —ET TILI PARCEL 1 SW PLANTING PLAN PARCEL 1 SW PLANTING PLAN 0 10' 20' L2.3 page 185 MEMORANDUM (}T CAMPBELL KNUTSON TO: MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL FROM: ELLIOTT KNETSCH AND SHANA CONKLIN CITY ATTORNEYS DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2021 RE: AT HOME PUD/FIVE-YEAR CLAUSE The purpose of this Memorandum is to address the timeframe for completion of development activities for the Planned Unit Development(PUD) Agreement for Mendota Mall Associates, LLP. Original PUD from April 30, 2009 On April 30, 2009, the City of Mendota Heights entered into a PUD agreement with Mendota Mall Associates, LLP. This agreement included Section 3.2, which provided a five-year timeframe for completion of the final development plan. Section 3.2. Completion of Development. The Developer shall complete development activities in accordance with the Development Schedule (Exhibit C). The Project shall be fully completed no later than five(5) years after the date of approval of the final development plan by the City. The term "Project" is defined as "all of the improvements to be constructed by the Developer as required in this Agreement." (Recitals of Original PUD). First Amendment The First Amendment to the PUD dated January 16, 2010, changed the substantial completion date from November 15, 2009, to July 1, 2010, but it did not otherwise alter the timeframes noted in the Original PUD. Second Amendment The Second Amendment to the PUD dated May 2010, changed the substantial completion date from July 1, 2010, to March 1, 2011, but it did not otherwise alter the timeframes noted in the Original PUD. Third Amendment The Third Amendment to the PUD dated October 22, 2010, amended the Hours of Operation for retail establishments in the PUD. It did not alter the timeframe noted in the Original PUD. page 186 Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment to the PUD dated November 28, 2011, deleted and replaced Section 3.2 from the Original PUD in its entirety, as follows: Comajetinn of [)evelopmc t. Stctj n 3_2 is hcrcby deleted in its entirety and replaced v%zth the following; Sul�j r. to the phasing requiremer& outlined hetdn, the project shall he fully complctcd ra 1N!cr %avt Novemr er 15, 2026, Any phases of the Project vet to be constructed an of the date of this FowthAmendment,may be comnnenced by Dcvclaper at any tune prior to Navembcr 15, 2023,bid mtLsl be complet l by 'Ae Developer thir"x (36) months from the issuance of the building permit, Therefore, the five-year requirement for completion in Section 3.2 of the Original PUD was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment dated July 3, 2011, did not alter the timeframe noted in the Fourth Amendment to the PUD. Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment dated November 2016 applies only to the Mendota Plaza Expansion Second Addition (Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, and Outlots A and B Mendota Plaza Expansion Second Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota). The Sixth Amendment indicated that Section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety as it relates to the Second Addition, indicating that the timeframe for completion would not apply to the Second Addition. For reference, the At Home application involves property in and outside of the Second Addition. l '.ommenccment of Deyclopment. Section 3.1 is heR'r:by ddeled in its and replaced with the follov&g., "subject to Unavoidable Delays,the Developer shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cor rnence the Infrastructure Impmvements one the Second Addition Property on nr bel0TL:.Tu11e 30,2019 in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Amendment and, Aar wmmerrcement, shall cornpicte said impmvements t,,ith corarncrcially reasonable diligence." 13. Section 3.2 Completion of Drsvclopment Section 3.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety,as said Section relate to the Necond Addition. Seventh Amendment The Seventh Amendment dated September 2017, did not alter the timeframe noted in the Fourth Amendment to the PUD. page 187 Existing Timeframe The existing proposal from At Home includes some property in the Second Addition (Lot 1, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion, Second Addition/where the Phase II 58 unit apartment is proposed), and with respect to that property, the Sixth Amendment provides that Section 3.2 is "deleted in its entirety" as it relates to the Second Addition. Therefore, there is no completion deadline for property within the Second Addition. The existing proposal from At Home also includes some property outside of the Second Addition. For that property (Lot 7, Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition/where the Phase III 89 unit apartment is proposed), the current timeframe for completion of development is Section 3.2 as deleted and amended in the Fourth Amendment. As previously noted, the Fourth Amendment deleted and replaced Section 3.2 from the Original PUD, which originally required all development activities be completed within a five-year timeframe. Rather, the Fourth Amendment provides that all phases of the Project yet to be constructed may be commenced prior to November 15, 2023, but must be completed within 36 months from issuance of the building permit. The Fourth Amendment provides all phases must be fully completed by November 15, 2026. page 188 page 189 T TE QNL CALLe � I LEGEND - -`-- - - _ — — -- - - — — -- - — _ O STATE TRUNK i ICIiF',+.T V Si.[> ^„ e�w a.y. 11\ d - � - - MASTER'FULLBUILD*SITE DATAI I OTC I A �. p. REST. owl .ir. i f •! L. r+ .� lip a n. I A LOT I `mil L �TLOF,A`� �``\ i /•. '. -' a �e a w.a ro.�al:x uAwwo.n..�.w>m r � �' �.:.� r•�� `\ 1. / � 0 �� ��, �� � _'•� '.E�o e uE���t a� Z'� A .�,. WETLAND DATA 3 1 _ •, ���.... _ _- _,` n..sn..c..v,en- xxwu v;..�w] �ril I' �A PL.7A I •' i xr .� IIiWDTA 11NA.r���� l I 1 ^ 1 I f `----- ------- ------- L ...Wmaaws y_ soum PLAaL _ _ r MR au u 3 page 190 ''"..��Imrmrm .� � Collage www.collagearch.com PHASE III-The Reserve LOT 1,BLOCK 1 M dd.Heights,MN MAIN ENTRY RENDERING .�ey % �• a 1; L 9N� I COIkg.—hit— . Ar hi. PMe K..Iy 651.472.9050 70815th Ay. ..NE mi._Pdis,MN5 13 DATE: AUGUST 6,2021 LAND USE �q APPLICATION REVISIONS: RENDERINGS NORTHEAST RENDERING A3.0 page 191 www.collagearch.com PHASE III-The Reserve M dd.Heights,MN NORTHWEST RENDERING 1 _ copses architects Architects Pete KBBIy N {" 70616th Ayeenue NE Mnneapdis,MN 55d13 ."vawa,;;ri p DATE: AUGUST 6,2021 �. LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS: t r RENDERINGS SOUTHWEST RENDERING A3.1 page 192 Collage Plf�eaP p .. www.collagearch.com L^ y n I. PHASE I I I-The Reserve LDT 1,BLDGK 1 go +1a - M dda Heights,MN SOUTH RENDERING GdPge I—hit— Zhi. RMe Keely 651.G12A5g 70815th Ay. ..NE Min,dis,MN 5 13 DATE: AUGUST 6,2021 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS RENDERINGS AERIAL RENDERING A3.2 page 193 AS ® � � ® AJ ® ® ® ® ® ® m ® ® ®HE LF V IT Too R lo ■■ swan ^rr rr.r rrr rrr rrar 11 .. ■�. 1� ■■■ .■■ .1� 111 fl �1� ■nM �■� ■�Ir .�■■ �a ■ ■ ■ns ■�■ ■■■ ; ®CENTER WING-SOUTH ® BUILDING ® ® ® To ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® ® ® ® ■ - - DATE: AUGUST 6 21)21 _� TO PARAPET lGH PT_ r-or r -'d, 10 FOR FLOOR FLOOR TO SHEATH NO T-SFEATY LAND USE SP APPLICATION PARKING LEVEL PARKING ® ® IRMSIONS BUILDING07 T TO Top EAST WING-SOUTHWEST page 194 'ACEL SIDING OF PREFINI SHED OF ............. ` Callape �F OF 07 STORE AENEER LINTEL SILL LEDGE cp Noor www.collagearch.com -ra3 � — — —1sor"m'"�o-�, T. PnNnPET _ o PHL TO SHEATHING FOR FOR FLOOR FLOOR o o IT IT D FLOOR o.su�°ei`�o°�°oNN,f� o.s _� OF FF FLOOR 1ST FLOOR o r(855oo o.T�(so) PHASE III-The Reserve i o — — LOT 1,BLOGK 1 Mentlda Heights,MN (euaoi i.(8aa.of EAST WING-NORTHEAST BUILDING ELEVATION CENTER WING-EAST BUILDING ELEVATION 03 OF OF 03 collage . y . hita "ehied eEqRINN 651' 4 72.W5g 71)615th Aveenue NE Minneapdis,MN M13 — 3 ku ll 1 FORFOOR DATE: AUGUST 6,2g21 o s"E =o@ a LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONSPlGIyGollEBL o.sUBFLOOR Ism @uu ouJ CENTER WING-NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION BUILDING ELEVATIONS A2.1 page 195 ONE CEMENT- 6E4 PACEIT SIDING OF BOARD ` Collage T. PARAPET LC-FL,S CLEOGE COFR .Ldw� "� www.collagearch.com FOR FLOOR TO si nEA-rn"s-Q ol ITO 1$1 T07 tassso) PARKING LEVEL SIB TO o) WEST WING-NORTHWEST BUILDING ELEVATION PHASE I I I-The Reserve LOT 1,BLOCK 1 Mwdda Heights,MN T o PAR FLOOR TO SHEATH C 10 FOR FLOORTO LOOP h OF 0.SiTOr, m 07 1ST FLOOR I NI 0 (855507 COIlage architects Architects PARKING LEVEL Pee Keely _ 651.412.W5g @nn pi 71)615th Ayeenue NE Minneapdis,MN W13 WEST WING-SOUTHWEST BUILDING ELEVATION DATE: AUGUST 6,21)21 LAND USE - - 5 RA, APPLICATION OC REVISIONSlo FOR FLO OR 2NO FLOOR — —�,OF]TORR'� 0� ,CTFLOOR T 0.TOPP NC '� � ..; .. (855.50) PARKING o`SVE`T BUILDING -4P�O 445°' ELEVATIONS WEST WING-SOUTHEAST BUILDING ELEVATION A2.2 page 196 Collage Plf�eaP www.collagearch.com AT 11 AT 2111-7 5F PHASE I I I-The Reserve LOT 1,BLOCK 1 M dd.Heights,MN TRASH HIIV 0 o R—TION OPARKNG o I HASH ciRc- 1s6s5 CdPge—hit— Zhi. RMe Keel 651.412.0050 T0615th Ay. ..NE Mi.—Pdis,MN 5 13 DATE: AUGUST 6,2021 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS: 0_PARKING LEVEL AREA PLAN PARKING LEVEL PLAN A1.0 page 197 Collage Plf�eaP www.collagearch.com 12062 S 0 0 0 0 0 0e CIRCUILYTION 0 LJ0 PHASE III-The Reserve o LOT 1,BLOCK 1 0 Mentlda Heights,MN UTILITY U31 SF uS SF o �S6 SF AL RESIDENTIAL ocRcoanoN 285E SF o" =RZDENTI � ou�����v O COIPge—hit— A hiteds Pete Keely 661.G1 g. Tg615ththA ..NE Minneapdi.,MNdis,MN 55d13 DATE: AOGuBT 6,2g21 14 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS 1_FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.1 page 198 Collage Plf�eaP www.collagearch.com JCI x g CIRCUILO TION 2,32 SF © _--© II, I PHASE III-The Reserve LOT 1,BLOGN 1 Mentlda Heights,MN 0 � � C � sF seoz SF F M 11-UL Re � LioINn U O GOIPge architects Architects Pete Neely 661.G1 g ]g615th Ath Av. ..NE Min,diI M13 DATE: AUGUST 6,21)21 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS: 2_SECOND FLOOR AREA PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.2 page 199 Collage Plf�eaP www.collagearch.com 1-1 SF Er 0 0 0I �. ®L7, tciRcu- 2573 SF 0 6 - -- PHASE I I I-The Reserve LOT 1,BLOGK 1 b O O Mentlda Heights,MN O � � C- O O � O \ O 815E 98025E o o�RODa o aESm—Z' o DTIDTY O b GdPge architects Architects Pete Keely 651.G]2AW Tg615th Ayeenue NE Minneapdis,MN 5 13 DATE: AUGUST 6,2D21 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS: 3_THIRD FLOOR AREA PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN A1.3 page 200 Collage Plf�eaP www.collagearch.com AMENITY 6397 SF ® soy SF LEI o 0 0 0 0 o PHASE III-The Reserve LOT 1,BIL gO 1 Men tlda ft Heights,MN 852 AT oAM o C RoanoN o IRI 11 collage—hit— Zhiteds Pete Keely 651.112.W5g 711816th Ayeenue NE Minneapdis,MN W13 DATE: AUGUST 6,21)21 LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS: 4-FOURTH FLOOR AREA PLAN FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A1.4 page 201 8-Aug-21 UNITAREA LL FIRST SECOND THIRD TOTAL TOTAL BY TYPE AREA Unit SOFT AVG GROSS ONE BEDROOM 19 U N I T Al 663 1 1 1 3 1989 UNITA2 710 2 2 2 6 4260 UNITA3 718 2 2 0 4 2872 UNIT A4 7481 11 1 11 31 2244 UNIT AS 818 1 1 1 3 2454 13819 727 ONE BEDROOM+ 9 UNIT B1 822 3 3 3 9 7398 7398 822 TWO BEDROOM 30 UNIT D1 1210 2 2 2 6 7260 UNIT D2 1252 1 2 2 5 6260 UNIT D3 1309 1 1 1309 UNIT D4 1372 1 1 1 3 4116 UNIT IDS 1401 1 1 1 3 4203 UNIT D6 1526 1 1 1 3 4578 UNIT D7 1573 1 11 1 1 3 4719 UNIT D8 1693 1 11 1 1 3 5079 UNIT D9 1 17731 1 11 11 11 1 31 5319 191 201 191 1 581 58 1 1 428431 1428 TOTAL 20561 21813 21686 64060 1104 Blended Avg PARKING 1 24,8581 01 01 01 1 24,8581 24,858 RESID.AMENITY 1 1 24501 01 01 8925 11,3751 11,375 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 1 205611 218131 216861 64,0601 64,060 RESID.CIRCULATION&SERVICE 1 1 11521 23501 24771 5,9791 5,979 GROSS FLOOR AREA 1 24,8581 241631 241631 241631 8925 106,272 97,347 88% Parking lower level enclosed 69 upper lot 28 lower lot 21 Total 118 2.03 stalls per unit page 202 ANDERSON 0 70 140' STATE HIGHWAY 110/62112 LEGEND www.collagearch.com / \ PROPERTY LIMITS SECTION LINE I—EADJACENT PROPERTY NEaaTn mIN WEER INNER TLE—of TIE-TE PROPOSED CONCRETE C&G PRINT NAMES LEE KOPPY,PE P CE SIGNATURE: NOTE I DATE: 6l2&2U21 LIGENSENO. 41267 1 ��T Revised OM9021 EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 0 / SF D Mendoza Heights.NN OUTLOT A DITION BLOCK 1 � �s LOT 1, IT B7 2 ZOT12 < LOT 1 <O� OUTLOT E ? f c�ilagelamhieec�s A eNml 661 Keety 7W l6th A0 ]081fith Ai.,NIN NE Minneapolis,MN 55d13 DATE'. JUNE 28,20N / LOT 6 LAND USE LOT 8 PA CEL 1 / APPLICATION LOT 7 REVIfiIOHfi. N a eo �a II 8o s SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE —ET TILE PARCEL 1 &PARCEL 2 OVERALL SITE PLAN Cl page 203 ANDERSON 0 30 60' S T A T E T R U N K H G H WAY N 0. 1 1 0 www.col gee v.— � a earc .com - -� \ LEGEND CATCH BASIN_ CLEAN OUT oWEI—FEs,NERT 111.1RE uaysaT�—E \ COMMUNICATION JUNCTION BOX ATA Nc"E TM T- \\ � CONTROL POINT PRINT NAME_LEE KOPPV PE ELECTRIC BOX ae _ + _ x> Ega 0 ELECTRIC MANHOLE SIGNATURE: �T FOR �� + �ae�s 0 ELECTRIC METER — - - DATE: &mml LICENSEN0. 41261 896518'E 48080 �x.ass r�x es:�su: - 8G.25 R 562600 4—O'5242 © GAS METER °.w� GAS VALVE -fH- - f «� -— -- $ 0 HANDICAP PARKING — — _ r s' o re g 0 RIGANON ._ _ O 0 RICAT ON NTROL vALVE _ a----YH R CONTROL BDX are n w g¢a`; d LIGHT P C\\ \6` \uix�w�:psp par".gioEvz.. 1 Ir'--- _ q +� SANER PILE M E N D o r A �n u Pow POLE MENDOTA HEIGHTS v o Tv�• ti+ ® RDDE DRAIN APARTMENTS - ITARY MANHOLE \ePx T xa au�o xas oes�u vEo OC / \ cf 0UTL 0 /A ® SIGN M,Dd,h Heights,NN SPRINKLER HEAD I O T E,(_A Z A III '2 STEAM MANHOLE w a x \ L \ \ I I E !� STORM MANHOLE n II \ v ''S5 ��' \ \ I \ /�€ _ C E\ \L _ _i-- F �. O TELEPHONE o ANHO VeL ocK \ `� P R E,�v«A NSYON V © w z LE « V'V\� \ .V^ �' P 'i i ' V 0 WATER vALVE \ —All �\- _ -_-� A��. o SET MONUMENT oV'a A \ j w� TT ..`"S\0 �+'D' mNFERaus TREE \ ="tie,. �� T, V +$ `Ma �� _ �0 �I T -a�,��5­t C 0 N O� 1 DECIDUOUS TREE 0 e �v / \ \ 3'✓. I\\ \\ <� i�> »��"O y� GBSR G N E n ��z _ .ouu COMMUNICATION PTICS 2 OVERHEAD WIRES J �0 /�,' �x1.G A D D l 7 X O N a� SANITARY SEWER w GM� / \ AS \ «�+LL �1 / +A �� Collage I architects / *� STORM SEWER rch tech e4 / 1 0 P A\ TELEPHONE Re[e Keely �\ UNDERGRDUND ELECTRIC 70815ih Aveenue NE 3 \ ��$� WATER MAN \W / Min BITUMINOUS SURFACE rrea polis,MN 55d13 .� \,A 4'44, ' CONCRETE SURFACE z 0 U T E 0 r�.'e_ \ dos n. V�WR a RIP RAP DATE: JUNE 28.2021 LANDSCAPE WDDDCHIPS LAND USE APPLICATION 0 u T 0 A REVIBIONBN. '. J ' \ AG / A"L 0 TX y`z v` .vMUEET PARCEL 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS X1 page 204 STATE HIGHWAY 110/62 ANDERSON 0 30 60' .wwwcol g. rch.c LEGEND www.coliagearch.com — T PROPERTY LIMITS \ ADJACENT PROPERTY \ P—ssoo�LA�—TMa I.RRUE I—�F�sTnTE \ PROPOSED BUILDING ofv E.TA SETBA150 CK \ BUILDING SETBACKS PRINT NAME LEE KOPPYPE SETBACK(TVP.) � --------- - PARKING SETBACK EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN \1 1 NOTFOR U IION PROPOSED CONCRETE C&G SIGNATURE- PROPOSED BITUMINOUS DATE: &MMI LICENSENO. 41261 PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT \ / NO PARKING ZONE \V �% HANDICAP STALL DESIGNATION PROPOSED4-STORY NUMBER OF PARKING STALL N MENDOTA HEIGHTS EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING SECTION APARTMENTS POND 24,800SE i 58 UNITS / Mend,i Heights,NN IS PARKING SUMMARY vT IT b '� TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS = 61 / \ GARAGE IA i tib\ '� -� / PROPOSED PARKING STANDARD ADA TOTAL \ ENTRANCE �Q INTERIOR LOWER 72 1 73 \� 04 i� �V EXTERIOR 47 2 49 �14 Q� / TOTAL PARKING 119 3 122 LOT 1 \V BLOCK 1 EXISTING RATIO zo sTAwuwT \ APARTMENT RETAINING W,FL \ BUILDING \ Collage)—hit— RETAINING E W/GUARIJ�AIL Archi. Pete Keely �T / \� 10815th Aveenue NE EXISTING SHEET PILE 10.0'PARKING A ZONING Mi...polia,MN 55d13 RETAIN INGWALL \� SETBACK(f YP.) VVGUARDRAIL T �/ \ / EXISTING'.MU-PUD MIXED USE OUTLOTA DATE: JUNE28,2021 �, LAND USE APPLICATION REVISIONS'. N. LOT SETBACKS �\ BLOCK 2 PARKING 10.0 FEET BUILDING.150FEET PARCEL 2 SITE PLAN C2 page 205 STATE HIGHWAY 110/62 ANDERSON 0 30 60' .wwwcol g. rch.c LEGEND www.coliagearch.com — T PROPERTY LIMITS EXISTING CONTOUR v! P 111-A"NN'E"E"a��I A Ewa oE,�aTATE - ---— —— --ate — __ _ � V —see— �EMHA -- —— —� EXISTING SCOO PONTNELEVATION PRINT NAME LEE KOPPVPE \` — -�� — - - -- - - DRAINAGE ARROW SF SILT FENCE SIGNATURE HOTFOR'D"STRUI w � AAr — — i — �+� _ J - — -- I 1 V SEDIMENT INLET PROTECTION DATE &7BI2U21 LICENSE NO. 41281 \ _ — — �\ ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SPOT ELEVATION O FLOWLINE OF CURB EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER A - s' PROPOSED 4-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING « MENDOTA HEIGHTS o \ 4 FFE=855 50(1ST FLOOR) APARTMENTS FFE=84450(LOWER LEVEL] ROOF DRAIN-12\ ,aa - �\� \� I I I ✓� / MendoU Heights,MJ o PROPOSED STMH-11 \ / / FL 854.14 FL854A6 FL852.oe —e�05 e ST H a m E 545 PROPOSED - 850.7e \ ' W m \45o PROPOSED CBMH9 / VP EX CBMFFT a° m FIT 1 e,� io m \ \\ FL86281 FL850.T4 oM 1\ : o es �j o� 5 'E n 5O/ \ EXISTING ' bye EX.CBMH-6 "o \\ \ �FLe48 eel w-e45o Tj �^ C « APARTMENT ROOF DRAIN-4 _ \\\ d yr\ i/ \ \ BUILDING AOIhielarchitects PeteK,,Iy i Qo / 'T \' /PROPOSED \ I 7N Cl5thA g R. a RETAINING WALL �+> Mi...h Ai.,NIN 5, NE PROPOSED CBMH \ -J / Minrreapolis,MN 55d13 EXISTING UNDERGROU' \2� \ STORMWATER RATE\\ L CONTROL CHAMBER \ \ / EX.STMH-5 aE 96"PIPES,INV=83220 L \� DATE JUNE 28.2021 v� F2-5 I158 vv LAND USE APPLICATION v� / � NOTE. REVISIONS \ ` °s2,p EXISTING UNDERGROUND N. SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR STORM o \ TS\ STORMWATER SEWER SIZES AND ELEVATIONS. \\� /\ EX.CBMH-2 / INFILTRATION CHAMBER V V o 54 PIPES,INV.=83450 V A V A V \ \\ PARCEL 2 GRADING PLAN C3 page 206 STATE HIGHWAY 110/62 ANDERSON 0 30 60' .wwwcol g. rch.c LEGEND www.coliagearch.com — T PROPERTY LIMITS \ EXISTING WATERMAIN P—ssoo�aNnLAN—TMa I.E TLE I--- W\ \ EXISTING SANITARY SEER ofM E.TA \ EXISTING STORM SEWER PRINT NAME LEE KOPPV PE — — PROPOSED WATERMAIN 1 1 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SIGNATURE NO"MIICIION PROPOSED STORM SEWER DATE &2812D21 UCENSENO_ 41257 • 1 ii PROPFITTOSED WATERMAIN • � N/ /•j PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE� ` PROPOSED 4-STORY �� / o ? r,<ji` PROPOSED STORM INLETS \ APARTMENT BUILDING V` EEE=85550(FIRST FLOOR) ' MENDOTA HEIGHTS EXISTING EEE=844 50(LOWER LEVEL) j/ �. POND SIAMESE CONNECTION S APARTMENTS INv.=e4etto 0 2 / Heights,Ml \� POST INDICATOR VALVE _ HOPE @100/ MendoU STMH-11 E50(Nw/SE) Nv / �\ PROPos I "Nsisso j PROP DaSLE-2 PE@last LL Pvc�lOoi OPE@1eai EX TMUL S1o1. o E-1s �L H-o �H = / PROPO INV.=Banos PRI I,PRoaoseDce-65 _ E) PROP PE@1ezi V.- 65(POPE) _ _ ssE j PE�1Oi ,( L os j EXM MH ST /A INv.=eaPs4 ` v.=s4s. / IN e42Ds(NFM I Ts Roof ORn3 4 ` / __ �� e4 LE-5 DDPE�S�T(Svv� `V /� // _ .� E 1s H % / \ROPOSEDSLE-12 HDPE@100i L iH / �6 .- oEx.e D A EX POSEDCB IT / \ PRONCA v.=eE55 o4(sEj \� /6/ 0, ` /� \ EIEEi 52inio VSEwERMnIN EC Dollape architects EX / Archi. / \ \ / / - =6 NEYI A 95 (N`M Pe[e Keely �� j\ _3 EXISTING fi51A]2.UUW EX 15"_ �� 5sM(sE)2 6 ]0815ih Aveenue NE / INv.-ezz.T \� jlnlvN=a62(w) J APARTMENT Mi...polis,MN 55C13 / eaT e �` 72 ME BUILDING RM INV INV.-135 0(N EX \\ �/ 335(sE) / %/ 0 / x LE PE@s5io DATE: JUNE 28,2021 / 96 PP ES NV B3220 J ` TORMWATER �bN�Ro�d�A aER / gFprRO oNCHA.BERDs LAND USE / PORP ED153LE 5 HOPEc 1000 ��L /� / APPLICATION v/ 1 / ) REVISIONS'. NV r / "NEV%V%3;Eon oNVO PARCEL 2 UTILITY PLAN C4 page 207 i Cr�Ilage www.colla cam com i k 4 _ ■ome PARCEL ONE maNc,0TA HEIGHTS . APARTMENTS - , YrMbe Wlyhn NN calN�rcnnouc Arebucls ''... Pn�e Neely '., t r TJtlIXhRiemun M I ILmr eppl a YN 5ye1a rli 4111. 7P. - �" E � � � OAiE � '..� LAND USE 11 1 APPLICATION r _l I a..F r _ z ^ . :rrrrrrrrr fi x„ .. x PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Ad.0 page 208 col w .cclla g earch.cam 111 INS 1111 PARCEL ONE 1111 • ;;? MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS N 'Luwo�l rchnrgl. ",, P.h i s PN n.OGO I1] ''.. 6N h. IN 1 kh Aweenua HE LANs USE r APPLICATION 1 ;.. All PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A5.0 page 209 w .colla g earch.com 04 - 6 ua 5iH TO _�WLR—ti i 1 IN TO ...... LR or 334 s PARCEL ONE 3 MENDOTA HEIGHTS Y1R--°L APARTMENTS 1 MO R wroegmwa.m 08 +sr wt realgne_� _ SOUTH ELEVATION 04 - ® mt-R<rrr— ,.ise_ —r`, 01•Brick s,H re, 02.Burnished Black raHprlrcnnrpe _ sv�0R ti.nrcn [r- 1 =`' �•, - 3 Cement Board Lap Siding im,xn A--hE LEQ ,•� LH r r ., .� = —03 — 33a ti i Board Sid ngP Cement Ir-II-11 SLR W 04•Wood to �°5�i°R .Wu oetE ® I t — — Yazd ti 03• Metal Panel Siding LAND USE _.. _ L.k.L.1rY ... . O.TJ - •• APPLICATION rHo ro ® J u H 02 'p 06. Preflnlshed McFal Plashing Rgp 4w - 02_Decvrative Masonry Block 09 08-Composile windows(black) NORTH ELEVATION og-Prefinished Garage,Door 10-Balconies and Railings ELEVATIONS A6.Q page 210 w vxolla g earchxom G4 4 q6 B f J I u N ^ t - - - 1 - - *-0 n aA a 4 a e PARCEL ONE L_ pro MENDOTAHEIGHTS _ PELF APARTMENTS 0- - -8 r II I ; 4-A .. pro 02 EAST ELEVATION 04 ra^or rwurer-Rzo_ IT rt pro TtOGO u 4E � 1 IdA 1k R a m 7 F7F ,_ - e �� 1 1 03 =TO ox,F rn a a e e 08 Mra LANs USE APPLICATION ® 8Lj 09 Rewsions ,oua 01-Brick 06- Prefinlshed Melal Flashing WEST ELEVATION 02-Burn is had Block 07- Decorative Masonry Block 03- Cement Board Lap Siding 06-Composite windows(black) 04-Wood tone lap Cemenl 09-Preflnished Garage Door ELEVATIONS Board Skiing us- Metal Panel Siding lu-Balconies and Kailungs A7-p page 211 66'-0" Collage ..collagearch.com 853 i PARCEL ONE MENDOTA PLAZA LOT 7,BLOCK 1 Nend.b Heights,MN ® 4 HCU-0 HC 77 STALLS STALLS AT O'xl 8'TYPICAL 1 =L A,.hit larchitecis __t � I Architects �OMMCINS Pete Keely ENTRY 551.d73.Mg 70815th A-­NE Minneapolis,MN 554t3 DATE'. lUET4,2n IACKAGE LAND USE _ APPLICATION RENSION& 24'-O" I LLI 196'-4" SUB-LEVEL SUB-LEVEL PARKING FLOOR PLAN 77 PARKING STALLS PARKING FLOOR 27,590 GSF PLAN zq A1.0 page 212 Collage www.collagearch.com I' I 127'-0° PARCEL ONE MENDOTA PLAZA 18'-0"I 244" 1 18,0" LOT 7,BLOCK 1 Nendola Heights,MN ZI V6 676 775 1219 �g7q33 STALL AILS AT 9'.1F P!CAL O MAINT MEP TR. 1025 L 760 Colagelarchitecis Architects C MMONS Pete Keely _ 1500 SF 551.472A05g 70815th Aveenue NE 0 o O O Minneapolis,MN 554t3 GRILLS BE / _ ^j OATE'. cus 121 70� F LAND USE cLUBFIousE — APPLICATION RENSIONS: 1020 1210 PATIO 1210 1210 FIRE 11, R44M$� �,',', r 6T'_s• 6o ya 196'-0' FIRST FLOOR PLAN 11 UNITS:(5 TWO BEDROOM UNITS,6 ONE BEDROOM UNITS) FIRST FLOOR PLAN 27,662 GSF zq A1.1 page 213 Ccllags www.collagearch.com 2 BDRM 2 BDRM 1225 1205 IL 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 880 775 PARCEL ONE 127_D' MENDOTA PLAZA LOT 7,BLOCK 1 1 BDRM+ Nendob Heights,MN 880 1 BDRM 85U 1 BDRM 775 BD RI 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BDRM STOR. 625 676 676 775 1193 1 BDRM 775 ❑M.TR. 0 y MEP STOR, 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 1 BDRM C,hp architects 700 855 840 -- -- Architects 1 BDRM Pete Keely 1 BDRM+ 76O 551.472.0050 70815th Aveenus NE 880 Minneapolis,MN 554U BDRId 685 1 BDRM DEN 960 1 BDRM 775 DATE'. nUc,UST a.z�zi 1 BDRM LAND USE 5 7B�DRM APPLICATION RENSIONS:2BDRM 2BDRM L72BDRM 1210 1210 1210 67•_8" 61'-0" 6T-8" 196'-0" SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR PLAN 25 UNITS:(7 TWO BEDROOM UNITS,5ONE BEDROOM DEN UNITS,14 ONE BEDROOM UNITS) PLAN 27,958 GSF zq A1.2 page 214 66-0. Ccl lags www.collagearch.com 2BDRM 2BDRM 1225 1205 1 BERM+ 1 BDRM 880 775 PARCEL ONE ,27-0 MENDOTA PLAZA LOT 7,BLOCK 1 1 BDRM+ Nendob Heights,MN R60 aBDRN 1 BDRM 75 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 2BDRM 676 676 775 1193 1 BDRM 775 �❑M.TR. OO �I MEP STOR. 1 BDRM 1 BDRM 1 BDRM Colagelarchitecis 700 855 840 Architects 1 BDRM Pete Keely 1 BERM+ 760 M1.472.oe5g 70815th Aveenue NE 880 FMinneapolis,MN 554U 1 BDRM 685 1 BDRM DEN 960 1 BDRM 775 OATE'. AUGUST4,-1 1 BDRM __ - LAND USE 75 -- APPLICATION RENSIONS: 2BDRM 2BDRM 'cY� 2BDRM 2BDRM 1210 1210 1210 1210 196'-4" THIRD FLOOR PLAN 26 UNITS:(7 TWO BEDROOM UNITS,5 ONE BEDROOM DEN UNITS.14ONE BEDROOM UNITS) THIRD FLOOR PLAN 27,958 GSF A1.3 page 215 CO te.a9e www.collagearch.com 2BDRM 2BDRM 1225 1205 1 BDRM+ 1 BDRM 880 775 127-0" PARCEL ONE MENDOTA PLAZA 1 BORN+ LOT 7,13LOCK1 880 N,.dob Heights,MN 1 BDRM+ 850 1 BDRM 775 BDR i6DRM iBDRM7BDRM2BDRM STOR. 625 676 6761193 1 BDRM 775 HTR. rE. Y MEP STOR. 1 BDRM 1 RDRM 1 RDRM 700 855 840 C-hpI—hired, 1 BDRM Architects 1 BDRM+ 760 Pete K-ly 551.473.0050 880 70815th A——NE NE 1 BDRM Minneapolis,MN 55413 685 BDRM DEN 960 1 BDRM 775 OATE'. lUST4,1111 1 BDRhn ____ LAND USE 775 APPLICATION RENSIONS: 2BDRM 2BDRM LL12 2BDRM 1210 1210 1210 67'-8" 6'-O" 67'-8" 196'-4" FOURTH FLOOR FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 26 UNITS:(7 TWO BEDROOM UNITS,5 ONE BEDROOM DEN UNITS,14ONE BEDROOM UNITS) PLAN 27,958 GSF AIA page 216 8-Aug-21 LOT SEVEN UNIT AND AREA MATRIX UNITAREA LL FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH TOTALBYUNIT TOTALBYTYPE AREA SQFTAVG GROSS small one br 18 674 625 1 1 1 3 1875 676 2 2 2 2 8 5408 685 1 1 1 3 2055 700 1 1 1 1 4 2800 medium one br 23 772 775 1 6 6 6 19 14725 760 1 1 1 1 4 3040 large one br 18 864 840 1 1 1 3 2520 850 11 1 1 3 2550 855 1 1 1 3 2565 880 3 3 3 9 7920 one br den 3 960 960 1 1 1 3 2880 two bedroom 27 1119 1020 1 1 1 1025 1 1 1193 1 1 1 1 4 4772 1205 1 1 1 3 3615 1225 1 1 1 3 3675 1210 3 4 4 4 15 18150 0 ill 261 26 26 89 89 TOTAL 6358 23380 23380 23380 76498 78550 883 TOTAL BEDROOMS 116 PARKING 26,491 10,236 36,727 36,727 RESID.AMENITY 1449 2816 0 0 837 5,102 5,102 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 6358 23380 23380 23380 76,498 76,498 RESID.CIRCULATION&SERVICE 8530 4560 4560 3723 21,373 21,373 GROSS FLOOR AREA 27,940 27940 27940 27940 27940 139,700 139,700 Parking 74% lower level 77 110 enclosed stalls upper level 33 east lot 20 north lot 27 ,Total 157 page 217 v � A ANDERSO e N 0 30' 60' 11 vTss aia accc FTss aia acom sc ✓ a��� v LEGEND www.collagearch.com /, ®® CATCH BASIN F S /"2•p V ® CLEAN OUT m mEER UNIll LUE—A of THE STATE wrvEsoTA COMMUNICATION JUNCTION BOX CONTROL POINT PRINT NAME:LEE KOPPY,PE IETAIL BULDIN, ) / 0 ELECTRIC BOX 0 ELECTRIC MANHOLE SIGNATURE NOTFMIICIION I� 0 ELECTRIC METER _-1, eR DATE 612BI2021 LICENSE NO- 41281 © CAS METER GAS VALVE HANDICAP PARKING �II dB HYDRANT LF / © IRRIGATION CONTROL BOX W s+- 0 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE OFF POLE PoweRFILE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ® RODE DRAIN APARTMENTS r /� 0 SANITARY MANHOLE PSI, ^ / SIGN M,Dd,U Heights,NN SPRINKLER HEAD STEAM MANHOLE ti \ '-ram ,�^r 'TO Al,S RM MANHOLE O TELEPHONE MANHOLE MANHE IS V/ 3 A// 0WATER VALVE�N LE �cco� � 0 SET MONUMENT mwFERaus TREE e III Rr \\ \ e / �oa� / (D DECIDUOUS TREE \ `HVgAf N\Q / �,p^ / COMMUNICATION III II 1 ,esae \ m „enuu FENCE S e� w \ eN V FIBER OPTICS GAS MAIN III Y m ,�.5 ww DVERHEAD WIRES Y SANITARY SEWER s c E ` En wH,E PNE,BY,�T _ ass sre�LHNa suu STEAM D011agearchitects `-�5ev / ¢ Arch Knl P a STORM SEWER ��cry TELEPHONE Pe[e .0 L O T 7 �W 1 N ( UNDERGRDUND ELECTRIC Mpg�5tli Av�eenue NE —WATER MAIN Min BITUMINOUS SURFACE nea polis,MN 55C13 B g G O K )I e4 se.M g l / \ m Z FF RIP RAP CONCRETE SURFACE a , \\ `� DATE: JUNE 28,2021 LANDSCAPE WDDD IPS LAND USE d No 4 � I 00 Q a g>a � z 1. D ece— ,e ----------------- APPLICATION I 9 __ _ LI ¢5 REVISIONS Q' IN _ _ _ - P W SO DTR PLAZA D R I VS� - iv SO 00 vAs vRaJECT rva. 10uo �» PARCEL 1 -EXISTING CONDITIONS X2 page 218 A ANDERSON o® x x 5V5,, LOT#1 ,0 LEGEND www.collagearch.com `� / EXISTING PROPERTY LIMITS J MENDO TA/ PLA-P.RETAIL BUILDING- ADJACENT PROPERTY — — BUILDING SETBACKS rn NNEMETn mEEauNOEasrvE uwsoFTHE STArE \ PARKING SETBACK PRINT NAVE_LEE KOPPV PE PROPOSED CONCRETE C&G G� � PROPOSED CONCRETE SIGNATURE NGT FOfl CONBIpIICIIOfi I� SIDEWALK DATE 612N2021 IJCENSENO_ 41257 `(1 8�� p� NO PARKING ZONE 6 HAND I CAP STALL DESIGNATION NUMBER OF PARKING STALL IN SECTION /`TT � / MENDOTA HEIGHTS w / �Q / APARTMENTS > 3� n M,Ed,U Heights,NN W V o H Q III > / J / PARKING SUMMARY — O 25.0'BUILDING III TOTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS = 116 BE. SETBACK \\ // TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING STANDARD ADA TOTAL PARCEL 1 � / / INTERIOR LOWER LEVEL 79 o 79 ?� / INTERIOR FIRST FLOOR 31 2 33 LOT#8 LOT#7 LOT#6 RIOR TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 162 8 159 PRO PARKING RATIO=14 STALL PER UNIT = POSED 4ST0 RV x 0 APARTMENT BUILDING 28,800 SF l 89 UNITS �� O / �; assseo EiNNc Ec Collage l architects Archi. _ I Pete Keely 651.4M.000 S 78815th Aveenue NE ZONING Mi...Wlis,MN 55C13 © EXISTING.MU-PUDMIXEDUSE uexou - DATE: JUNE 28,2021 PATIO _ 180' LAND USE _ t; J — I APPLICATION r REVISIONS'. ov a i TI�c .w iricw 4 e uxr M m n rAE rpxE EXISTING SETBACKS MONUMENT SIGN SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE PARKING 10.0 FEET FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAY rlORKING SETBACK(TVP.) ZERO LOT LINES PROPOSED WITH IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BUILDING. 25.0 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE/PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY -ET TILE PARCEL 1 -SITE PLAN C5 page 219 A ANDERSON / EX CBMH-1 \ 0 30 60 / LEGEND www.collagearch.com PROPERTY LIMITS EXISTING CONTOUR ExIsrING —gam_ In — IKEEannoE THEawe ITTE-TE MENDO 4PLAZA \ PROPOSED CONTOUR o��EMETA nn>Hn M EX STMH-2 1 RETAIL BUILDING -9 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PRINT SAVE LEE LEE KOPPV PE > � DRAINAGE ARROW Sr SILT FENCE SIGNATURE NI FM CCNSTRUI v SED IMENT INLET PROTECTION DATE 612BI2021 LICENSENO. 11-1 III // ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED ceMH4 / / � ,o SPOT ELEVATION EX CBMH-3 FLOWLINE OF CURB OEXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER / MENDOTA � GHTS ED APARTMENTS PR 1 p OPOS CBMHS i PROPOSED TRENCH I 1 / / MIHeights,Ml DRAIN 3A �r� :„ \' SEDIMENT INLET PROTECTION(TVP.) IS 7' \ EX CBMH / LL m I v� `I EX CBMH-1 \ e,� EX STMH-8 PROPOSED STMH-9 PROPOSED 4-STORY �T.1 BAD e \� APARTMENT BUILDING 852 FFE=862 5(FIRST FLOOR) _ FFE=8515(LOWER LEVEL) 1 } 1 Collage)architects _ QQ ROCK CON TRUCTION ENTRANCE Architects Pe Keel 661.4M.000 70815th Aveenue NE nne✓ ')�4` g� Q Miapolis,MN 56,H3 \ ROOF s DRAIN-10 _ DATE: JUNE 28,2021 0 ro\ � d v LAND USE APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT g To r - \ OF UNDERGROUND STORM APPLICATION __ \ NOTE. REVISIONS'. N. 8fi0 859 — B55 SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR STORM _ — — Po — — — — SEWER SIZES AND ELEVATIONS. SGTH P 111JEITNI 1— LA 11 -ET TILE PARCEL 1 -GRADING PLAN C6 page 220 \ 4) A Ex.SAN MH-1 �p �5/ EX.CBMH-1 EX CBMH 3 A N D E R S O N Ex 93LF1a°HDPE@1.1ai /�/'/ IUIM.=eas.9cly) NEW Ex 8VS0a@8475 \\ \\ LEGEND RIM 85206 6® www.coliagearch.com RIM-8535 / \ \ _ 11 848 47 842 0 gearch.com PROPERTY LIMITS 37LF 15"HDPE @08% \ \ EXISTING WATERMAIN 'ATEXISTING \ wEEa 1NEEETUEA1 soF THE STATE EX STMH-2 _ MEROLLA PLAZA \ EXISTING SANITARY SE WER miNNE— RIM=8536 RETAIL BU ILDING \ a EXISTING STORM SEWER PRINT NAME LEE KOPPV,PE INV.=84].0(SE) NV.=84].0(N) §C_ In > — — PROPOSED WATERMAIN CONSTR rc PROPOSED CBMH-4 / LF . PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SIGNATURE NOT FMIICIION u� RIM=8532 / / .. PROPOSED STORM SEWER DATE &2N2021 HGENSENO. 41257 Ili p INV=84].80(S) / V=84].80(W) / / / • • PROPOSED WATERMAIN FITTING EX 47 LF 18"HOPE @1.06% 34 LF 15"HOPE @0.80% // / n'�@ PROPOSED STORM INLETS 16 LF8 HOPE @1.00% x14sLF1a°HDPE@o8si / MENDOTA HEIGHTS / APARTMENTS EX.292 LF 8"PVC 1.10% @ / MendoU Heights,MJ I REMOVE 64 LF / PROPOSED I EX 15 STORM EX - 'k 111 TRENCH DRAIN-3A _ RIM=8530 RIM=851 �I \ INV.=8493(N) 85130 / e / INV.=84824 111 W O IT INV.=8492(NW) / ) 8o EX.CBM-] 'RIM=852 H 1 WPROP SED CBMHS d INV.=8463(SW/NE) Q RIM-853 � 0 / l > l INV=848.0](SE) INV=a4ao](N) - EXISTING 8"DIP WATERMAIN I I EX STMH-8 RIM-854 4 o EX 21 LF 6"PVC @2.0%± - INV.=848.8(SE) PROPOSED 4STORY -~� APARTMENT BUILDING - INV.=846](SW/NE) _ „i FFE=aszs(FIRST FLOOR) � I i EX SAN M H-2 FFE=851 5(LOWER LEVEL) Collage I architects o RIM 858] EX 6"SAN.STUB 1 EX.12 LF 15"HOPE @ 1 00% Archi. INV.8 4530(W) INV.=845]±INV.84530(E) 10 LF 12"HOPE PROPOSED STMH P-Keely STUB 6"DIP 1 1 I 150 5.0 INV.845.20[N] 'FROM @ 0% I 708 RIM=854 6 051.51h A4M.00vee—NE °8 I r INV.=846.82(SME) Minneapolis,MN 55C13 BUILDING > ]LF 15"HDPE @100% F pIP � ROOFDRAIN-10 I I Q CONNECTTOEX 6" N DATE: JUNE 28.2021 STUB W/6'_90°BEND INV 84]00 I I Q Ili.." CONNECT TO PROPOSED BE. It UNDERGROUND STORMWATER LAND USE PROPOSED 6"POST / INFILTRATION CHAMBER INDICATOR VALVE I I -----@INV.=a4sa9 -- APPLICATION �i SIAMESE CONNECTION --� - L --LJ----------------------------------- 0 `- REVISIONS'. SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT _ OF UNDERGROUND STORM CHAMBERS —ET TILE PARCEL 1 -UTILITY PLAN C7 page 221 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei ghts.com CITY OF MENDCJTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 24, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-12 (ref. Phase II of The Reserve Parcel 2/Lot 1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT & WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: At Home Apartments/Mendota Mall Associates, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: Highway 62 & South Plaza Way Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 (Extended Statutory Review Period) INTRODUCTION At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development(PUD)and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12- 1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as Phase II of The Reserve of Mendota Village,and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment complex(720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item. BACKGROUND The Plaza mall site encompasses approximately 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009,Mendota Mall Associates (Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, which included a new overall land use and zoning category of Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential development area,which would include the large retail (strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf. high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant pad sites,various sized offices,childcare center and a pharmacy(refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD Master/Final Development Plan 2009). page 222 Since 2009,the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments, with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment No. 6 in 2016,and the latest No. 7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. The Reserve apartment development under Amendment No. 6 was approved as the 4-story, 139-unit apartment building seen today,and redefined the area of the vacant,triangular shaped parcel to the west,with"Restaurant"and "Retail/Restaurant"for future developments (see 2016 Plan image below). $TATF TRU NY HIGHWAY NO-110 ' o . 4, .l PUD Amendment Plan No.6(The Reserve,etal) As noted in the applicant's narrative,Paster Properties has made numerous attempts to sell and develop the subject site with new restaurants or a retail center as shown on the 2016 plan;however,due to recent market conditions and COVID-19 pandemic,these efforts have not panned out. Paster is now permitting At Home Apts.to request this PUD Amendment in order to revise the final development plan and possibly allow the site to be developed with a new apartment development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/ SITE IMPROVEMENTS The subject parcel is triangular in shape,and consists of 89,158 sq. ft.or 2.05 acres. The parcel is currently vacant with an unpaved,graveled surface. The site contains an existing stormwater pond near the northwest corner, and some existing storm water improvements, such as catch basins, storm pipes and a large underground rate control basin near the south corner. A large steel sheet pile wall is situated along the south edge of the parcel along the creek edge. The proposed development for Phase II (Parcel 2 on the plans) is a three story, 74,400-sq. ft. apartment building, with 58-living units consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727-sf.; 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822-sf;and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428-sf. The apartment will have luxury,high-end finishes harmonious with The Reserve. A"partial"fourth floor of 3,250-sq. ft.to contain an indoor pickle-ball and bocce ball courts;wine bar and outdoor patio with fire pit, and will contain its own fitness area and common lounge space. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 2 of 20 page 223 The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit. The proposed apartment building is shown with setbacks of 15-feet along the north lot line (parallel with Hwy 62); 15-ft. along the south line (along the creek); and approx. 22-ft. from the easterly line along the main entrance driveway off Hwy 62. Because this development will take place within 100-feet of the adjacent Interstate Valley Creek, a wetlands permit is also needed for this site approval. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the following applicable policies/standards for facade design,building materials, and doors/windows: • Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. • Undulating fagade shall be encouraged. • Exterior fagade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian. • Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into fagade design. • Materials shall be selectedfor suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings. • Materials shall be durable quality. • Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable. • All wood treatment shall be painted and weatherproofed. • A minimum of 25%of the fagade shall be treated with finished masonry building material. • Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be encouraged. • Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25%of decorative masonry variation in color, texture or surface. 2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. The proposed buildings' exterior are a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with The Reserves development, City Code and the original PUD Design Standards: • Face brick • Stone veneer • Cement Board Lap Siding • Metal panel siding • Decorative masonry block • Composite windows • Prefinished metal flashing and trim • Prefinished balconies and railings Since this existing site is relatively flat and graded out,there does not appear to be much new or significant grading work with his new development. There is an existing underground storm chamber system near the south edge of the site, which is not planned to be impacted by any new construction. There are however, some pre-constructed storm pipes, manholes and catch basins scattered throughout the site, that will have to be removed/re-installed around the planned development/building location on this site. The plans also note a very large "Private Water Main Agreement" easement and other miscellaneous drainage and utility Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 3 of 20 page 224 easements that will also have to be vacated and rededicated to the city. All new stormwater, sanitary and water systems will be reviewed by the city's Public Works Director and St. Paul Regional Water Services. The building's architectural elevations and renderings,interior floor plans,civil plans for grading and utility improvements, along with the new landscaping/plantings plans are all included with this report's attachments. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (2030 vs. 2040) The entire Mendota Plaza mall site and subject parcel were all guided Mixed-Use PUD under the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was noted with: 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. Areas of the community with this land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110 is the City's only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use commercial/residential center known as "The Village at Mendota Heights". Located in the southeast corner of the Dodd and Highway 110 intersection is a related commercial area. This older shopping center is being considered for redevelopment,including a mixed-use land use pattern reflecting the Village development concept. It is an objective of the City to encourage redevelopment of this area reflecting a small-town village layout, avoiding the suburban shopping center environment that dominates the current development pattern. As noted previously,the entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD in 2009. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses that are seen today remain consistent with the future land use designations established under the previous 2030 Plan. . Under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the following is noted for MU-PUD areas: MU—Mixed-Use(21.0-30.0 DU/Acre for Residential Uses) Undeveloped land guided mixed-use is planned to develop approximately 75% of its acres with residential uses at the densities identified, which is consistent with existing mixed-use projects in the city. The northeast quadrant of the Highway 62 and Dodd Road 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. The current residential development has developed at densities between 21 and 30 dwelling units per acre, and adjacent undeveloped outlots are guided to develop at similar densities Under the 2016 PUD Amendment report, city staff reported the following on population and housing projections (part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan): Po ulation 1 11,071 1 11,124 1 11,300 11,300 11,400 Households 1 4,378 1 4,450 4,600 4,710 4,800 Source:Metropolitan Council(dated 911712015) According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement,the City's population and household forecasts are as follows: Population 11,071 11,3040 12,000 12,000 12,000 2.4/0 0/o (0/o) (0/o) Households 4,378 N/A 4,900 5,000 5,110 (125/.) (2%) (2.251.) Source:Metropolitan Council, US Census,City of Mendota Heights,SHC Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 4 of 20 page 225 As noted,the Met Council agreed to accept the city's increase of our projected populations from 11,400 to a 12,000 —which we requested to hold steady from the 2020 through 2040 planning periods. Meanwhile, the households are projected to increase slightly over these same periods, from 4,900 (2020)up to 5,110 in 2040. As per the 2040 Plan: "Most of the household growth is anticipated to occur in areas designated for mixed-use, which is likely to be primarily multi family development." This site and the proposed apartment development would meet this statement. Construction of the proposed 58-unit residential development (coupled with the proposed 89-units in the Phase III development) could account significantly or contribute greatly to the projected amount of households planned for in the 2040 Plan. According to the applicant,the proposed prcj ect includes"market- rate" units and plans do not include any "affordable units", which could satisfy additional Metropolitan Council requirements on affordable housing. Nevertheless, the Met Council typically supports efforts to increase new housing opportunities wherever or whenever they present themselves in metro communities. The 2040 Plan also provides the following goals and policy statements to consider in this PUD request: LAND USE GOAL 1: The Future Land Use Plan will provide the foundation for all land use decisions in Mendota Heights. Policies 1. Development and redevelopment of housing, businesses, transportation systems, parks and community facilities shall be done in accordance with this Plan. 5. The city will strive to create a balanced land use pattern that provides appropriate designations that meet projected growth and market demand. LAND USE GOAL 2: Preserve,protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. Policies 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. 3. Development and planning of land will be encouraged to provide reasonable access to the surrounding communities. HOUSING GOAL 2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Policies 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: 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. Support the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels, age groups, and special housing needs. 2. Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices. The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for rental units in the community, which appears to be a continual and growing trend among many metropolitan and suburban communities these days. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed or added residential project fits many of the land use and housing goals and policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 5 of 20 page 226 Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment The original 2009 PUD Plan,which included a new plat,called for the development of the project area with the following: a 14,820-sf. Walgreens store (Lot 1); a 47,200 sf retail mall (Lot 2); two future 3,600- sf./4,000-sf. restaurants (Lot 3); a 12,000-sf multi-tenant/strip mall (Lot 4); a 10,800-sf future office (Lot 5); a future 4-story, 100,000-sf high density residential apartment (Lot 6); a 10,130-sf future child care center(Lot 7); and athree-story, 36,000-sf.future office building (Lot 8). Soon after the 2009 approvals,the Walgreens and Mendota Plaza mall were completed. In 2012 the PUD was amended to change the proposed 100,000 square-foot high-density residential building on Lot 6 to the 46-unit White Pines Senior Living facility. In 2016 the PUD was amended to change the future 12,000-sf. Retail Center and 10,800-sf Office building (Lots 4 &5) over to the 139-unit Reserve Apartments,which included changing the two future 3,600-sf./4,000-sf restaurants on Lot 3 into two 3,500-sf. and 4,000-sf restaurant pad sites with drive through lanes. In 2017 the PUD was amended to revise the future office building on Lot 8 to the 17,700-sf. Gemini Medical offices. For this particular site, the developer is requesting to modify the original 2009 Final Plan's"10,300-sf Future Child Care Center"with the proposed four story, 139,126-sf,, 89-unit apartment building. According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land;and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit modification and variance ofzoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. One of the key provisions of this statement is "...to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land... " which is why many cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and cohesive developments within a community. The PUD also can grant some discretionary allowances (instead of or in place of a variance)with certain site design standards, such as reduced setbacks, increased building heights,higher densities (units/acre),reduced parking and others. Amending an existing PUD Final Development Plan is noted under Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code: Amendments To Final Development Plan:No changes may be made in the approved final development plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures provided below: 1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved. 2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the community. The proposed amendment qualifies under No. 2 above, and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 6 of 20 page 227 The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code: MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit. Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD: Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the following standards: 1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas. 2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with adjacent projects or proposals. 3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council. 4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community. 5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. Density/Hi2h-Density Residential Development This proposed high-density residential development would provide 58-units on 2.05 acres. The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible,and can be reviewed against the standards for similarly- zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed apartment plan can be reviewed utilizing R-3 High Density Residential District standards as a guide,but not as an absolute, since an R-3 use is a "...potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district." A high-density residential apartment building under this proposal would be considered an allowable use in this MU-PUD district. However, the new use or development does not need to meet all (or any) of the R-3 District development standards to be approved, as the City Council has considerable "flexibility" and discretion in this PUD review process, and can provide appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions on new developments as deemed necessary. According to Title 12-1K-5-B: Number of Dwelling Units: 1. In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning district(s)in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3 zoning district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide. If the residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of allowable dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit development that is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 7 of 20 page 228 Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council. 3. The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density. Since this site is located in an established MU-PUD zone,the density applied to a typical R-3 or high density multi-family use such as this may be used [emphasis added],but is not required. Again, City Code grants the planning commission the discretionary right or ability to determine [by its recommendation]the number of dwelling units,thus setting or approving the allowable density of the site. City Council will have final authority or decision-making on any density request. The Reserve apartments consisted of 139 units on a 2.2 acre site,which equates to density of 63 units/acre on its own parcel. However, what staff presented to the planning commission and council in 2016 was a statement "...the Code provision above[12-]K 5-BJ does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends a more appropriate analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD future land use designation, which has an allowable density range of 6-10 housing units/acre." When staff calculated the density based on the entire PUD project site,and added both White Pines 46-units plus The Reserves' 139 units (185 total units),this worked out to an overall density calculation of 10.2 units/acre,which was found to be acceptable and later approved by the city. The density calculation on this individual parcel is calculated as follows: 58-units/2.05 ac. =28.3 units/ac. As indicated in the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the city revised the MU-Mixed Use land category to include a provision to allow up to 21.0—30.0 units/acre. As a stand-alone parcel,this new apartment on the 2.05 acre site meets the density range allowed under the MU-PUD. Utilizing this same rationale for determining density as the city allowed in the 2016 PUD Amendment(The Reserve),the overall project area density can be calculated as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Walg reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.) 2.05 58 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7-Undeveloped 2.04 0 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres" Total Units(existing&proposed) 243 units Total Density 17.5 units/acre 'Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 8 of 20 page 229 Factoring in the separate 89-unit apartment development(Lot 7),the density total on the entire Plaza PUD site re-calculates as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.)) 2.05 58 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7—(proposed Phase III apts.) 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres Total Units(existing&proposed) 332 units Total Density 23.9 units/acre *Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the allowed density for the proposed PUD amendment; and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Site and Structure Requirements The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as per Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code: Standard Requirement Proposed 3-story or more: 2.05 ac. (89,300-sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet 28 one-bedroom units Unit' 2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet 30 two-bedroom units 3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet Efficiency units: Not permitted Minimum Floor Area 1-bedroom units: 750 square feet 1-bedroom: 663—822 sq. ft. 2-bedroom units: 800 square feet 2-bedroom: 1210—1773 sq. ft. 3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet Front Yard Setback 50 feet+ 1 foot/each 1 foot of building height 22-ft. (from South Plaza Way); over 60 feet 15-ft. from Hwy 62-ROW Side/Rear Yard Setback 40 feet+ 0.5 feet/1 foot of building height 15-ft. (from Hwy 62 ROW) over 75 feet 15-ft. from creek boundary) Buildinq Height No limit 45-ft. feet/48-ft. (highestpoint) Parking Lot Setback 40 feet(ROW) 10-ft. 10 feet(principal building) 'may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground • Land Area Based on the proposed unit-mix and underground parking provided,the current lot area is significantly less than what would be required under normal R-3 District standards. A standard R-3 Zoned parcel would require almost 303,600-sf. or 6.97 acres of land to support the number of one/two bedroom units proposed in this plan. [CALC: (28 x 5100=142,800) +(30 x 6,050=181,500)—(69 stalls @ 300-sf.=20,700) =303,600-sf.] Once again however,the PUD Amendment allows for the city to accept this reduction of land space if demonstrated by the developer that this site still works, even with the proposed number of units on the smaller land site. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 9 of 20 page 230 • Unit Sizes Most of the smaller one-bedroom units (16 of the 28 units proposed) are less than 750-sf. minimums for the R-3 Zone; while most of the remaining and larger 1-Bed + Den units and 2-Bed units exceed the 800-sf. standards. No three-bedroom units are proposed in the building. • Buildinz/Parkinz Lot Setbacks Front Yard setbacks are normally 50-feet from lot/ROW lines. South Plaza Way is a private access drive into this development,and serves as this Phase II development's frontage. City Code defines any front lot line as "the boundary of a lot which abuts a dedicated public street."—which can be the case with Highway 62 to the north and South Plaza Way to the east. Although not marked or shown on the plans, it appears this front yard setback (closest point of building) along South Plaza measures out to approximately 22-feet, while the setback from Hwy. 62 is only 15-feet from the ROW line. Both of these setbacks are significantly reduced under this PUD Plan. Side/Rear Yard setbacks are normally 40-feet. The proposed building's Side Yard (south) setback is shown with only 15-feet; and the rear corner lot(measured)is approx. 175-feet. The outdoor parking is shown with 10 to 15-ft. setbacks at some of their closest points off South Plaza Way. The parking appears to meet the required 10-ft. spacing between parking lot and buildings,which is intended to provide adequate separation,access and landscaping space up to and around the building. Although these reduced setbacks are considerable,the planning commission and city council have the discretion to accept or approve the proposed building and parking layouts, even with the reduced setbacks as shown or noted herein, as part of this PUD Amendment review process. The commission may make any recommendations accordingly. • Buildinm Coverage The R-3 District does not include a floor area ratio standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed apartment development covers 27.7%of the lot(24,800-sf./89,300-sf.lot area),which can be considered compliant with these original Mendota Plaza Design Standards. • Landscapinz The landscape plans submitted for the site is somewhat limited, and only shows a generalized location for new trees and shrubs, and areas to be replanted or vegetated. The plans are absent of important details or plantings list;however the applicants did state in their narrative and plan notes: "The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. " The developer was requested (by city staff)to meet with our resident Master Gardeners to review and comment on their proposed Landscape Plan. It appears the developer's architect did speak to one of the MG, and later reported back to city staff with the following message: "The plan you[city staff]sent to me had no species listed, so he[developer's architect]and I just talked about what we are looking for in terms of pollinator friendly, resilient landscape. He was going to incorporate the things we discussed into a plan and then send me the plan Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 10 of 20 page 231 and discuss further."—and— "One thing that jumped out to me is that the buildings are very near the lot lines or MNDOT ROW in the case of the building facing Hwy 62,so there isn't a lot of space to design a meaningful pollinator friendly, resilient plan. But, it is hard to visualize without seeing the plan." As of the preparation of this report,no updated/revised plan was available for this packet,other than the original landscape plan submitted with the original CUP application materials. A new plan with comments from the Master Gardener may be available or presented to the commission prior to or the night of the hearing. • Lighting According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code,concerning lighting performance standards: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting policies/standards: • Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area. • Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. • Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site. • Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided. The PUD Site Plans are absent of any Lighting or Photometric Plans with this development, nor any indications of lights on the buildings. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements may not apply between the shared/mixed uses in the overall PUD project area. However, it will be important the developer can show or demonstrate that any new lighting for parking and outside the buildings meet City Code and Mendota Plaza standards. Proposed light fixtures should be downcast/cut-off types of lights and kept to a minimum (number/amount). Staff has included a recommendation to have the developer provide and submit a complete and detailed Lighting-Photometric Plan of the site for approvals. • Parkin,-Analysis The proposed residential development includes 49 surface parking spaces and 69 underground spaces, for a total of 118 spaces. This equates to a ratio of 2.03 spaces/unit. According to Title 12-1E-E of the City Code,the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows: Number And Design Of Parking Spaces:A minimum of two and one-half(21/2)parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards. Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 58-units, strict application of the Code standard would require a minimum of 145 off-street parking spaces. It is Staff s opinion that this 2.5 space per unit appears to be too high and extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and nation. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 11 of 20 page 232 When At Homes presented their apartment proposal in 2016,the issue of 2.5 spaces/unit was discussed and analyzed,and the city planning consultants(Stantec)were authorized to conduct a parking analysis and study for this site,which are excerpted and highlighted below: ■ Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched(except Apple Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit,but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit. ■ Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high. ■ The average for nine projects(not in transit friendly areas)is 1.59/unit. ■ Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since, according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics(see table on the following page),so even without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going down and that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi family projects. ■ The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)publishes a manual on parking demand, citing studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual(2010)shows a range of 1.10-1.37spaces per unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large,some studies in the mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied,so we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide. Apartment Parking—Conclusion & Recommendation Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the 20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement. Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by the City in 2016 for The Reserves)the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows: ■ Parking at 1.6/Unit: 58-units x 1.6=92.8 or 93 spaces or ■ Parking at 1.2/bedroom: (28 -1 bed units @ 1.2=34) +(30 -2-bed @ 2.4= 72) =106 spaces Due to the strong desire to preserve or encourage more open space on this site, it remains the professional opinion of staff that the 118 spaces proposed under this single development plan should be adequate to serve the residents of this site;and is based on the previous study/analysis performed on The Reserves, The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years. Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following: Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet(9) wide and twenty feet(20) in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24) in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway. The proposed parking plans shows the 49 outdoor/surface spaces as 9' x 18' dimensions with a"nose- in" or curb overhanging design, and 24-ft. wide drive aisles. The underground spaces are also shown or measure 9' x 18', with a 24-ft. wide drive aisle. Typically,these stalls may be reduced in length to Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 12 of 20 page 233 compensate for the front bumper hanging over the curb and are similar to existing commercial developments in the city and an accepted industry standard. The planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on whether or not you support or recommend favorably this request to reduce the number of spaces per the plan submittal; and if the reduced setbacks and stall sizes are acceptable. • Park Dedication If the new apartment development is approved,the applicant is required to either contribute 10%of final plat gross area to be dedicated for public use -or contribute a cash payment in-lieu-of land dedication in an amount established by the city. Since no platting is taking place, and due to an expected number of new residents coming in with the new high-density residential development,the cash/in-lieu of payment of$4,000/unit will be requested($4,000 x 58-units=$232,000). Payment of the required park dedication fees is included as a condition of approval. Traffic Impacts With any new developments in and around this centralized commercial/retail/mixed-use hub on Highway 62 and Dodd Road(State Hwy. 149),traffic safety,vehicle movements,access(both in and out of the area) and adequate parking seem to be a major concern to many residents and business owners for this area. This development would retain the right-in only access off of Hwy 62 (to the north); and all other access via North Plaza Drive or South Plaza Drive, which are the only two roadway connections directly on or back out to Dodd Road. In 2017 the city consulted with KLJ Engineering to provide a traffic study of this and other areas in the city,which was referred to as the Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study and completed in February 2018. The study was commissioned to examine existing conditions, traffic and vehicle crash data;traffic operations, and predict future traffic forecasts and operations, and provide alternatives. The study showed that the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62, in its 2017 Existing Conditions, 2040 Base and Build Scenarios that this intersection provides a Level of Service F, which is the lowest score given, and essentially means there are issues that need to be corrected or addressed. Unfortunately, since both of these roadway systems are MnDOT controlled,there is not much the city can require or recommend to fix some of these issues without an expensive alternative or solution. The report did summarize or suggested an alternative to providing a future right-in/right-out intersection at North Plaza Drive off Dodd Road; but there are currently no plans by MnDOT(or the city)to installing or changing this intersection at this time. During the planning and presentation of The Reserves in 2016,traffic was expressed as a concern,especially by the anticipated amount of units and new residents to this area, and the fear these resident's vehicles entering/exiting the site every day, especially during peak AM/Noon/PM hours, would cause some serious traffic issues. The PUD Amendment (47) approving the Gemini Medical facility in 2017, was also determined not to be a factor or serious contributor to increased traffic from the site, due in part to the expected lower number of employees and smaller office/warehouse use (1-story/I7,000-sf. vs. a 3- story/36,000-sf. office building). Casual observations of this site since The Reserve apartments and Gemini Medical opened,has shown there appears to be no serious issues or problems of traffic or congestion attributed to this high-density residential or office development in this PUD project area, and the concerns of serious congestion or crashes in and around this development have not materialized. As part of this new development,the developer has submitted an updated Technical Memorandum—Trip Generation Analysis from Biko Associates (dated 08/09/2021). The memo provides five (5) separate Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 13 of 20 page 234 scenarios and comparisons,based on current development and projected developments on the Phase II site and the separate,but related Phase III site (Lot 7). A summary of findings are noted as follows: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments'Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments'Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 200812009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates(daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips)for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 200812009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. The Reserve Apartment plus the Specialty Retail and Restaurant uses planned in 2016 was projected to generated approx. 1,072 daily trips; while only 530 trips on the apartment complex only. The Biko report indicates that with The Reserve and Phase II apartments, the projected trips is estimated at 844 d/t's; concluding that: • All pass-by trips are gone, • 21 percent of daily trips(228 daily tips)are gone; • 10 percent of AM peak hour trips(7 AM peak hour trips)are gone,and • 20 percent of PM peak hour trips(19 PM peak hour trips)are gone. The traffic memo goes on to conclude with a comparison estimated trip generation with The Reserve,Phase II(58 unit apts.) and child-care (Lot 7) estimated at 1,326 d/t's,versus The Reserve/Phase II and Phase III apartments slightly more at 1,328 d/t's. In the end, the report includes a comparison table that shows what The Reserves + Retail Center + Restaurant+ Child-Care uses would have produced approx. 1,554 daily trips; while the proposed Phase II +Phase III apartments,and The Reserve apartments is projected to produce 1,328 d/t's,or a 17%reduction. A copy of this Technical Memo report,which includes data tables and comparison analysis is appended to this report. In order to ensure a fair and impartial review of this Technical (Traffic)Memo from the developer,the city forwarded this report to our engineering consultants to review and provide comments (Bolton & Menk Traffic Review Memo dated 08/16/2021 — appended to this report). This memo makes the following conclusions and statement: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 14 of 20 page 235 Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic movements and improve safety. The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation was also asked to review the proposed apartment plans with this project,and submitted a review memo with information relating only to drainage,noise,pedestrian/bicycle, and general permitting information. MnDOT apparently chose to either defer to the city [or neglected to provide] any comments related to any potential traffic impacts on to the adjacent state highway roadway systems. MnDOT Review Memo 4S21-049 (dated 08/11/2021)is appended to this report. Finally,as part of The Reserve development approvals,the city prepared and entered into an amended(No. 6)PUD Agreement in 2016. Under this agreement with Mendota Plaza Apartments,LLC(At Home Apts.), Mendota Mall Associates-Outlots, LLC (Howard Paster) and the City of Mendota Heights, the following Section No. 14 was noted: 14. Section 4. 11 Traffic Improvements, including South and North Plaza Drive/Dodd Road (TH 1491 Intersection. Section 4. 11 of the 2009 Development Agreement is hereby amended to delete any obligations of the Developer to complete any improvements to TH 110 and Dodd Road included in the Traffic Study. The Developerhas provided the City with a Traffic Impact Study dated August 8,2016,prepared by Spack Consulting ("2016 Traffic Study'). The Developer acknowledges that the City has expressed concerns over the impact of the Second Addition Improvements on the intersection of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road as well as the intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. If, as a direct result of the Commercial Improvements and Apartment Improvements, the Level of Service falls to an overall below Level of Service F at either of these intersections as set forth in the 2016 Traffic Study without the installation of infrastructure improvements or the adoption of traffic mitigation procedures or improvements, as determined by a qualified traffic engineer reasonably acceptable to the Developer and the City;the Developerand Mendota Plaza Apartments will together be responsible for the City's share of the cost to bring the intersections performances to a Level of Service D or better. The city does not have any alternatives or suggested improvements to offer at this time. Staff would however, suggest the planning commission discuss with the staff and the developer at the hearing/meeting to determine if more study or analysis is required. Should this CUP (PUD Amendment)be approved,this same section/language will be added and made part of the future 8t' Amendment to the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Agreement. Fire Department Review The Fire Department personnel was asked to review these plans and provided the following comments: 1. amount of traffic that is coming out of South Plaza Drive is making difficult for us to get out of the station and get rolling, especially to the north. If this is going to increase that traffic I think we need to look at some sort of traffic preemption system associated with the project. 2. FD is unable to determine where the building's FDC's(fire hose connections) are located in relation to any proposed hydrant locations? 3. FD is unable to tell if there is afire access road around the property? In a follow-up discussion with the Fire Chief, he was simply relaying his "concerns"with increased traffic along Dodd Road,and the continued issues they have with periodic vehicle back-ups and difficulty turning fire trucks north onto Dodd Road. In his opinion, a pre-emption device, similar to an Opticon system normally seen on overhead traffic signals, would be an option to have inside the fire station, so they could trigger the light for northbound traffic at the Hwy 62 and Dodd Road intersection, which in theory would allow vehicles to start moving along Dodd Road—just prior to the trucks leaving the station. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 15 of 20 page 236 Nevertheless,the Fire Chief admits this is not the sole responsibility of the developer to fix,but wanted to make sure the commission is aware of his concerns, and is open to other ideas, suggestions or alternatives to reduce or combat this fire truck exiting issues. There are no dedicated fire access road around the Phase II property,but access from the adjacent highway is possible, and South Plaza Drive along the front will be available. Phase III has roadway or internal driveway systems all around this site. In both cases, the Fire Chief agreed that he (along with the Fire Marshal) would like to work with developer's architects and civil design team, should these plans be approved, and recommend appropriate fire safety measures inside and outside the buildings, which may include identifying (or requiring) the correct number and placement of FDC's, stack pipes and hydrant locations—similar to what they did with The Reserve apartments in 2016. Wetlands Permit According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code,the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: • Provide for protection,preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may resultfrom alteration by earthwork, loss ofvegetation, loss ofwildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection ofpotable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. The proposed project includes new grading and construction activities within 100-feet of a wetland/water resource-related area-Interstate Valley Creek. The northerly area or creek edge was stabilized and improved with a very large and considerable steel sheet pile wall along this north embankment(see image—below). WEP a. .. -r 47- Jiff1A. OL *y = �- The areas near the bottom of the wall and along the flattened or sloped creek banks are heavily vegetated, and will remain so during and after construction. Developer has no plans to impact or affect this waterway or wall during the construction of this project. Normally, the city requires all developments to maintain a 25-foot setback in order to provide a"no-disturbance"or no impact zone from said wetland edge; however, in this case,the wall provides a suitable alternative and reduces or eliminates any negative impacts caused by construction. The stormwater pollution prevention plans(SWPPP)indicate extraordinary measures will be used to protect and safeguard this area during and after construction is completed,and all disturbed areas have been restored. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 16 of 20 page 237 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the attached finding-of-fact,with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if necessary), and 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 to one of the alternatives noted above, and make your recommendation on the reduced standards the Developer is seeking with this new apartment development and accept or revise the attached conditions accordingly. Please note that any new or modified conditions should be reasonable and in fair proportion to the requested development being considered under this PUD Amendment and Wetland Permit review process. The following are the suggested conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council; and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G— Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re- established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. 5. A park dedication fee of$4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half(V/2)times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 17 of 20 page 238 9. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal,state,and local regulations and codes,as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction. 14. All applicable fire and building codes,as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the city's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Letter of Intent/Project Narrative 2. Technical Memorandum-Traffic Analysis by Biko Assoc. (dated 08/09/2021) 3. Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Memo by Bolton&Menk(dated 08/16/2021) 4. MnDOT Review Memorandum(dated 08/11/2021) 5. 2009 Mendota Heights Plaza Master Development Plan 6. Mendota Heights Apartments—Phase II Plans(2021) Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 18 of 20 page 239 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit For PHASE II— The Reserve of Mendota Village The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 58-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza, is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community; provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area, and overall density of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 19 of 20 page 240 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit For PHASE II— The Reserve of Mendota Village The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 1. The 58-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses, natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 20 of 20 page 241 a6home A P A R T M E N T S Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application: Narrative (UPDATED 08.09.2021) This updated narrative is being provided to highlight recent changes in the total unit counts for the two projects that At Home Apartments, L.L.C. (the "Applicant") proposed with its submission of Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. This application outlines the Applicant's plans for the development of the following parcels: 27-48401-01-070 ("Parcel 1"/Lot 7) and 27-48402- 01-010 ("Parcel 2"/Phase II of Reserve). As stated in the initial application, these parcels are currently owned by Mendota Mall Associations- Outlots, LLC. The Applicant is currently under contract to purchase Parcels 1 and 2 for the purpose of redeveloping both parcels with multi-family rental communities. The Applicant's initial plans called for developing a 61-unit "sister" building to the neighboring complex known as The Reserve at Mendota Village and a 113-unit market rate apartment building on Parcel 1/Lot 7 that will complement the nearby apartment complexes but will provide a different product type not available in the nearby vicinity. As is often the case, the Applicant continued to review and modify the interior floor plans for both proposed projects. These modifications and adjustments resulted in larger, but fewer units for both proposed buildings. The proposed unit total for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve is now 58 units and the proposed unit total for Parcel 1/Lot 7 is 89 units. This updated narrative is also being provided to correct a technical oversight in the traffic memorandum that was submitted with the Applicant's application. The original memo omitted a section that highlighted the comparison between the Applicant's proposed development for Parcel 1/Lot 7 and what is the current approved use for that parcel. This oversight resulted in skewed data for the traffic impact the proposed projects will have. An updated memorandum which corrects that oversight and takes into consideration the revised unit totals has been provided for review and reference. Parcel 2/Phase II of Reserve at Mendota Village - Project Description In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the current PUD and corresponding development agreement that allowed for the development of 139 market rate rental housing units and a commercial area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The 139 market rate apartment building, now known as The Reserve at Mendota Village, opened in the summer of 2018 and reached occupancy stabilization within the first 6 months. It has continued to maintain full occupancy to this day. Due to many factors impacting the retail and restaurant real estate markets, followed by the unprecedented obstacles of COVID-19, the goal to develop Parcel 1 consistent with the 2016 approved plans became increasingly challenging. However, the strong and continuous demand for housing opportunities at the Reserve at Mendota Village demonstrated there was a stronger need to expand and develop a second phase for that particular community. page 242 The proposed development for Parcel 2 is a 58-unit apartment building consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727 SQFT, 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822 SQFT, and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428 SQFT. The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit. The units will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with the Reserve at Mendota Village. In addition, the amenity package offered in this second phase will expand and complement the existing amenities available at the Reserve. These amenity spaces will be located on the top —partial fourth floor of the three story apartment building and will include indoor pickleball courts, wine bar, outdoor fire pit, and indoor bocce ball court. The building will also have its own fitness area and common lounge spaces similar to the Reserve. By developing this second phase and allowing the residents of both buildings to enjoy the luxury amenity spaces found within the two buildings, the Applicant will create a resort style housing complex completing the vision of making the Reserve at Mendota Village a destination housing community. Parcel 1/Lot 7 - Project Description The Applicant also intends to develop Parcel 2 by building a four-story apartment building with one and a half levels of underground parking with 110 stalls and 47 surface parking stalls resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. Given the unit matrix of this proposed project and the perceived demographic, we believe this parking ratio is more than sufficient to serve the population. This project, which would open in 2023 is designed to complement the Reserve at Mendota Village but provide an alternative housing option that is not currently available within the city limits. This proposed project is an upscale, modern design apartment building that will provide 89 market rate apartment homes made up of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674 SQFT, 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772 SQFT, 18 large one-bedroom units with an average size of 864 SQFT, 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906 SQFT and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119 SQFT. This project is designed with the younger professional in mind. Mendota Heights is a vibrant community that is centrally located making it very attractive to younger professionals, especially to those that grew up in the area. However, one of the drawbacks is that most of the current housing stock is not attractive to or affordable for this age group. These units will be market rate units, but at a more affordable rental rate than that of the Reserve at Mendota Village. The amenity spaces located at this property will include an on-site leasing office, mail and package delivery room, state of the art fitness and yoga studio, and a separate clubhouse building with exterior connections creating a unique outdoor living space. This proposed project will have an excellent walkability score due to its proximity to local restaurants, shops, and other retail. This factor combined with easy access to public parks and walking trail systems, and several major highway connections, makes this project a desirable housing option for younger professionals or young adults starting out on their own while helping the City stay competitive with the surrounding communities. Community Impact Though the Applicant is applying for this conditional use to amend the guided uses for the subject parcels, the proposed use (multifamily housing) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare to the community, the proposed uses will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards as summarized in the attached traffic memo, the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding page 243 property value and the proposed use is in harmony with general purpose and intent of the City Code and its comprehensive plan. Overall, these two projects provide a benefit to the community because they allow for the redevelopment of two sites in a manner that is consistent with the City's housing and density goals while balancing the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic Understanding that impact on traffic is a genuine and obvious concern when new projects are being proposed, the Applicant contracted Biko Associates to prepare a technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for the two proposed development projects. This analysis not only provided the trip generation estimates of the proposed apartment projects but also compared these data against the trip generation estimates for the current allowed uses, a restaurant and retail building on Parcel 2/Phase 11 of Reserve and a 10,130 SQFT day care/child education center on Parcel 1/Lot 7. The traffic memorandum, which has been submitted with the Applicant's application, documents the analysis for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve and shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. Similarly, the analysis for Parcel 1/Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to note that the peak hour trips, which are of greater concern, are significantly lower. The combined analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 PUD amendment plus the original 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by Applicant. Development Schedule Assuming that the approval process follows the published schedule, the Applicant would like to commence construction on the Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve in the fall of 2021. Due to the smaller scale of the proposed building for this phase the anticipated construction timeline is approximately nine (9) months. The Applicant would then plan on breaking ground on Parcel 1/Lot 7 in the spring of 2022 with the goal of a spring 2023 delivery. Parcel 1/Lot 7 — Architectural Design The Parcel 1/Lot 7 development consists of 89 units and 157 parking stalls. The site area is 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 44 units/acre. The building is designed with a full level of underground parking and a partial level of above grade parking. The site has significant grade changes up to ten feet with the north and east being lower than the southwest corner. The grade change allows the lower level of parking to have direct access from the north, and the upper level has direct access from the west. The front entry is located on the eastern end of the building. We believe this is the best residential entry point as it connects with the residential use to the east and provides the best pedestrian access to the commercial area, the trails, and the other residential development of the Reserve. Due to the grade change, the entry is at the lower level of parking. This entry will have a grand two-story space that connects residents and visitors to the main / page 244 first level. The main level has direct access to a south facing courtyard. The courtyard will contain a clubhouse with residential amenity spaces, patio and seating areas, grilling stations, and an area for fire pits and lounging. A decorative trellis at the south end of the courtyard will provide shade and some privacy to the residents, and visual interest to the street. The community courtyard will have additional common area amenities surrounding the courtyard and some individual residential units with patios and balconies overlooking the space. Gardens will surround this courtyard area for resident enjoyment. The southwest corner of the building being at higher grade allows for three `walk-up' style units. Parking is conveniently located under the building for nearly every unit, with additional parking for every second bedroom, and visitors. The building will be constructed of one and a half levels of concrete, and 3 and a half level of wood frame construction. The first level with parking will be half concrete and half wood-frame. This site will be predominantly one-bedroom apartments with a range of generous sizes. The units will have a high level of finishes providing an upscale feel. The design is intended to attract a wide variety of people but we believe it will be mostly young professionals, younger renters from the community not quite ready to purchase homes, and community residents looking for housing and price options that don't exist in the area. The design is a mix of brick and siding. The siding picking up some wood tones to give it a residential feel, and to blend with some of the details and design of the Reserve, while still providing a distinct look and feel for this parcel. The design also features balconies for the vast majority of the units and large window openings to provide strong connections to the outdoors. Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve —Architectural Design The Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve consists of 58 units and 118 parking stalls. The site area is approximately 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 28 units/acre. The building is designed to be similar to the Reserve with the same brick, with stone, and with the same detailing as the first phase. The layout of the building also mirrors the first phase of the development picking up on the forty-five-degree angle and matching the stone at the ends of the building to provide a harmonious entry. This phase will be predominately three stories. There will be a partial fourth floor providing amenities that are not seen in the first phase of the Reserve and are very unique to the market. This fourth floor is envisioned to be a roof-top clubhouse with indoor bocce-ball, indoor pickle ball, and community gathering spaces along with a roof-top deck. The amenities in this building are designed to complement the first building with residents able to use either facility creating not just the look of a community with the similar buildings, but also interaction between residents that will help create community. The building design will be cohesive with the existing building with the brick and stone, wood tone siding, some large overhangs and an entry that will be similar to phase one. The window types, colors and patterns will also be the same as the phase one project providing for consistency. Some of the elements have been scaled down as this is only a three story building whereas the first Reserve building is four to five stories. The lower level will be concrete construction and contains seventy-one underground parking stalls. The grade change allows this to be easily accessed from the southern end of the site. The main level is accessed from the south side as well, with easy access to visitor parking. Due to the grade change, there is an upper and lower level parking area that works with the grade and will help the building fit into the site providing some unique character as well. The central area contains an existing underground storm water treatment system and will be developed with some green space and gardens at this central area. The upper levels are wood frame apartments with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Approximately half of these units also contain dens or secondary home office areas. This will have upscale amenities, page 245 finishes and features comparable to the Reserve. The sizing of the units is meant to compliment the phase one building and by doing so has added some larger units from 1400-1650 SQFT. Being a second phase, we believe the residential profile will be similar to the Reserve, but we have also identified a need for larger units to meet the needs of existing community residents looking for apartment by choice style living. Parcel 2/Phase 2 of the Reserve — Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 58-unit apartment adjacent to The Reserve at Mendota Village. Stormwater Design When The Reserve was constructed on the adjacent lot, the project included a two-cell underground stormwater chamber system to treat stormwater both from the Reserve apartment development and from the two retail buildings that were proposed on Parcel 2. The primary function of the first cell, southeast of South Plaza Way, is to infiltrate stormwater. The primary purpose of the second cell is to control the rate of discharge of stormwater into the existing wetland southwest of the site. The system was designed to treat 137,410 SF of total impervious surface spanning both lots and a portion of South Plaza Way that passes between them. This included 62,747 SF of impervious surface on Parcel 2. This proposed project to construct an apartment building on Parcel 2 reduces the proposed surface on Parcel 2 from 62,747 SF to 60,610 SF and the total from 13 7,4 10 SF to 135,273 SF. The proposed project will construct a stormwater collection system that will capture and convey runoff from the eastern developed portion of the site to the infiltration chamber southeast of South Plaza Way. Since the proposed development has less impervious coverage than the original design, it can be concluded that the existing system will support the proposed development. Overflow from the infiltration chamber will continue to be routed through the second cell of the system before ultimate discharge to the existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. Runoff from the western portion of the site will continue to pass through the existing pond at the west end of the property and be discharged into the same existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. This application includes a Stormwater Management Report for Parcel 1 that describes how the project meets all stormwater requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, including infiltration, rate control, water quality, and temporary best management practices to be implemented during construction. Sanitary Sewer Similar to the shared stormwater infrastructure, The Reserve at Mendota Village also included construction of a sanitary sewer lift station that is intended to be shared between Parcel 2 and the existing apartment building. This system is in place and actively serving the adjacent apartments with a stub that was extended to serve future development on Parcel 2. The system was originally designed to convey sanitary flows from two retail buildings on Parcel 2. The applicant has reviewed calculations to verify that the existing lift station has adequate capacity to serve the proposed change in land use from retail to residential. According to information received from Electric Pump, Inc., the contractor who constructed the lift station, the system has a capacity of 145 gal/min. A typical flow rate for residential populations of less than 5,000 is 60 to 70 gallons per day. page 246 Therefore, the existing lift station has a capacity to serve 2,980 to 3,480 people. When applying a conservative peaking factor of 4.0, which is appropriate for systems with pipe sizes less than 10-inches diameter or for 250 people, the lift station can still serve a population of up to 745 to 870 people. Water Main The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion developments constructed a ductile iron pipe network within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system. The pipe network serving this development is constructed within public utility easements and provides both water supply and fire protection. There is a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 2 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and design to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The Applicant is uncertain if an existing agreement maintenance agreement has been executed with the City of Mendota Heights documenting their responsibility of the maintenance of the underground stormwater chamber system or sanitary sewer lift station. If these agreements are not already in place, the Applicant will work with the City to execute an agreement to maintain these systems. Parcel 1/Lot 7— Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 89-unit apartment on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Mendota Plaza Expansion development. Stormwater When the Mendota Plaza Expansion development was originally constructed, the developer constructed a stormwater pond in the north central portion of the site, along the south side of the existing wetland that passes through the site. The developer also constructed a stormwater collection system to convey water to the stormwater pond. The stormwater infrastructure was originally permitted in 2009, based on the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RLK Inc. dated December 22, 2008. The infrastructure was designed to meet the stormwater regulations that were in place at the time. However, stormwater regulations have changed since the original approvals. The City of Mendota Heights now requires Atlas 14, MSE-3 24-hr rainfall distributions to be used for stormwater design. The City also has implemented requirements for stormwater infiltration and phosphorus removal. page 247 This application includes a stormwater management plan with calculations demonstrating the compliance of the site with the new regulations. The existing infrastructure supports the updated rate control requirements. However, the original system did not provide any infiltration, and did not fully meet the updated phosphorus removal requirements. This project proposes construction of an underground stormwater chamber beneath the proposed eastern parking lot. This proposed chamber will be designed to meet the infiltration requirements. By doing so, the volume reduction achieved by the proposed underground chamber will also exceed the phosphorus removal requirements. Sanitary Sewer The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion development constructed PVC sanitary sewer main collection system to serve the development. This collection system is routed to the City of Mendota Heights public sanitary sewer system. The lateral main serving this development is an 8" PVC main with a 6" PVC stub that is deep enough to provides gravity service to the proposed development. Water Main Similar to Parcel 2, the ductile iron pipe network constructed within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system also provides a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 1 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The proposed project on Parcel 1 will connect to existing public storm water, sanitary, and water main infrastructure. The Applicant will maintain the private stormwater infiltration chamber proposed under the east parking lot, and the segments of private service connections that are within the proposed Parcel 1 boundary but not included within the public drainage and utility easements. BIKO ASSOCIATES page248 I N C 0 R P 0 R A I F D Technical Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2021 TO: Leanna Stefaniak, President Real Estate& Development, At Home Apartments FROM: William Smith,AICP Daniel Lubben RE: Trip Generation Analysis Introduction Biko Associates prepared this technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments in Mendota Heights, Minnesota.The first is a 58-unit apartment building designed to be the second phase of the Reserve at Mendota Village and referred to herein as Mendota 2. The second is an 89-unit apartment building to be built on Lot 7 within the Mendota Plaza PUD and referred to herein as the Mendota Lot 7 development. Summary of Findings: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. (See comparison between Scenarios 1 and 3 in Table 6 on page 12.) 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. (See comparison between Scenarios 4 and 5 in Table 6 on page 12.) 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. (See Table 7 on page 14.) As the volume of generated trips is a major factor in the operational performance of traffic and the Levels of Service (LOS) traffic will exhibit at key intersections, it is reasonable to assume, where other factors remain constant, that lower traffic volumes will result in better traffic operations and higher LOS at intersections. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND Di SIGN LAND ITSE, Atilt FRANSPORTATION POLICY RESE tR( H AND ANALYSIS GRAIN BELT BRENN ERY BOTTLnG HOUSE 79 13th AVENUE, N.E. STUDIO 107 ..1iINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413-I073 P110NE-612-623-4000 FAX:612-623-0200 w►V w. h 1 k o a s,.o c l a l e s . c o in page 249 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 2 Background Mendota 2 Background: Five years ago in 2016, Paster Properties proposed an expansion of Mendota 2, a parcel located in the northeast corner of Mendota Plaza. The proposed Mendota 2 expansion was to include three uses: 1) an apartment building with149 dwelling units, 2) retail space at 4,826 square feet, and 3) a 6,000 square foot restaurant. Spack Consulting was contracted by Paster Properties to prepare a traffic study to determine how traffic generated by the proposed expansion project would impact traffic operations at surrounding intersections and, in particular, how a proposed right-in/right-out driveway would affect operations on TH 62 and impact safety. Figures 1 and 2, which are taken from the Spack Consulting traffic study, are provided to show the location of the Mendota 2 expansion proposed in 2016 and the site plan for the expansion project. Of the three uses proposed in 2016, only the apartment building (The Reserve at Mendota Village)was actually constructed with 139 units instead of 149 units. With the remaining site lying vacant, At Home Apartments is now under contract to purchase the property and is proposing to develop a 58-unit,three story mid-rise apartment building with both underground and surface level parking. The 58-unit apartment is referred to as Mendota 2, and construction is proposed to begin in fall of 2021. lo' Study Area ^ �-....a �E i kk i Nov b � . r a wIT, 4. Proposed Site 4 R's ry Figure 1: Development Site Regional Location Source: Traffic Impact Study: Mendota Plaza Expansion, Spack Consulting, August 8, 2016. page 250 Id tE ti cu u 41 Ca u Ca cu ci cu �3 06' :t to CF) uO -E ub 0 j5 u M 4J 0) CL c co Ln CU E o co 0 C) LU (a cz fC ro (a 0 cu ui J cu 4� 4� L/) 1 0 4 C) 2 u . cz CV (a � c c O a (a (D m cz cu u (D CZ 41 cz O cz cz 41 0 cz _j = U as(D CY) tA LL Uo Ln page 251 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 4 Mendota Lot 7 Development Background: In a PUD application from 2008/2009, a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7,which is located at the southern end of Mendota Plaza and on the north side of South Plaza Drive. The childcare/education facility was never built, and At Home Apartments is proposing to develop an 89-unit,five/six story mid-rise apartment in this location. It is hoped that construction on the 89-unit apartment would begin in the spring/summer of 2022 with a 2023 delivery date. Schematic elevations for the childcare/education facility, prepared by KKE Architects in January 2009, are shown below on Figure 3. _ T, R PROW c SOLIT'H ELEVATI❑ �r dd0"r JO' PROP_4_S.EDDAYCARECENTER _— — Md 1lOL9Y.E9 Figure 3: Schematic Elevations for Childcare/Education Facility Proposed in 2008/2009 The locations of both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota-Lot 7 developments are shown on Figure 4 on the following page. page 252 ., • • • .• • • . • s Q �• �h *[ •' tro • �." A � L • • • • • • G1 TLL ig r fC 41 41 ro r �. t � ' „ r a x 01 * 1 • . Q ++ H v -u,F .. a n c o � O aJ m w LL J 3 GJ bb vi M � Q a page 253 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 6 Trip Generation Analysis This section of the technical memorandum addresses trip generation and presents results of trip generation analyses in tables that support the Summary of Findings on page 1 and the Comparisons and Conclusions on page 12. Trip generation analyses are conducted as an element of Traffic Impact Studies to estimate the volume of trips that will be attracted to and depart from specific uses located on the Mendota Plaza site. Five development scenarios will be discussed in this section of the memorandum. Scenario 1: Trip Generation Estimate for the 2016 Mendota 2 Expansion Program A trip generation analysis for uses included in the 2016 expansion program was prepared by Spack Consulting. As shown in Table 1, on page 8, the expansion program was estimated to generate a low to moderate volume of trips over the course of an average week day. At the same time, the respective volumes of AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips were estimated to be almost "unremarkable." As presented in Table 1, Spack Consulting identified some of the trips as pass-by trips. These trips are "intermediate stops on the way" between a trip origin and an intended trip destination. One way to think about pass-by trips is that some of them can be "spur of the moment" trips where, for example, a driver is passing by a McDonalds restaurant, sees the Golden Arches, suddenly craves a Big Mac, then turns into the McDonalds' parking lot, purchases a Big Mac, and exits the parking lot to continue the original trip. Pass-by trips do not comprise new trips on roadway links adjacent to trip attractions but they do impact the driveways that serve them. Non-pass-by trips, by comparison, are new trips---trips that would not be on adjacent roadway links were it not for the attraction. In Table 1, for example, it is shown that the 2016 expansion program was estimated to generate 536 daily inbound trips and 536 daily outbound trips, and 35 percent of these (381 trips) are pass- by trips that would impact traffic operations at South Plaza Drive, North Plaza Access, and the right-in/right-out driveway on TH 62. These trips, however, would not have an impact on the intersection of TH 62/TH 149 because they are not new trips being added to the system. In essence, they are already included in the volume of trips that are already on the road. As Table 1 correctly indicates, the apartment building (a residential use) does not generate pass-by trips. As shown in Table 1, if the Mendota 2 Expansion Program had been implemented as originally planned, there would have been: E 1,072 daily trips, of which 381 would have been pass-by trips 0 73 AM peak hour trips, of which 17 would have been pass-by trips E 97 PM peak hour trips, of which 32 would have been pass-by trips page 254 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 7 Scenario 2: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 The impact of not building the proposed retail shops and restaurant in 2016 is one where trips estimated to be generated by those uses never materialized. Thus, they should be subtracted from the totals shown in Table 1. See Table 2 on page 8, which describes trip generation for what was actually built, i.e., the existing condition. As shown in Table 2, the volume of trips actually generated today is: 0 530 daily trips 0 46 AM peak hour trips E 52 PM peak hour trips Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the following reductions in trips have been realized by not building the originally proposed retail and restaurant uses. * Pass-by trips never materialized * 51 percent of daily trips (542 daily trips) never materialized ul 37 percent of AM peak hour trips (27 AM peak hour trips) never materialized E 46 percent of PM peak hour trips (45 PM peak hour trips) never materialized o \ q o 0 0 0 .. . \ .. .. \ .Y $ $ / _ 2 / » q � g \ 2 / o o � \ u to to } ƒ ƒ , q \ $ § / . , q o o q / -0 \ \ 7 m \ D \ § 7 0 0 e § / / / / _ \ / / z m Ln ® - _ . z � 00 \ k • \ _ ( 2 . (a e e u f ■ ' / 0 o m E o o E , I w m Ln \ 3 (a = tom z 0) q -Fa\ f z o o t f . / 0 / C $ $ q $ % J o 0 0 o e ' � 2 2 ( \ 7 t 7 \ q q q <CU to 7 \ o o en7 q w = e q \ o . Lu a t 0 e / f i q $ \ / � f o o $ / , \ 0 E E LU E 2 2 _m Ln g w tD § / G _m q Ln G \ q e Ln - \ k 0 C / k a) 2 u / E \ ( \ N \ 7 L t q o 2 / o / , / / { , { - a fu = - 7 = ! ° : a ! ° � _ k ' \ _ ± { = E u k ' \ _ ± m 0 ± a ° a ? W \ E e > / ) R ' ? k \ E / : j \ t \ \ t g k / k t \ \ t g f f ■ ° � 2 7 m = 0 ■ ° � � 2 7 3 0 { o § » ( ° 0 9 ( ° 2 ■ N 2 u ■ � 2 u » \ % E $ \ � e � E & - < � ƒ E E @ 3 : < � ƒ \ @ 2 M 2 / / \ Ln G a Ln G § f 2 — — / \ . � tA ? ° E u z u d ° E u z / } m to m — - 0 � 0 0 = — - 0 � 0 0 = k J a � I e 0 | � I e 0 , , page 256 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 9 Scenario 3: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 and the Proposed Mendota 2 At Home Apartments proposes to build a 58-unit apartment (Mendota 2) on the parcel where the retail and restaurant uses were proposed in 2016. Presented in Table 3, below, are results from a trip generation analysis conducted to estimate the total number of trips that would be generated by the 149-unit apartment (The Reserve at Mendota Village), which was constructed in 2016, and the currently proposed Mendota 2 apartment. Table 3 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota 2, Combined Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Total 207 dus 422 1 422 1 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 Source: ++ Local date collected by Spack Consulting. +++ Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 3 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Comparing Table 1 to Table 3, it is shown that by implementing the proposed Mendota 2 residential development, fewer trips will be generated than those estimated for the original 2016 expansion program. Implementing the proposed Mendota 2 project, instead of the 4,826 square foot retail and 6,000 square foot restaurant uses, will yield the following: * All pass-by trips are gone * 21 percent of daily trips (228 daily tips) are gone * 10 percent of AM peak hour trips (7 AM peak hour trips) are gone * 20 percent of PM peak hour trips (19 PM peak hour trips) are gone Scenario 4: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve at Mendota Village, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Education Facility As mentioned, a 10,130 square foot daycare/educational facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7. It was never constructed, and At Home Apartments is proposing an 89- unit apartment for this location. Table 4 shows the volume of trips that would have been generated if the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility were constructed on Lot 7, along page 257 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 10 with The Reserve (which is already constructed), and assuming Mendota 2 is approved for implementation. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Educational Facility Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility on Mendota- Lot 7 ITE Code 565+++ Total 207 dus 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 and childcare facility Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 4 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 As shown in Table 4, this development scenario is estimated to result in: E 1,326 daily trips E 177 AM peak hour trips 0 191 PM peak hour trips Scenario 5: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development This analysis considers trip generation for the combination of three At Home Apartments residential developments; where the Mendota Lot 7 development is implemented instead of the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility. As shown in Table 5, below, the volume of trips that will be generated by the Mendota-Lot 7 development is low. Likewise, the addition of this proposed development will result in a total volume of trips that is low over the course of an entire day and, more importantly, is also low to low/moderate during the peak hours. page 258 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 11 Table 5 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Mendota Lot 7 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 ITE Code 221+++ Total 296 dus 664 1 664 1 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 286, not 296, and the estimated trips generated by the Reserve in Table 5 are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Table 5 shows that by implementing the Mendota Lot 7 development, instead of the childcare/education facility, along with The Reserve and Mendota 2, the volume of trips is estimated to be: E 1,328 daily trips E 97 AM peak hour trips 0 118 PM peak hour trips Comparisons and Conclusions Comparisons: Table 6 presents side-by-side comparisons of estimated trip generation for each of five development scenarios. As shown, Scenario 4, which includes the 2008/2009 childcare/education facility,is estimated to generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when compared to the other scenarios. page 259 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 12 Table 6 Comparison of Estimated Trip Generation Scenario Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 1)The • 149-du 536 536 1072 20 53 73 62 35 97 original2016 Apartment** Expansion • 4,826 SF Retail Program • 6,000 SF Restaurant 2) 2016 • 149-du 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 What was Apartment** actually built 3) Post 2016 • 149-du 422 422 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 What was Apartment ** actually built • 58 du combined Apartment with Mendota 2 4) What was • 149 du 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58 du Mendota 2, Apartment plus a • 10,130 SF Childcare/ Childcare/ Education Education Facility Facility 5) What was • 149-du 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58-du Mendota 2, Apartment plus • 89-du Mendota Lot Apartment 7 Development ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. page 260 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 13 Conclusions: Four important conclusions are outlined below. 1. Compare Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. The addition of At Home Apartments' proposed, 58- unit apartment(the Mendota 2 development) will result in lower trip generation than would have occurred if the 2016 expansion program had been implemented. 2. Compare Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment (the Mendota Lot 7 development) will result in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility; 1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference, however, in the volume of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcare/educational facility, would generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89- unit apartment; 177 AM peak hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5 will generate 118. 3. Compare Trip Generation for what was Proposed in 2016 and 2008/2009 against what is Proposed Today. As Table 7 shows, the planned uses for the subject parcels from the original 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD would have yield 1,554 daily trips. This is to be compared to the volume of daily trips (1,328) that will be generated by the Reserve and currently proposed uses (58 units on Mendota 2 and 89 units on Mendota 7). Table 7 also shows that the volume of peak hour trips, which is critically more important than the volume of daily trips, will be lower with the newly proposed uses, compared to the originally proposed uses from the 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD. As shown, the differences are stark: • Compare 184 AM peak hour trips to 97, a difference of 87 vehicles per hour • Compare 210 PM peak hour trips to 118, a difference of 92 vehicles per hour. Peak hour traffic volumes are more critical than those that occur over the course of a 24-hour day, because the peak hours are time periods where traffic volumes are at their highest within a short period of time. page 261 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 14 Table 7 Trip Generation for 2016 PUD Amendment and 2008/2009 PUD Compared to Trip Generation for Currently Proposed Uses [use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out Total In I Out I Total In Out Total Trip Generation for Fully Implemented 2016 PUD Amendment and 00: 00• PUD Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Specialty Retail 4,826 SF 60 60 120 9 10 19 3 4 7 Restaurant 6,000 SF 211 211 422 5 3 8 25 13 38 Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility Total 1 777 777 1554 79 105 184 122 88 210 ProposedTrip Generation for Currently Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Mid-Rise Apartment 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Mid-Rise Apartment 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Total 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 4. Compare Scenario 2 and Scenario 5. The differences between these two scenarios describe the increases that can be expected between the existing condition and a future condition where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both constructed. This comparison shows that by implementing the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments, as currently proposed, the following increases over the existing condition can be expected. • Daily + 798 trips • AM Peak + 51 trips • PM Peak + 66 trips These increases between the current condition and a future condition (where the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both implemented)are not significant and are typically thought to be too low to have a profound effect on traffic operations. Their relative insignificance becomes obvious when compared to the increases in trips that would have occurred if the original 2016 PUD Amendment (the 149- page 262 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 15 unit Reserve, the 4,826 square foot retail space, and the 6,000 square foot restaurant) and the 2008/2009 PUD had been implemented as planned. ■ Daily + 1,024 trips ■ AM Peak + 138 trips ■ PM Peak + 158 trips By comparison,these increases over the existing condition are greater and are more likely to have an impact on peak hour traffic operations than the increases that are estimated under Scenario 5, where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are implemented. page 263 B O LTA N 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337-1649 i & M ENK Ph: 1952) 890-0509 Real People. Real Solutions. Fax: (9521 890-6065 Bolton-Menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2021 To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director, City of Mendota Heights From: Bryan Nemeth, P.E. Subject: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review City of Mendota Heights Project No.: ORI.125201 This memorandum provides a review of the proposed development and the associated traffic analysis dated August 9, 2021 (Trip Generation Analysis). The August 9,2021 study references a previous traffic impact study completed for the project area that included the some of the area under consideration for development. As this is the basis for the traffic analysis, the study results were reviewed. 2016 Analysis Study Review The 2016 study proposed maintaining two full access points on the west to TH 149/Dodd Road and proposed adding one right-in/right-out or just a right-in access on the north to TH 62 (previously TH 110). Ultimately,the access to TH 62 was constructed with right-in access only. The 2016 study indicates that there will be resulting poor levels of service for all of the intersections by 2040 with the development but also indicates that improvements are beyond the scope of the study. Review of the queues resulting from the 2016 study indicates that the AM northbound queues at TH 62/TH 149 increase by 100 to 150 feet with the development in 2040 compared to the existing scenario in 2016. The AM queue can be accommodated with the existing access spacing on TH 149 and does not appear to be a concern. The PM queue in 2016 already extended past the North Plaza Access and would be longer by around 75 feet in 2018 and 1,200 feet in 2040 with the right-in access. Additionally, any queuing on the Plaza accesses to TH 149/Dodd Road are shown to be acceptable but would operate at LOS F in the 2040 scenarios. Overall, the study indicated that an access to TH 62 would provide some, if minimal, improvement to operations. The biggest improvement is likely a safety improvement to TH 149/Dodd Road, south of TH 62,by not having as much traffic make the southbound left turn movement into the accesses off TH 149/Dodd Road. Trip Generation The traffic study Technical Memorandum documented the trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments. This includes: • Mendota 2: 58-unit apartment • Lot 7: 89-unit apartment It is proposed that the increase in trips from the new development for Mendota 2 would be less than what was previously proposed in 2016, so no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, Lot 7 was previously proposed as a daycare/childhood center in a 2008/2009 PUD application but it is unknown whether a traffic analysis was completed with it. Review of historical aerial images indicates that Lots 6 H:\MHGT\OR1125201\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\2021-08-16_Plaza Expansion Development Traffic Review.docx Bolton&Mark is an equal opportunity employer. page 264 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 2 and 7 of the area were not developed by the time of the 2016 study. Consequently, the 2016 traffic impact study does not appear to take the Lot 6 or Lot 7 development into account. The ITE Trip Generation analysis uses the correct rates resulting in the following for Mendota Plaza. This also displays the previous trip projections for the two sites. Site Mendota Plaza Trip Projections 2009/2016 Trip Projections(new trips) Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak Mendota 2 314 20 26 542 27 45 Lot 7 484 31 40 482 111 113 Total 798 51 66 1,024 138 158 This results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily for"Mendota 2"than the previous development proposed in those areas for the 2016 study. This also results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and essentially the same for daily trips for Lot 7 than the previous development proposed in the area from the 2008/2009 PUD Application. This indicates that the new development would likely result in fewer trips than previously proposed, especially during the critical AM and PM peak hours. By itself, this does not indicate that the operations are acceptable or that the proposed development does not need to provide transportation network improvements. This new additional traffic will be added to the traffic that is there today. The most noticeable change is likely to be on South Plaza Drive, since much of the Lot 7 traffic would likely use South Plaza Drive to access TH 149/Dodd Road,due to proximity and due to queues on TH 149. Traffic Operations The 2016 study indicated substantial operational concerns with or without any new development in the area.This is a result of existing traffic volumes on the roadway, increased background traffic growth due to new development locally and region-wide, and the new proposed development. The poor operations are likely a concern for MnDOT(jurisdiction over TH 149 and TH 110) and the city of Mendota Heights, especially when it impacts the safety of the traveling public. As indicated previously, the new development by itself does not appear to be the biggest driver for the operational concerns, as the 2018 operations appear to be minimally different than the 2016 operations prior to the expanded development. But the new development will add trips to the network,resulting in slightly longer queue lengths. Additional review of options for improved operations and safety, such as different access configurations at both North Plaza and South Plaza Drive may need to be considered. Traffic Safety Review A review of the recent crashes in the area was completed to understand how the most recent development since 2016 impacted traffic safety and if improvements are needed in the area, especially as traffic increases due to additional development. Location 2014-2016 Crashes 2018-2020 Crashes Notes Angle Rear-end Other Angle Rear-end Other Dodd/South Plaza - 1* - 1* - - Dodd/North Plaza 2* 1* - 1** 2* 1 TH 62/Ri ht-in - - - I - - - *Crash involved a northbound queue backup through the intersection **Crash involved a motorized scooter using the pedestrian crossing ***No crashes appear to involve the right turn off of TH 62 S ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 265 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 3 Overall,it appears that the development increase did not result in an increase in crashes or a reduction in safety. The crash data does indicate that there is a consistent crash type occurring on TH 149, especially when there is a long queue evident that extends south from TH 62. The number of crashes are low though, and would not appear to be a substantial concern. With the increased traffic at South Plaza Drive, constructing a southbound left turn lane at South Plaza Drive would be anticipated to provide a safety improvement by allowing southbound traffic to bypass southbound left turning vehicles, especially since the access appears to be blocked by vehicles on a frequent basis. The proposed development on Lot 7 would likely increase the number of southbound left turning vehicles in the PM peak hour, when the queues appear to be the most prevalent. Mendota 2 development does have some safety concerns that should be rectified prior to development. The current north access occurs right after the right turn off of TH 62 and is directly after the entrance sign structure. These are significant safety concerns for sight lines. The north access should be moved south to provide more distance from TH 62 and the sign structure. Additionally,the signing and striping of the internal roadway that connects to the right-in off of TH 62 should be revised to make it easier for motorists to understand the traffic movements allowed in the area as the Mendota 2 site is developed. Pedestrian Considerations The network for pedestrians appears to provide access to all of the currently developed parcels except for Lot 6.With the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 the pedestrian network should be expanded to serve those parcels. Of special consideration, the transit stop on South Plaza Drive is not connected to the overall pedestrian network,nor is the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive. A sidewalk or trail should be extended from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. Additionally, the sidewalk/trail should extend from the access points for the building on Lot 7 to this sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive. This would provide access to the overall transportation network and the transit stop from Lot 7. Pedestrian network access to and from Mendota 2 can expand on what has already been completed in the area during Phase 1. Mendota 2 should connect to this network of sidewalk and trail to the east. In conjunction with the above improvements, the current pedestrian activated RRFB located on the southeast corner of TH 149/S Plaza Dr should be considered for relocation to the north side of the intersection since that is where the pedestrian crossing is located, to get it in compliance with the MnMUTCD. Conclusions The following improvements are recommended to be made to the surrounding transportation network to improve pedestrian connections and improve potential safety concerns with the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 into apartments: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Ba{ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 266 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 4 Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic movements and improve safety. O ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. DEPARTMENT OF MetropgJSrbtrict MI TRANSPORTATION 1500 County Road West Roseville, MN 55113 August 11, 2021 Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 SUBJECT: At Home Apartments - MH MnDOT Review#S21-049 SE quadrant of MN 149 and MN 62 Control Section: 1917 Mendota Heights, Dakota County Dear Tim Benetti, Thank you for submitting the plans for At Home Apartments—MH. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, received 7/19/21, and has the following comments: Drainage A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed, and additional information may be requested. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234- 7539 or jason.swenson(cstate.mn.us with any questions. Noise MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, An equal opportunity employer page 268 Page 2 of 3 listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries, Metro District Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Riesg state.mn.us. Pedestrian and Bicycle Consider including indoor bicycle parking and making sidewalk connections to South Plaza Way ADA accessible so all road users can easily access the Parcel 2 building. Please contact Jesse Thomsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or jesse.thornsen(a�state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT's Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.crai gg state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT's goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s)to MnDOT's web transfer client site at: https:Hmft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Please do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. page 269 Page 3 of 3 You are welcome to contact me at(651) 234-7792 or david.kratz(c�state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Ryan Wilson, Area Manager Buck Craig, Permits Mackenzie Turner Barger, PedBike Ben Klismith, Right of Way Jesse Thomsen, PedBike Almin Ramic, Traffic Lance Schowalter, Design Jason Junge, Transit Cameron Muhic, Planning Natalie Ries, Noise Tod Sherman, Planning Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Casey Crisp, Surveying Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council page 270 page 271 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com * CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 24, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-13 (ref. Lot 7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT APPLICANT: At Home Apartments/Mendota Mall Associates, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: South Plaza Drive & South Plaza Way-Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 (Extended Statutory Review Period) INTRODUCTION At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development(PUD)and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12- 1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7),and is generally located to the south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building,or the vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is an 89-unit apartment building. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item. BACKGROUND The Plaza mall site encompasses approximately 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009,Mendota Mall Associates (Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, which included a new overall land use and zoning category of Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential development area,which would include the large retail (strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant pad sites,various sized offices,childcare center and a pharmacy(refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD Master/Final Development Plan 2009). page 272 Under the original 2009 Plan,the mall owners identified this Lot 7 as"Future Child Care— 10,300-sf. (see highlighted image below). ff J ti UL �� � w.wr sari r :•.�, .ors o : •� ��,• ,f L I ihi •------ rmwlt1 Mendota Plaza PUD Master Plan -2009 Since 2009,the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments, with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment No.6 in 2016,and the latest No.7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. This proposed development would become part of the eighth amendment(along with the Phase II— 58-unit development on the north)if approved. As noted in the applicant's narrative,Paster Properties has made numerous attempts to sell and develop the subject site as a child care center or other allowable use, but have not been able to secure any new development on this back and somewhat secluded site. Paster is now permitting At Home Apts.to officially request this PUD Amendment in order to revise the final development plan and possibly allow the site to be developed with a new 89-unit apartment development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/ SITE IMPROVEMENTS The subject parcel is mostly triangular in shape, and consists of 88,676-sq. ft. or 2.04 acres. The parcel is currently vacant;and has a multi-tenant monument sign located at the southwest corner(see image below). The proposed development for Phase III— Lot 7 is a four story, 89-unit apartment building, with 139,126 gross square feet of parking and living area. The new apartment will consist of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674-sf.; 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772-sf.; 18 large page 273 one-bedroom units with an average size of 864-sf; 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906-sf; and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119-sf. These market rate units range in size from a low of 625 to 676 sf. and a high of 775 — 960 sf. for the one-bedroom units, and a low of 1,193-sf. and up to 1,225-sf. for the 2-bed units. The building will consist of one and one-half levels of underground parking,with 110 stalls and 47 surface (outdoor)parking stalls, resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. The developers are requesting to have the proposed apartment building with setbacks of 25-feet along the west and south property lines; and 10-ft. setbacks for the outdoor parking lot along South Plaza Drive. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the following applicable policies/standards for facade design,building materials, and doors/windows: • Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. • Undulating fagade shall be encouraged. • Exterior fagade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian. • Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into fagade design. • Materials shall be selectedfor suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings. • Materials shall be durable quality. • Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable. • All wood treatment shall be painted and weatherproofed. • A minimum of 25%of the fagade shall be treated with finished masonry building material. • Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be encouraged. • Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25%of decorative masonry variation in color, texture or surface. 2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. The proposed buildings' exterior are a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with The Reserves development, City Code and the original PUD Design Standards: • Face brick • Stone veneer • Cement Board Lap Siding • Metal panel siding • Decorative masonry block • Composite windows • Prefinished metal flashing and trim • Prefinished balconies and railings The building's architectural elevations and renderings,interior floor plans,civil plans for grading and utility improvements, along with the landscaping/plantings plans are all included with this report's attachments. page 274 ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (2030 vs. 2040) The entire Mendota Plaza mall site and subject parcel were all guided Mixed-Use PUD under the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was noted with: 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. Areas of the community with this land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110 is the City's only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use commercial/residential center known as "The Village at Mendota Heights". Located in the southeast corner of the Dodd and Highway 110 intersection is a related commercial area. This older shopping center is being considered for redevelopment,including a mixed-use land use pattern reflecting the Village development concept. It is an objective of the City to encourage redevelopment of this area reflecting a small-town village layout, avoiding the suburban shopping center environment that dominates the current development pattern. As noted previously,the entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD in 2009. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses that are seen today remain consistent with the future land use designations established under the previous 2030 Plan. . Under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the following is noted for MU-PUD areas: MU—Mixed-Use(21.0-30.0 DU/Acre for Residential Uses) Undeveloped land guided mixed-use is planned to develop approximately 75% of its acres with residential uses at the densities identified, which is consistent with existing mixed-use projects in the city. The northeast quadrant of the Highway 62 and Dodd Road 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. The current residential development has developed at densities between 21 and 30 dwelling units per acre,and adjacent undeveloped outlots are guided to develop at similar densities Under the 2016 PUD Amendment report, city staff reported the following on population and housing projections (part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan): Forecast 2010 2014 2020 2030 2040 Population 1 11,071 1 11,124 1 11,300 11,300 11,400 Households 1 4,378 1 4,450 4,600 4,710 4,800 Source:Metropolitan Council(dated 911712015) According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement,the City's population and household forecasts are as follows: Forecast 2010 2018 2020 2030 2040 Population 11,071 11,3040 12,000 12,000 12,000 2.4/0 0/o (0/o) (0/o) Households 4,378 N/A 4,900 5,000 5,110 (12%) (2%) (2.251.) Source:Metropolitan Council, US Census,City of Mendota Heights,SHC As noted,the Met Council agreed to accept the city's increase of our projected populations from 11,400 to a 12,000 —which we requested to hold steady from the 2020 through 2040 planning periods. Meanwhile, the households are projected to increase slightly over these same periods, from 4,900 (2020)up to 5,110 in 2040. As per the 2040 Plan: "Most of the household growth is anticipated to occur in areas designated for mixed-use, which is likely to be primarily multi family development." This site and the proposed apartment development would meet this statement. page 275 Construction of the proposed 89-unit residential development (coupled with the proposed 58-units in the Phase II development) could account significantly or contribute greatly to the projected amount of households planned for in the 2040 Plan. According to the applicant,the proposed prcj ect includes"market- rate" units and plans do not include any "affordable units", which could satisfy additional Metropolitan Council requirements on affordable housing. Nevertheless, the Met Council typically supports efforts to increase new housing opportunities wherever or whenever they present themselves in metro communities. The 2040 Plan also provides the following goals and policy statements to consider in this PUD request: LAND USE GOAL 1: The Future Land Use Plan will provide the foundation for all land use decisions in Mendota Heights. Policies 1. Development and redevelopment of housing, businesses, transportation systems, parks and community facilities shall be done in accordance with this Plan. 5. The city will strive to create a balanced land use pattern that provides appropriate designations that meet projected growth and market demand. LAND USE GOAL 2:Preserve,protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. Policies 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. 3. Development and planning of land will be encouraged to provide reasonable access to the surrounding communities. HOUSING GOAL 2:Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Policies 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: 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. Support the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels, age groups, and special housing needs. 2. Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices. The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for rental units in the community, which appears to be a continual and growing trend among many metropolitan and suburban communities these days. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed or added residential project may fit many of the land use and housing goals and policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and the planning commission should discuss these and provide a recommendation with findings that either support or advise against this new high-density development in the community. page 276 Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment The original 2009 PUD Plan,which included a new plat,called for the development of the project area with the following: a 14,820-sf. Walgreens store (Lot 1); a 47,200 sf. retail mall (Lot 2); two future 3,600- sf/4,000-sf. restaurants (Lot 3); a 12,000-sf multi-tenant/strip mall (Lot 4); a 10,800-s£ future office (Lot 5); a future 4-story, 100,000-sf high density residential apartment (Lot 6); a 10,130-sf future child care center(Lot 7); and athree-story, 36,000-sf.future office building (Lot 8). Soon after the 2009 approvals,the Walgreens and Mendota Plaza mall were completed. In 2012 the PUD was amended to change the proposed 100,000 square-foot high-density residential building on Lot 6 to the 46-unit White Pines Senior Living facility. In 2016 the PUD was amended to change the future 12,000-sf. Retail Center and 10,800-sf Office building (Lots 4 &5) over to the 139-unit Reserve Apartments, which included changing the two future 3,600-sf./4,000-sf restaurants on Lot 3 into two 3,500-sf. and 4,000-sf restaurant pad sites with drive through lanes. In 2017 the PUD was amended to revise the future office building on Lot 8 to the 17,700-sf. Gemini Medical offices. For this particular site, the developer is requesting to modify the original 2009 Final Plan's"10,300-sf Future Child Care Center"with the proposed four story, 139,126-sf,, 89-unit apartment building. According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land;and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit modification and variance ofzoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. One of the key provisions of this statement is "...to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land... " which is why many cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and cohesive developments within a community. The PUD also can grant some discretionary allowances (instead of or in place of a variance)with certain site design standards, such as reduced setbacks, increased building heights,higher densities (units/acre),reduced parking and others. Amending an existing PUD Final Development Plan is noted under Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code: Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures provided below: 1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved. 2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the developmentpolicy of the community. The proposed amendment qualifies under No. 2 above, and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit. page 277 The subject parcel is zoned and guided MU-PUD (Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development). According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code: MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district,provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit. Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD: Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the following standards: 1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas. 2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with adjacent projects or proposals. 3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council. 4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community. 5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. Density/Hi2h-Density Residential Development This proposed high-density residential development would provide 89-units on 2.04 acres. The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible,and can be reviewed against the standards for similarly- zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed apartment plan can be reviewed utilizing R-3 High Density Residential District standards as a guide,but not as an absolute, since an R-3 use is a "...potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district." A high-density residential apartment building under this proposal would be considered an allowable use in this MU-PUD district. However,the new use or development does not need to meet all (or any) of the R-3 District development standards to be approved, as the City Council has considerable "flexibility" and discretion in this PUD review process, and can provide appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions on new developments as deemed necessary. According to Title 12-1K-5-B: Number of Dwelling Units: 1. In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning district(s)in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3 zoning district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide. If the residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of allowable dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit development that is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development. page 278 Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council. 3. The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density. Since this site is located in an established MU-PUD zone,the density applied to a typical R-3 or high density multi-family use such as this may be used [emphasis added],but is not required. Again, City Code grants the planning commission the discretionary right or ability to determine [by its recommendation]the number of dwelling units,thus setting or approving the allowable density of the site. City Council will have final authority or decision-making on any density request. The Reserve apartments consisted of 139 units on a 2.2 acre site, which calculated out to a density of 63 units/acre - on its own parcel. However, in the 2016 PUD Amendment review, city staff presented to the planning commission and council the following statement on density calculation: "...the Code provision above[12-]K 5-BJ does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends a more appropriate analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD future land use designation, which has an allowable density range of 6-10 housing units/acre."When staff calculated the density based on the entire PUD project site at that time, and added both White Pines 46- units plus The Reserves' 139 units (185 total units), this worked out to an overall density calculation of 10.2 units/acre,which was found to be acceptable and approved by the city. The density calculation on this individual parcel is calculated as: 89-units / 2.04 acres = 43.6 units/acre. However, as noted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the city revised the MU-Mixed Use land category to include a provision to allow up to 21.0 — 30.0 units/acre. Utilizing this same rationale for determining density as the city allowed in the 2016 PUD Amendment,the density is calculated as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 2.05 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7—Proposed Phase I II 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres" Total Units(existing&proposed) 274 units Total Density 19.75 units/acre 'Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) page 279 Factoring in the other 58-unit apartment development (Phase II), the density total on the entire Plaza PUD site re-calculates as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.) 2.05 58 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7—(proposed Phase II I apts.) 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres Total Units(existing&proposed) 332 units Total Density 23.9 or approx. 24 units/acre *Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the allowed density for the proposed PUD amendment; and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Site and Structure Requirements ♦ The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as per Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code: Standard Requirement Proposed 3-story or more: 2.04 ac. (88,863-sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet 62 one-bedroom units Unit' 2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet 27 two-bedroom units 3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet Efficiency units: Not permitted Minimum Floor Area 1-bedroom units: 750 square feet 1-bedroom: 640—775 sf. 2-bedroom units: 800 square feet 2-bedroom: 920— 1210 sf. 3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet Front Yard Setback 50 feet+ 1 foot/each 1 foot of building height 25 feet(from South Plaza Way)and the over 60 feet main access drive Side/Rear Yard Setback 40 feet+ 0.5 feet/1 foot of building height 15-ft. from Hwy 62 ROW; over 75 feet 15-ft. from creek boundary Buildinq Height No limit 55-ft. feet 59-ft. at highestpoint) Parking Lot Setback 40 feet(ROW) 10-ft. 10 feet(principal building) 'may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground • Land Area Based on the proposed unit-mix and underground parking provided,the current lot area is significantly less than what would be required under normal R-3 District standards. A standard R-3 Zoned parcel would require almost 446,560-sf. or 10.25 acres of land to support the number of one/two bedroom units proposed in this plan. [CALC: (62 x 5,100=316,200)+(27 x 6,050=163,350)—(110 stalls�300-sf.=33,000)=446,550-s£] Once again however,the PUD Amendment allows for the city to accept this reduction of land space if demonstrated by the developer that this site still works, even with the number of units proposed on the smaller land site. page 280 • Unit Sizes For this new apartment proposal, 15 of the 62 one-bed units are planned to be less than the minimum 750-sf size for a standard R-3 High Density Residential use; while all 27 of the 2-bed units plan to be over the 800-sf. minimum. No three-bedroom units are proposed in the building. • Buildinz/Parkinz Lot Setbacks The proposed building setbacks are significantly less than required under the R-3 District standards. Instead of a 50-foot setback the developer is requesting a reduction of at least one-half down to 25-feet from the adjacent roadways, and a slight reduction of the back/rear yard from 40-ft. down to 30-ft. at its closest point. The outdoor parking lot is requested with a reduced 10-ft. setback from South Plaza ROW, where normally 40-feet is expected. Parking lot setbacks of 10-ft. from the building is to allow for adequate access and landscaping, and this plan meets that standard. Although these reduced setbacks are considerable,the planning commission and city council have the discretion to accept or approve the proposed building and parking layouts, even with the reduced setbacks as shown or noted herein, as part of this PUD Amendment review process. The commission may make any recommendations accordingly. • Building Coverage The R-3 District does not include a floor area ratio standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed apartment development covers 32.4%of the lot(28,800-sf. /88,863-sf. lot area),which can be considered compliant with the original Mendota Plaza Design Standards. • Landscapin- The landscape plans submitted for the site is somewhat limited, and only shows a generalized location for new trees and shrubs, and areas to be replanted or vegetated. The plans are absent of important details or plantings list;however the applicants did state in their narrative and plan notes: "The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. " The developer was requested (by city staff)to meet with our resident Master Gardeners to review and comment on their proposed Landscape Plan. It appears the developer's architect did speak to one of the MG, and later reported back to city staff with the following message: "The plan you[city staff]sent to me had no species listed, so he[developer's architect]and I just talked about what we are looking for in terms of pollinator friendly, resilient landscape. He was going to incorporate the things we discussed into a plan and then send me the plan and discuss further."—and— "One thing that jumped out to me is that the buildings are very near the lot lines or MNDOT ROW in the case of the building facing Hwy 62,so there isn't a lot of space to design a meaningful pollinator friendly, resilient plan. But, it is hard to visualize without seeing the plan." page 281 As of the preparation of this report,no updated/revised plan was available for this packet,other than the original landscape plan submitted with the original CUP application materials. A new plan with comments from the Master Gardener may be available or presented to the commission prior to or the night of the hearing. • Lighting According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting policies/standards: • Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area. • Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. • Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site. • Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided. The PUD Site Plans are absent of any Lighting or Photometric Plans with this development, nor any indications of lights on the buildings. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements may not apply between the shared/mixed uses in the overall PUD project area. However, it will be important the developer can show or demonstrate that any new lighting for parking and outside the buildings meet City Code and Mendota Plaza standards. Proposed light fixtures should be downcast/cut-off types of lights and kept to a minimum(number/amount). Staff has included a recommendation to have the developer provide and submit a complete and detailed Lighting-Photometric Plan of the site for approvals. • Parking The proposed high-density residential development includes 47 surface parking spaces and 110 indoor spaces, for a total of 157 spaces. This equates to a ratio of 1.76 spaces/unit. According to Title 12-1E- E of the City Code,the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows: Number And Design Of Parking Spaces:A minimum of two and one-half(21/2)parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards. Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 89-units, strict application of the Code standard would require a minimum of 223 parking spaces. It is Planning Staff s professional opinion that this 2.5 space per unit is too high and extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and nation. When At Homes presented their apartment proposal in 2016,the issue of 2.5 spaces/unit was discussed and analyzed,and the city planning consultants(Stantec)were authorized to conduct a parking analysis and study for this site,which are excerpted and highlighted below: • Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched(except Apple Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit,but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit. page 282 • Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high. • The average for nine projects(not in transit friendly areas)is 1.59/unit. • Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since, according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics(see table on the following page),so even without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going down and that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi family projects. • The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)publishes a manual on parking demand, citing studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual(2010)shows a range of 1.10-1.37spaces per unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large,some studies in the mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied,so we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide. Apartment Parking—Conclusion & Recommendation Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the 20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement. Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by the City in 2016 for The Reserves)the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows: ■ Parking at 1.6/Unit: 89-units x 1.6= 142.4 or 143 spaces or ■ Parking at 1.2/bedroom: 62 one bedroom units @ 1.2 =74.4, or 75 spaces 27 two bedroom units @ 2.4= 64.8, or 65 spaces TOTAL: 140 spaces Due to the strong desire to preserve or encourage more open space on this site, it remains the professional opinion of staff that the 157 spaces (1.76 space/unit ratio) proposed under this single development plan should be adequate to serve the residents of this site; and is based on the previous study/analysis performed on The Reserves,The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years. Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following: Size Of Spaces:Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet(9)wide and twenty feet(20) in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24) in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway. The proposed parking plans shows the outdoor/surface spaces as 9' x 18' dimensions with a"nose-in" or curb overhanging design, and 24-ft. wide drive aisles. The underground spaces are also shown or measure 9' x 18',with a 24-ft. wide drive aisle. page 283 Again the planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on whether or not you support or recommend favorably this request to reduce the number of spaces per the plan submittal; and if the reduced setbacks and stall sizes are acceptable. • Park Dedication If the new apartment development is approved,the applicant is required to either contribute 10%of final plat gross area to be dedicated for public use -or contribute a cash payment in-lieu-of land dedication in an amount established by the city. Since no platting is taking place, and due to an expected number of new residents coming in with the new high-density residential development,the cash/in-lieu of payment of$4,000/unit will be requested($4,000 x 89-units=$356,000). Payment of the required park dedication fees is included as a condition of approval. Traffic Impacts With any new developments in and around this centralized commercial/retail/mixed-use hub on Highway 62 and Dodd Road(State Hwy. 149),traffic safety,vehicle movements,access(both in and out of the area) and adequate parking seem to be a major concern to many residents and business owners for this area. This development would retain the right-in only access off of Hwy 62 (to the north); and all other access via North Plaza Drive or South Plaza Drive, which are the only two roadway connections directly on or back out to Dodd Road. In 2017 the city consulted with KLJ Engineering to provide a traffic study of this and other areas in the city,which was referred to as the Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study and completed in February 2018. The study was commissioned to examine existing conditions,traffic and vehicle crash data;traffic operations,and predict future traffic forecasts and operations,and provide alternatives. The study showed that the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62, in its 2017 Existing Conditions, 2040 Base and Build Scenarios that this intersection provides a Level of Service F, which is the lowest score given, and essentially means there are issues that need to be corrected or addressed. Unfortunately, since both of these roadway systems are MnDOT controlled,there is not much the city can require or recommend to fix some of these issues without an expensive alternative or solution. The report did summarize or suggested an alternative to providing a future right-in/right-out intersection at North Plaza Drive off Dodd Road; but there are currently no plans by MnDOT(or the city)to installing or changing this intersection at this time. During the planning and presentation of The Reserves in 2016,traffic was expressed as a concern,especially by the anticipated amount of units and new residents to this area, and the fear these resident's vehicles entering/exiting the site every day, especially during peak AM/Noon/PM hours, would cause some serious traffic issues. Casual observations of this site (since the development opened) has shown there appears to be no serious issues or problems of traffic or congestion attributed to this high-density residential development, and the fear of serious congestion or crashes s in and around this development have not materialized. As part of this new development,the developer has submitted an updated Technical Memorandum—Trip Generation Analysis from Biko Associates (dated 08/09/2021). The memo provides five (5) separate scenarios and comparisons,based on current development and projected developments on the Phase II site and the separate,but related Phase III site (Lot 7). A summary of findings are noted as follows: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments'Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. page 284 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewerAM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 200812009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use(a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips)for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 200812009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. In this traffic review report, a Scenario 4 /Table 4 was used to identify the estimated traffic or daily trips when considering The 149 (139)units of The Reserves,the 58 units of Phase 11;and a proposed Child Care center on Lot 7 (proposed Phase III site). This report concluded the following: • 1,326 daily trips; 177 AM peak hour trips; 191 PM peak hour trips Scenario 5 /Table 5 was thereafter use to identify the estimated traffic or daily trips when considering The 149 (139) units of The Reserves, the 58 units of Phase 11; and a proposed 89-units on Lot 7 (Phase 111), which concluded the following: • 1,328 daily trips; 97 AM peak hour trips; 118 PM peak hour trips The report goes on to state: "...that under Scenario 4, which included the 200812009 childcar%ducation facility, is estimated to generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when compared to the other scenarios."; and "The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment(the Mendota Lot 7 development)will result in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcar%ducation facility,1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference,however,in the volume of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcar%ducational facility, would generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89-unit apartment,177AM peak hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5 will generate 118. In order to ensure a fair and impartial review of this Technical(Traffic)Memo from the developer,the city forwarded this report to our engineering consultants to review and provide comments (Bolton & Menk Traffic Review Memo dated 08/16/2021 — appended to this report). This memo makes the following conclusions and statement: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. page 285 • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to otherroadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to bettercontrol traffic movements and improve safety. The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation was also asked to review the proposed apartment plans with this project,and submitted a review memo with information relating only to drainage,noise,pedestrian/bicycle, and general permitting information. MnDOT apparently chose to either defer to the city [or neglected to provide] any comments related to any potential traffic impacts on to the adjacent state highway roadway systems. MnDOT Review Memo 4S21-049 (dated 08/11/2021)is appended to this report. Finally,as part of The Reserve development approvals,the city prepared and entered into an amended(No. 6)PUD Agreement in 2016. Under this agreement with Mendota Plaza Apartments,LLC(At Home Apts.), Mendota Mall Associates-Outlots, LLC (Howard Paster) and the City of Mendota Heights, the following Section No. 14 was noted: 14. Section 4. 11 Traffic Improvements, including South and North Plaza Drive/Dodd Road (TH 149) Intersection. Section 4. 11 of the 2009 Development Agreement is hereby amended to delete any obligations of the Developer to complete any improvements to TH 110 and Dodd Road included in the Traffic Study. The Developerhas provided the City with a Traffic Impact Study dated August 8,2016,prepared by Spack Consulting ("2016 Traffic Study'). The Developer acknowledges that the City has expressed concerns over the impact of the Second Addition Improvements on the intersection of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road as well as the intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. If, as a direct result of the Commercial Improvements and Apartment Improvements, the Level of Service falls to an overall below Level of Service F at either of these intersections as set forth in the 2016 Traffic Study without the installation of infrastructure improvements or the adoption of traffic mitigation procedures or improvements, as determined by a qualified traffic engineer reasonably acceptable to the Developer and the City;the Developerand Mendota Plaza Apartments will together be responsible for the City's share of the cost to bring the intersections performances to a Level of Service D or better. The city does not have any alternatives or suggested improvements to offer at this time. Staff would however, suggest the planning commission discuss with the staff and the developer at the hearing/meeting to determine if more study or analysis is required. Should this CUP (PUD Amendment)be approved,this same section/language will be added and made part of the future 8t' Amendment to the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Agreement. Fire Department Review The Fire Department personnel was asked to review these plans and provided the following comments: 1. amount of traffic that is coming out of South Plaza Drive is making difficult for us to get out of the station and get rolling, especially to the north. If this is going to increase that traffic I think we need to look at some sort of traffic preemption system associated with the project. 2. FD is unable to determine where the building's FDC's(fire hose connections)are located in relation to any proposed hydrant locations? 3. FD is unable to tell if there is afire access road around the property? In a follow-up discussion with the Fire Chief, he was simply relaying his "concerns"with increased traffic along Dodd Road,and the continued issues they have with periodic vehicle back-ups and difficulty turning fire trucks north onto Dodd Road. In his opinion, a pre-emption device, similar to an Opticon system normally seen on overhead traffic signals, would be an option to have inside the fire station, so they could page 286 trigger the light for northbound traffic at the Hwy 62 and Dodd Road intersection, which in theory would allow vehicles to start moving along Dodd Road—just prior to the trucks leaving the station. Nevertheless,the Fire Chief admits this is not the sole responsibility of the developer to fix,but wanted to make sure the commission is aware of his concerns, and is open to other ideas, suggestions or alternatives to reduce or combat this fire truck exiting issues. There are no dedicated fire access road around the Phase II property,but access from the adjacent highway is possible, and South Plaza Drive along the front will be available. Phase III has roadway or internal driveway systems all around this site. In both cases, the Fire Chief agreed that he (along with the Fire Marshal) would like to work with developer's architects and civil design team, should these plans be approved, and recommend appropriate fire safety measures inside and outside the buildings, which may include identifying (or requiring) the correct number and placement of FDC's, stack pipes and hydrant locations—similar to what they did with The Reserve apartments in 2016. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development as requested herein,based on the attached finding-of-fact,with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development as requested herein,based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if necessary), and 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 to one of the alternatives noted above, and make your recommendation on the reduced standards the Developer is seeking with this new high-density apartment development and accept or revise the attached conditions accordingly. Please note that any new or modified conditions should be reasonable and in fair proportion to the requested development being considered under this PUD Amendment review process. The following are the suggested conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council;and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G— Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re- established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. page 287 5. A park dedication fee of$4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy;all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half(V/2)times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 9. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction. 14. All applicable fire and building codes,as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the city's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Letter of Intent/Project Narrative 2. Technical Memorandum-Traffic Analysis by Biko Assoc. (dated 08/09/2021) 3. Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Memo by Bolton&Menk(dated 08/16/2021) 4. MnDOT Review Memorandum(dated 08/11/2021) 5. 2009 Mendota Heights Plaza Master Development Plan 6. Mendota Heights Apartments—Phase III—Lot 7 Plans(2021) page 288 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP for PUD Amendment For PHASE III- LOT 7 of The Mendota Plaza The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 89-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza, is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community; provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area,and overall density of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. page 289 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR DENIAL CUP for PUD Amendment For PHASE III- LOT 7 of The Mendota Plaza Lot 7,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 1. The 89-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses, natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. page 290 a6home A P A R T M E N T S Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application: Narrative (UPDATED 08.09.2021) This updated narrative is being provided to highlight recent changes in the total unit counts for the two projects that At Home Apartments, L.L.C. (the "Applicant") proposed with its submission of Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. This application outlines the Applicant's plans for the development of the following parcels: 27-48401-01-070 ("Parcel 1"/Lot 7) and 27-48402- 01-010 ("Parcel 2"/Phase II of Reserve). As stated in the initial application, these parcels are currently owned by Mendota Mall Associations- Outlots, LLC. The Applicant is currently under contract to purchase Parcels 1 and 2 for the purpose of redeveloping both parcels with multi-family rental communities. The Applicant's initial plans called for developing a 61-unit "sister" building to the neighboring complex known as The Reserve at Mendota Village and a 113-unit market rate apartment building on Parcel 1/Lot 7 that will complement the nearby apartment complexes but will provide a different product type not available in the nearby vicinity. As is often the case, the Applicant continued to review and modify the interior floor plans for both proposed projects. These modifications and adjustments resulted in larger, but fewer units for both proposed buildings. The proposed unit total for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve is now 58 units and the proposed unit total for Parcel 1/Lot 7 is 89 units. This updated narrative is also being provided to correct a technical oversight in the traffic memorandum that was submitted with the Applicant's application. The original memo omitted a section that highlighted the comparison between the Applicant's proposed development for Parcel 1/Lot 7 and what is the current approved use for that parcel. This oversight resulted in skewed data for the traffic impact the proposed projects will have. An updated memorandum which corrects that oversight and takes into consideration the revised unit totals has been provided for review and reference. Parcel 2/Phase II of Reserve at Mendota Village - Project Description In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the current PUD and corresponding development agreement that allowed for the development of 139 market rate rental housing units and a commercial area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The 139 market rate apartment building, now known as The Reserve at Mendota Village, opened in the summer of 2018 and reached occupancy stabilization within the first 6 months. It has continued to maintain full occupancy to this day. Due to many factors impacting the retail and restaurant real estate markets, followed by the unprecedented obstacles of COVID-19, the goal to develop Parcel 1 consistent with the 2016 approved plans became increasingly challenging. However, the strong and continuous demand for housing opportunities at the Reserve at Mendota Village demonstrated there was a stronger need to expand and develop a second phase for that particular community. page 291 The proposed development for Parcel 2 is a 58-unit apartment building consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727 SQFT, 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822 SQFT, and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428 SQFT. The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit. The units will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with the Reserve at Mendota Village. In addition, the amenity package offered in this second phase will expand and complement the existing amenities available at the Reserve. These amenity spaces will be located on the top —partial fourth floor of the three story apartment building and will include indoor pickleball courts, wine bar, outdoor fire pit, and indoor bocce ball court. The building will also have its own fitness area and common lounge spaces similar to the Reserve. By developing this second phase and allowing the residents of both buildings to enjoy the luxury amenity spaces found within the two buildings, the Applicant will create a resort style housing complex completing the vision of making the Reserve at Mendota Village a destination housing community. Parcel 1/Lot 7 - Project Description The Applicant also intends to develop Parcel 2 by building a four-story apartment building with one and a half levels of underground parking with 110 stalls and 47 surface parking stalls resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. Given the unit matrix of this proposed project and the perceived demographic, we believe this parking ratio is more than sufficient to serve the population. This project, which would open in 2023 is designed to complement the Reserve at Mendota Village but provide an alternative housing option that is not currently available within the city limits. This proposed project is an upscale, modern design apartment building that will provide 89 market rate apartment homes made up of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674 SQFT, 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772 SQFT, 18 large one-bedroom units with an average size of 864 SQFT, 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906 SQFT and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119 SQFT. This project is designed with the younger professional in mind. Mendota Heights is a vibrant community that is centrally located making it very attractive to younger professionals, especially to those that grew up in the area. However, one of the drawbacks is that most of the current housing stock is not attractive to or affordable for this age group. These units will be market rate units, but at a more affordable rental rate than that of the Reserve at Mendota Village. The amenity spaces located at this property will include an on-site leasing office, mail and package delivery room, state of the art fitness and yoga studio, and a separate clubhouse building with exterior connections creating a unique outdoor living space. This proposed project will have an excellent walkability score due to its proximity to local restaurants, shops, and other retail. This factor combined with easy access to public parks and walking trail systems, and several major highway connections, makes this project a desirable housing option for younger professionals or young adults starting out on their own while helping the City stay competitive with the surrounding communities. Community Impact Though the Applicant is applying for this conditional use to amend the guided uses for the subject parcels, the proposed use (multifamily housing) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare to the community, the proposed uses will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards as summarized in the attached traffic memo, the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding page 292 property value and the proposed use is in harmony with general purpose and intent of the City Code and its comprehensive plan. Overall, these two projects provide a benefit to the community because they allow for the redevelopment of two sites in a manner that is consistent with the City's housing and density goals while balancing the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic Understanding that impact on traffic is a genuine and obvious concern when new projects are being proposed, the Applicant contracted Biko Associates to prepare a technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for the two proposed development projects. This analysis not only provided the trip generation estimates of the proposed apartment projects but also compared these data against the trip generation estimates for the current allowed uses, a restaurant and retail building on Parcel 2/Phase 11 of Reserve and a 10,130 SQFT day care/child education center on Parcel 1/Lot 7. The traffic memorandum, which has been submitted with the Applicant's application, documents the analysis for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve and shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. Similarly, the analysis for Parcel 1/Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to note that the peak hour trips, which are of greater concern, are significantly lower. The combined analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 PUD amendment plus the original 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by Applicant. Development Schedule Assuming that the approval process follows the published schedule, the Applicant would like to commence construction on the Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve in the fall of 2021. Due to the smaller scale of the proposed building for this phase the anticipated construction timeline is approximately nine (9) months. The Applicant would then plan on breaking ground on Parcel 1/Lot 7 in the spring of 2022 with the goal of a spring 2023 delivery. Parcel 1/Lot 7 — Architectural Design The Parcel 1/Lot 7 development consists of 89 units and 157 parking stalls. The site area is 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 44 units/acre. The building is designed with a full level of underground parking and a partial level of above grade parking. The site has significant grade changes up to ten feet with the north and east being lower than the southwest corner. The grade change allows the lower level of parking to have direct access from the north, and the upper level has direct access from the west. The front entry is located on the eastern end of the building. We believe this is the best residential entry point as it connects with the residential use to the east and provides the best pedestrian access to the commercial area, the trails, and the other residential development of the Reserve. Due to the grade change, the entry is at the lower level of parking. This entry will have a grand two-story space that connects residents and visitors to the main / page 293 first level. The main level has direct access to a south facing courtyard. The courtyard will contain a clubhouse with residential amenity spaces, patio and seating areas, grilling stations, and an area for fire pits and lounging. A decorative trellis at the south end of the courtyard will provide shade and some privacy to the residents, and visual interest to the street. The community courtyard will have additional common area amenities surrounding the courtyard and some individual residential units with patios and balconies overlooking the space. Gardens will surround this courtyard area for resident enjoyment. The southwest corner of the building being at higher grade allows for three `walk-up' style units. Parking is conveniently located under the building for nearly every unit, with additional parking for every second bedroom, and visitors. The building will be constructed of one and a half levels of concrete, and 3 and a half level of wood frame construction. The first level with parking will be half concrete and half wood-frame. This site will be predominantly one-bedroom apartments with a range of generous sizes. The units will have a high level of finishes providing an upscale feel. The design is intended to attract a wide variety of people but we believe it will be mostly young professionals, younger renters from the community not quite ready to purchase homes, and community residents looking for housing and price options that don't exist in the area. The design is a mix of brick and siding. The siding picking up some wood tones to give it a residential feel, and to blend with some of the details and design of the Reserve, while still providing a distinct look and feel for this parcel. The design also features balconies for the vast majority of the units and large window openings to provide strong connections to the outdoors. Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve —Architectural Design The Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve consists of 58 units and 118 parking stalls. The site area is approximately 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 28 units/acre. The building is designed to be similar to the Reserve with the same brick, with stone, and with the same detailing as the first phase. The layout of the building also mirrors the first phase of the development picking up on the forty-five-degree angle and matching the stone at the ends of the building to provide a harmonious entry. This phase will be predominately three stories. There will be a partial fourth floor providing amenities that are not seen in the first phase of the Reserve and are very unique to the market. This fourth floor is envisioned to be a roof-top clubhouse with indoor bocce-ball, indoor pickle ball, and community gathering spaces along with a roof-top deck. The amenities in this building are designed to complement the first building with residents able to use either facility creating not just the look of a community with the similar buildings, but also interaction between residents that will help create community. The building design will be cohesive with the existing building with the brick and stone, wood tone siding, some large overhangs and an entry that will be similar to phase one. The window types, colors and patterns will also be the same as the phase one project providing for consistency. Some of the elements have been scaled down as this is only a three story building whereas the first Reserve building is four to five stories. The lower level will be concrete construction and contains seventy-one underground parking stalls. The grade change allows this to be easily accessed from the southern end of the site. The main level is accessed from the south side as well, with easy access to visitor parking. Due to the grade change, there is an upper and lower level parking area that works with the grade and will help the building fit into the site providing some unique character as well. The central area contains an existing underground storm water treatment system and will be developed with some green space and gardens at this central area. The upper levels are wood frame apartments with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Approximately half of these units also contain dens or secondary home office areas. This will have upscale amenities, page 294 finishes and features comparable to the Reserve. The sizing of the units is meant to compliment the phase one building and by doing so has added some larger units from 1400-1650 SQFT. Being a second phase, we believe the residential profile will be similar to the Reserve, but we have also identified a need for larger units to meet the needs of existing community residents looking for apartment by choice style living. Parcel 2/Phase 2 of the Reserve — Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 58-unit apartment adjacent to The Reserve at Mendota Village. Stormwater Design When The Reserve was constructed on the adjacent lot, the project included a two-cell underground stormwater chamber system to treat stormwater both from the Reserve apartment development and from the two retail buildings that were proposed on Parcel 2. The primary function of the first cell, southeast of South Plaza Way, is to infiltrate stormwater. The primary purpose of the second cell is to control the rate of discharge of stormwater into the existing wetland southwest of the site. The system was designed to treat 137,410 SF of total impervious surface spanning both lots and a portion of South Plaza Way that passes between them. This included 62,747 SF of impervious surface on Parcel 2. This proposed project to construct an apartment building on Parcel 2 reduces the proposed surface on Parcel 2 from 62,747 SF to 60,610 SF and the total from 13 7,4 10 SF to 135,273 SF. The proposed project will construct a stormwater collection system that will capture and convey runoff from the eastern developed portion of the site to the infiltration chamber southeast of South Plaza Way. Since the proposed development has less impervious coverage than the original design, it can be concluded that the existing system will support the proposed development. Overflow from the infiltration chamber will continue to be routed through the second cell of the system before ultimate discharge to the existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. Runoff from the western portion of the site will continue to pass through the existing pond at the west end of the property and be discharged into the same existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. This application includes a Stormwater Management Report for Parcel 1 that describes how the project meets all stormwater requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, including infiltration, rate control, water quality, and temporary best management practices to be implemented during construction. Sanitary Sewer Similar to the shared stormwater infrastructure, The Reserve at Mendota Village also included construction of a sanitary sewer lift station that is intended to be shared between Parcel 2 and the existing apartment building. This system is in place and actively serving the adjacent apartments with a stub that was extended to serve future development on Parcel 2. The system was originally designed to convey sanitary flows from two retail buildings on Parcel 2. The applicant has reviewed calculations to verify that the existing lift station has adequate capacity to serve the proposed change in land use from retail to residential. According to information received from Electric Pump, Inc., the contractor who constructed the lift station, the system has a capacity of 145 gal/min. A typical flow rate for residential populations of less than 5,000 is 60 to 70 gallons per day. page 295 Therefore, the existing lift station has a capacity to serve 2,980 to 3,480 people. When applying a conservative peaking factor of 4.0, which is appropriate for systems with pipe sizes less than 10-inches diameter or for 250 people, the lift station can still serve a population of up to 745 to 870 people. Water Main The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion developments constructed a ductile iron pipe network within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system. The pipe network serving this development is constructed within public utility easements and provides both water supply and fire protection. There is a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 2 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and design to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The Applicant is uncertain if an existing agreement maintenance agreement has been executed with the City of Mendota Heights documenting their responsibility of the maintenance of the underground stormwater chamber system or sanitary sewer lift station. If these agreements are not already in place, the Applicant will work with the City to execute an agreement to maintain these systems. Parcel 1/Lot 7— Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 89-unit apartment on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Mendota Plaza Expansion development. Stormwater When the Mendota Plaza Expansion development was originally constructed, the developer constructed a stormwater pond in the north central portion of the site, along the south side of the existing wetland that passes through the site. The developer also constructed a stormwater collection system to convey water to the stormwater pond. The stormwater infrastructure was originally permitted in 2009, based on the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RLK Inc. dated December 22, 2008. The infrastructure was designed to meet the stormwater regulations that were in place at the time. However, stormwater regulations have changed since the original approvals. The City of Mendota Heights now requires Atlas 14, MSE-3 24-hr rainfall distributions to be used for stormwater design. The City also has implemented requirements for stormwater infiltration and phosphorus removal. page 296 This application includes a stormwater management plan with calculations demonstrating the compliance of the site with the new regulations. The existing infrastructure supports the updated rate control requirements. However, the original system did not provide any infiltration, and did not fully meet the updated phosphorus removal requirements. This project proposes construction of an underground stormwater chamber beneath the proposed eastern parking lot. This proposed chamber will be designed to meet the infiltration requirements. By doing so, the volume reduction achieved by the proposed underground chamber will also exceed the phosphorus removal requirements. Sanitary Sewer The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion development constructed PVC sanitary sewer main collection system to serve the development. This collection system is routed to the City of Mendota Heights public sanitary sewer system. The lateral main serving this development is an 8" PVC main with a 6" PVC stub that is deep enough to provides gravity service to the proposed development. Water Main Similar to Parcel 2, the ductile iron pipe network constructed within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system also provides a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 1 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The proposed project on Parcel 1 will connect to existing public storm water, sanitary, and water main infrastructure. The Applicant will maintain the private stormwater infiltration chamber proposed under the east parking lot, and the segments of private service connections that are within the proposed Parcel 1 boundary but not included within the public drainage and utility easements. BIKO ASSOCIATES page297 I N C 0 R P 0 R A I F D Technical Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2021 TO: Leanna Stefaniak, President Real Estate& Development, At Home Apartments FROM: William Smith,AICP Daniel Lubben RE: Trip Generation Analysis Introduction Biko Associates prepared this technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments in Mendota Heights, Minnesota.The first is a 58-unit apartment building designed to be the second phase of the Reserve at Mendota Village and referred to herein as Mendota 2. The second is an 89-unit apartment building to be built on Lot 7 within the Mendota Plaza PUD and referred to herein as the Mendota Lot 7 development. Summary of Findings: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. (See comparison between Scenarios 1 and 3 in Table 6 on page 12.) 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. (See comparison between Scenarios 4 and 5 in Table 6 on page 12.) 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. (See Table 7 on page 14.) As the volume of generated trips is a major factor in the operational performance of traffic and the Levels of Service (LOS) traffic will exhibit at key intersections, it is reasonable to assume, where other factors remain constant, that lower traffic volumes will result in better traffic operations and higher LOS at intersections. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND Di SIGN LAND ITSE, Atilt FRANSPORTATION POLICY RESE tR( H AND ANALYSIS GRAIN BELT BRENN ERY BOTTLnG HOUSE 79 13th AVENUE, N.E. STUDIO 107 ..1iINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413-I073 P110NE-612-623-4000 FAX:612-623-0200 w►V w. h 1 k o a s,.o c l a l e s . c o in page 298 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 2 Background Mendota 2 Background: Five years ago in 2016, Paster Properties proposed an expansion of Mendota 2, a parcel located in the northeast corner of Mendota Plaza. The proposed Mendota 2 expansion was to include three uses: 1) an apartment building with149 dwelling units, 2) retail space at 4,826 square feet, and 3) a 6,000 square foot restaurant. Spack Consulting was contracted by Paster Properties to prepare a traffic study to determine how traffic generated by the proposed expansion project would impact traffic operations at surrounding intersections and, in particular, how a proposed right-in/right-out driveway would affect operations on TH 62 and impact safety. Figures 1 and 2, which are taken from the Spack Consulting traffic study, are provided to show the location of the Mendota 2 expansion proposed in 2016 and the site plan for the expansion project. Of the three uses proposed in 2016, only the apartment building (The Reserve at Mendota Village)was actually constructed with 139 units instead of 149 units. With the remaining site lying vacant, At Home Apartments is now under contract to purchase the property and is proposing to develop a 58-unit,three story mid-rise apartment building with both underground and surface level parking. The 58-unit apartment is referred to as Mendota 2, and construction is proposed to begin in fall of 2021. lo' Study Area ^ �-....a �E i kk i Nov b � . r a wIT, 4. Proposed Site 4 R's ry Figure 1: Development Site Regional Location Source: Traffic Impact Study: Mendota Plaza Expansion, Spack Consulting, August 8, 2016. page 299 Id tE ti cu u 41 Ca u Ca cu ci cu �3 06' :t to CF) uO -E ub 0 j5 u M 4J 0) CL c co Ln CU E o co 0 C) LU (a cz fC ro (a 0 cu ui J cu 4� 4� L/) 1 0 4 C) 2 u . cz CV (a � c c O a (a (D m cz cu u (D CZ 41 cz O cz cz 41 0 cz _j = U as(D CY) tA LL Uo Ln page 300 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 4 Mendota Lot 7 Development Background: In a PUD application from 2008/2009, a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7,which is located at the southern end of Mendota Plaza and on the north side of South Plaza Drive. The childcare/education facility was never built, and At Home Apartments is proposing to develop an 89-unit,five/six story mid-rise apartment in this location. It is hoped that construction on the 89-unit apartment would begin in the spring/summer of 2022 with a 2023 delivery date. Schematic elevations for the childcare/education facility, prepared by KKE Architects in January 2009, are shown below on Figure 3. _ T, R PROW c SOLIT'H ELEVATI❑ �r dd0"r JO' PROP_4_S.EDDAYCARECENTER _— — Md 1lOL9Y.E9 Figure 3: Schematic Elevations for Childcare/Education Facility Proposed in 2008/2009 The locations of both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota-Lot 7 developments are shown on Figure 4 on the following page. page 301 ., • • • .• • • . • s Q �• �h *[ •' tro • �." A � L • • • • • • G1 TLL ig r fC 41 41 ro r �. t � ' „ r a x 01 * 1 • . Q ++ H v -u,F .. a n c o � O aJ m w LL J 3 GJ bb vi M � Q a page 302 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 6 Trip Generation Analysis This section of the technical memorandum addresses trip generation and presents results of trip generation analyses in tables that support the Summary of Findings on page 1 and the Comparisons and Conclusions on page 12. Trip generation analyses are conducted as an element of Traffic Impact Studies to estimate the volume of trips that will be attracted to and depart from specific uses located on the Mendota Plaza site. Five development scenarios will be discussed in this section of the memorandum. Scenario 1: Trip Generation Estimate for the 2016 Mendota 2 Expansion Program A trip generation analysis for uses included in the 2016 expansion program was prepared by Spack Consulting. As shown in Table 1, on page 8, the expansion program was estimated to generate a low to moderate volume of trips over the course of an average week day. At the same time, the respective volumes of AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips were estimated to be almost "unremarkable." As presented in Table 1, Spack Consulting identified some of the trips as pass-by trips. These trips are "intermediate stops on the way" between a trip origin and an intended trip destination. One way to think about pass-by trips is that some of them can be "spur of the moment" trips where, for example, a driver is passing by a McDonalds restaurant, sees the Golden Arches, suddenly craves a Big Mac, then turns into the McDonalds' parking lot, purchases a Big Mac, and exits the parking lot to continue the original trip. Pass-by trips do not comprise new trips on roadway links adjacent to trip attractions but they do impact the driveways that serve them. Non-pass-by trips, by comparison, are new trips---trips that would not be on adjacent roadway links were it not for the attraction. In Table 1, for example, it is shown that the 2016 expansion program was estimated to generate 536 daily inbound trips and 536 daily outbound trips, and 35 percent of these (381 trips) are pass- by trips that would impact traffic operations at South Plaza Drive, North Plaza Access, and the right-in/right-out driveway on TH 62. These trips, however, would not have an impact on the intersection of TH 62/TH 149 because they are not new trips being added to the system. In essence, they are already included in the volume of trips that are already on the road. As Table 1 correctly indicates, the apartment building (a residential use) does not generate pass-by trips. As shown in Table 1, if the Mendota 2 Expansion Program had been implemented as originally planned, there would have been: E 1,072 daily trips, of which 381 would have been pass-by trips 0 73 AM peak hour trips, of which 17 would have been pass-by trips E 97 PM peak hour trips, of which 32 would have been pass-by trips page 303 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 7 Scenario 2: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 The impact of not building the proposed retail shops and restaurant in 2016 is one where trips estimated to be generated by those uses never materialized. Thus, they should be subtracted from the totals shown in Table 1. See Table 2 on page 8, which describes trip generation for what was actually built, i.e., the existing condition. As shown in Table 2, the volume of trips actually generated today is: 0 530 daily trips 0 46 AM peak hour trips E 52 PM peak hour trips Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the following reductions in trips have been realized by not building the originally proposed retail and restaurant uses. * Pass-by trips never materialized * 51 percent of daily trips (542 daily trips) never materialized ul 37 percent of AM peak hour trips (27 AM peak hour trips) never materialized E 46 percent of PM peak hour trips (45 PM peak hour trips) never materialized o \ q o 0 0 0 .. . \ .. .. \ .Y $ $ / _ 2 / » q � g \ 2 / o o � \ u to to } ƒ ƒ , q \ $ § / . , q o o q / -0 \ \ 7 m \ D \ § 7 0 0 e § / / / / _ \ / / z m Ln ® - _ . z � 00 \ k • \ _ ( 2 . (a e e u f ■ ' / 0 o m — E o o E , I w m � \ m 3 (a = tom z 0) q -Fa\ f z o o t f . / 0 / C $ $ q $ % J o 0 0 o e ' � 2 2 ( \ 7 t 7 \ q q q <CU to 7 \ o o en7 q w = e q \ o . Lu a t 0 e / f i q $ \ / � f o o $ / , \ 0 E E LU E 2 2 _m Ln g w tD § / G _m q Ln G \ q e Ln - \ k 0 C / k a) 2 u / E \ ( \ N \ 7 L t q o 2 / o / , / / { , { - a fu = - 7 = ! ° : a ! ° � _ k ' \ _ ± { = E u k ' \ _ ± m 0 ± a ° a ? W \ E e > / ) R ' ? k \ E / : j \ t \ \ t g k / k t \ \ t g f f ■ ° � 2 7 m = 0 ■ ° � � 2 7 3 0 { o § » ( ° 0 9 ( ° 2 ■ N 2 u ■ � 2 u » \ % E $ \ � e � E & - < � ƒ E E @ 3 : < � ƒ \ @ 2 M 2 / / \ Ln G a Ln G § f 2 — — / \ . � tA ? ° E u z u d ° E u z / } m to m — - 0 � 0 0 = — - 0 � 0 0 = k J a � I e 0 | � I e 0 , , page 305 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 9 Scenario 3: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 and the Proposed Mendota 2 At Home Apartments proposes to build a 58-unit apartment (Mendota 2) on the parcel where the retail and restaurant uses were proposed in 2016. Presented in Table 3, below, are results from a trip generation analysis conducted to estimate the total number of trips that would be generated by the 149-unit apartment (The Reserve at Mendota Village), which was constructed in 2016, and the currently proposed Mendota 2 apartment. Table 3 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota 2, Combined Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Total 207 dus 422 1 422 1 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 Source: ++ Local date collected by Spack Consulting. +++ Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 3 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Comparing Table 1 to Table 3, it is shown that by implementing the proposed Mendota 2 residential development, fewer trips will be generated than those estimated for the original 2016 expansion program. Implementing the proposed Mendota 2 project, instead of the 4,826 square foot retail and 6,000 square foot restaurant uses, will yield the following: * All pass-by trips are gone * 21 percent of daily trips (228 daily tips) are gone * 10 percent of AM peak hour trips (7 AM peak hour trips) are gone * 20 percent of PM peak hour trips (19 PM peak hour trips) are gone Scenario 4: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve at Mendota Village, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Education Facility As mentioned, a 10,130 square foot daycare/educational facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7. It was never constructed, and At Home Apartments is proposing an 89- unit apartment for this location. Table 4 shows the volume of trips that would have been generated if the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility were constructed on Lot 7, along page 306 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 10 with The Reserve (which is already constructed), and assuming Mendota 2 is approved for implementation. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Educational Facility Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility on Mendota- Lot 7 ITE Code 565+++ Total 207 dus 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 and childcare facility Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 4 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 As shown in Table 4, this development scenario is estimated to result in: E 1,326 daily trips E 177 AM peak hour trips 0 191 PM peak hour trips Scenario 5: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development This analysis considers trip generation for the combination of three At Home Apartments residential developments; where the Mendota Lot 7 development is implemented instead of the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility. As shown in Table 5, below, the volume of trips that will be generated by the Mendota-Lot 7 development is low. Likewise, the addition of this proposed development will result in a total volume of trips that is low over the course of an entire day and, more importantly, is also low to low/moderate during the peak hours. page 307 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 11 Table 5 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Mendota Lot 7 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 ITE Code 221+++ Total 296 dus 664 1 664 1 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 286, not 296, and the estimated trips generated by the Reserve in Table 5 are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Table 5 shows that by implementing the Mendota Lot 7 development, instead of the childcare/education facility, along with The Reserve and Mendota 2, the volume of trips is estimated to be: E 1,328 daily trips E 97 AM peak hour trips 0 118 PM peak hour trips Comparisons and Conclusions Comparisons: Table 6 presents side-by-side comparisons of estimated trip generation for each of five development scenarios. As shown, Scenario 4, which includes the 2008/2009 childcare/education facility,is estimated to generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when compared to the other scenarios. page 308 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 12 Table 6 Comparison of Estimated Trip Generation Scenario Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 1)The • 149-du 536 536 1072 20 53 73 62 35 97 original2016 Apartment** Expansion • 4,826 SF Retail Program • 6,000 SF Restaurant 2) 2016 • 149-du 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 What was Apartment** actually built 3) Post 2016 • 149-du 422 422 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 What was Apartment ** actually built • 58 du combined Apartment with Mendota 2 4) What was • 149 du 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58 du Mendota 2, Apartment plus a • 10,130 SF Childcare/ Childcare/ Education Education Facility Facility 5) What was • 149-du 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58-du Mendota 2, Apartment plus • 89-du Mendota Lot Apartment 7 Development ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. page 309 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 13 Conclusions: Four important conclusions are outlined below. 1. Compare Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. The addition of At Home Apartments' proposed, 58- unit apartment(the Mendota 2 development) will result in lower trip generation than would have occurred if the 2016 expansion program had been implemented. 2. Compare Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment (the Mendota Lot 7 development) will result in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility; 1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference, however, in the volume of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcare/educational facility, would generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89- unit apartment; 177 AM peak hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5 will generate 118. 3. Compare Trip Generation for what was Proposed in 2016 and 2008/2009 against what is Proposed Today. As Table 7 shows, the planned uses for the subject parcels from the original 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD would have yield 1,554 daily trips. This is to be compared to the volume of daily trips (1,328) that will be generated by the Reserve and currently proposed uses (58 units on Mendota 2 and 89 units on Mendota 7). Table 7 also shows that the volume of peak hour trips, which is critically more important than the volume of daily trips, will be lower with the newly proposed uses, compared to the originally proposed uses from the 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD. As shown, the differences are stark: • Compare 184 AM peak hour trips to 97, a difference of 87 vehicles per hour • Compare 210 PM peak hour trips to 118, a difference of 92 vehicles per hour. Peak hour traffic volumes are more critical than those that occur over the course of a 24-hour day, because the peak hours are time periods where traffic volumes are at their highest within a short period of time. page 310 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 14 Table 7 Trip Generation for 2016 PUD Amendment and 2008/2009 PUD Compared to Trip Generation for Currently Proposed Uses [use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out Total In I Out I Total In Out Total Trip Generation for Fully Implemented 2016 PUD Amendment and 00: 00• PUD Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Specialty Retail 4,826 SF 60 60 120 9 10 19 3 4 7 Restaurant 6,000 SF 211 211 422 5 3 8 25 13 38 Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility Total 1 777 777 1554 79 105 184 122 88 210 ProposedTrip Generation for Currently Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Mid-Rise Apartment 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Mid-Rise Apartment 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Total 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 4. Compare Scenario 2 and Scenario 5. The differences between these two scenarios describe the increases that can be expected between the existing condition and a future condition where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both constructed. This comparison shows that by implementing the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments, as currently proposed, the following increases over the existing condition can be expected. • Daily + 798 trips • AM Peak + 51 trips • PM Peak + 66 trips These increases between the current condition and a future condition (where the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both implemented)are not significant and are typically thought to be too low to have a profound effect on traffic operations. Their relative insignificance becomes obvious when compared to the increases in trips that would have occurred if the original 2016 PUD Amendment (the 149- page 311 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 15 unit Reserve, the 4,826 square foot retail space, and the 6,000 square foot restaurant) and the 2008/2009 PUD had been implemented as planned. ■ Daily + 1,024 trips ■ AM Peak + 138 trips ■ PM Peak + 158 trips By comparison,these increases over the existing condition are greater and are more likely to have an impact on peak hour traffic operations than the increases that are estimated under Scenario 5, where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are implemented. page 312 B O LTA N 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337-1649 i & M ENK Ph: 1952) 890-0509 Real People. Real Solutions. Fax: (9521 890-6065 Bolton-Menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2021 To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director, City of Mendota Heights From: Bryan Nemeth, P.E. Subject: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review City of Mendota Heights Project No.: ORI.125201 This memorandum provides a review of the proposed development and the associated traffic analysis dated August 9, 2021 (Trip Generation Analysis). The August 9,2021 study references a previous traffic impact study completed for the project area that included the some of the area under consideration for development. As this is the basis for the traffic analysis, the study results were reviewed. 2016 Analysis Study Review The 2016 study proposed maintaining two full access points on the west to TH 149/Dodd Road and proposed adding one right-in/right-out or just a right-in access on the north to TH 62 (previously TH 110). Ultimately,the access to TH 62 was constructed with right-in access only. The 2016 study indicates that there will be resulting poor levels of service for all of the intersections by 2040 with the development but also indicates that improvements are beyond the scope of the study. Review of the queues resulting from the 2016 study indicates that the AM northbound queues at TH 62/TH 149 increase by 100 to 150 feet with the development in 2040 compared to the existing scenario in 2016. The AM queue can be accommodated with the existing access spacing on TH 149 and does not appear to be a concern. The PM queue in 2016 already extended past the North Plaza Access and would be longer by around 75 feet in 2018 and 1,200 feet in 2040 with the right-in access. Additionally, any queuing on the Plaza accesses to TH 149/Dodd Road are shown to be acceptable but would operate at LOS F in the 2040 scenarios. Overall, the study indicated that an access to TH 62 would provide some, if minimal, improvement to operations. The biggest improvement is likely a safety improvement to TH 149/Dodd Road, south of TH 62,by not having as much traffic make the southbound left turn movement into the accesses off TH 149/Dodd Road. Trip Generation The traffic study Technical Memorandum documented the trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments. This includes: • Mendota 2: 58-unit apartment • Lot 7: 89-unit apartment It is proposed that the increase in trips from the new development for Mendota 2 would be less than what was previously proposed in 2016, so no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, Lot 7 was previously proposed as a daycare/childhood center in a 2008/2009 PUD application but it is unknown whether a traffic analysis was completed with it. Review of historical aerial images indicates that Lots 6 H:\MHGT\OR1125201\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\2021-08-16_Plaza Expansion Development Traffic Review.docx Bolton&Mark is an equal opportunity employer. page 313 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 2 and 7 of the area were not developed by the time of the 2016 study. Consequently, the 2016 traffic impact study does not appear to take the Lot 6 or Lot 7 development into account. The ITE Trip Generation analysis uses the correct rates resulting in the following for Mendota Plaza. This also displays the previous trip projections for the two sites. Site Mendota Plaza Trip Projections 2009/2016 Trip Projections(new trips) Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak Mendota 2 314 20 26 542 27 45 Lot 7 484 31 40 482 111 113 Total 798 51 66 1,024 138 158 This results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily for"Mendota 2"than the previous development proposed in those areas for the 2016 study. This also results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and essentially the same for daily trips for Lot 7 than the previous development proposed in the area from the 2008/2009 PUD Application. This indicates that the new development would likely result in fewer trips than previously proposed, especially during the critical AM and PM peak hours. By itself, this does not indicate that the operations are acceptable or that the proposed development does not need to provide transportation network improvements. This new additional traffic will be added to the traffic that is there today. The most noticeable change is likely to be on South Plaza Drive, since much of the Lot 7 traffic would likely use South Plaza Drive to access TH 149/Dodd Road,due to proximity and due to queues on TH 149. Traffic Operations The 2016 study indicated substantial operational concerns with or without any new development in the area.This is a result of existing traffic volumes on the roadway, increased background traffic growth due to new development locally and region-wide, and the new proposed development. The poor operations are likely a concern for MnDOT(jurisdiction over TH 149 and TH 110) and the city of Mendota Heights, especially when it impacts the safety of the traveling public. As indicated previously, the new development by itself does not appear to be the biggest driver for the operational concerns, as the 2018 operations appear to be minimally different than the 2016 operations prior to the expanded development. But the new development will add trips to the network,resulting in slightly longer queue lengths. Additional review of options for improved operations and safety, such as different access configurations at both North Plaza and South Plaza Drive may need to be considered. Traffic Safety Review A review of the recent crashes in the area was completed to understand how the most recent development since 2016 impacted traffic safety and if improvements are needed in the area, especially as traffic increases due to additional development. Location 2014-2016 Crashes 2018-2020 Crashes Notes Angle Rear-end Other Angle Rear-end Other Dodd/South Plaza - 1* - 1* - - Dodd/North Plaza 2* 1* - 1** 2* 1 TH 62/Ri ht-in - - - I - - - *Crash involved a northbound queue backup through the intersection **Crash involved a motorized scooter using the pedestrian crossing ***No crashes appear to involve the right turn off of TH 62 S ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 314 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 3 Overall,it appears that the development increase did not result in an increase in crashes or a reduction in safety. The crash data does indicate that there is a consistent crash type occurring on TH 149, especially when there is a long queue evident that extends south from TH 62. The number of crashes are low though, and would not appear to be a substantial concern. With the increased traffic at South Plaza Drive, constructing a southbound left turn lane at South Plaza Drive would be anticipated to provide a safety improvement by allowing southbound traffic to bypass southbound left turning vehicles, especially since the access appears to be blocked by vehicles on a frequent basis. The proposed development on Lot 7 would likely increase the number of southbound left turning vehicles in the PM peak hour, when the queues appear to be the most prevalent. Mendota 2 development does have some safety concerns that should be rectified prior to development. The current north access occurs right after the right turn off of TH 62 and is directly after the entrance sign structure. These are significant safety concerns for sight lines. The north access should be moved south to provide more distance from TH 62 and the sign structure. Additionally,the signing and striping of the internal roadway that connects to the right-in off of TH 62 should be revised to make it easier for motorists to understand the traffic movements allowed in the area as the Mendota 2 site is developed. Pedestrian Considerations The network for pedestrians appears to provide access to all of the currently developed parcels except for Lot 6.With the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 the pedestrian network should be expanded to serve those parcels. Of special consideration, the transit stop on South Plaza Drive is not connected to the overall pedestrian network,nor is the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive. A sidewalk or trail should be extended from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. Additionally, the sidewalk/trail should extend from the access points for the building on Lot 7 to this sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive. This would provide access to the overall transportation network and the transit stop from Lot 7. Pedestrian network access to and from Mendota 2 can expand on what has already been completed in the area during Phase 1. Mendota 2 should connect to this network of sidewalk and trail to the east. In conjunction with the above improvements, the current pedestrian activated RRFB located on the southeast corner of TH 149/S Plaza Dr should be considered for relocation to the north side of the intersection since that is where the pedestrian crossing is located, to get it in compliance with the MnMUTCD. Conclusions The following improvements are recommended to be made to the surrounding transportation network to improve pedestrian connections and improve potential safety concerns with the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 into apartments: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Ba{ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 315 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 4 Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic movements and improve safety. O ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. DEPARTMENT OF Metropq) "itrict MI TRANSPORTATION 1500 County Road West Roseville, MN 55113 August 11, 2021 Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 SUBJECT: At Home Apartments - MH MnDOT Review#S21-049 SE quadrant of MN 149 and MN 62 Control Section: 1917 Mendota Heights, Dakota County Dear Tim Benetti, Thank you for submitting the plans for At Home Apartments—MH. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, received 7/19/21, and has the following comments: Drainage A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed, and additional information may be requested. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234- 7539 or jason.swenson(cstate.mn.us with any questions. Noise MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, An equal opportunity employer page 317 Page 2 of 3 listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries, Metro District Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Riesg state.mn.us. Pedestrian and Bicycle Consider including indoor bicycle parking and making sidewalk connections to South Plaza Way ADA accessible so all road users can easily access the Parcel 2 building. Please contact Jesse Thomsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or jesse.thornsen(a�state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT's Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.crai gg state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT's goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s)to MnDOT's web transfer client site at: https:Hmft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Please do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. page 318 Page 3 of 3 You are welcome to contact me at(651) 234-7792 or david.kratz(c�state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Ryan Wilson, Area Manager Buck Craig, Permits Mackenzie Turner Barger, PedBike Ben Klismith, Right of Way Jesse Thomsen, PedBike Almin Ramic, Traffic Lance Schowalter, Design Jason Junge, Transit Cameron Muhic, Planning Natalie Ries, Noise Tod Sherman, Planning Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Casey Crisp, Surveying Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council page 319 From: Dave Dreelan To: Tim Benetti Subject: Fwd:Signal Preemption for Fire Station Date: Tuesday,October 26, 2021 3:00:21 PM Attachments: image001.pno imaae001.wa image001.wa Was able to do it from my phone. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Date: October 25, 2021 at 1:47:00 PM CDT To: Dave Dreelan <DDreelan@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Cheryl Jacobson <cj ac ob son @mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Hi Dave, Please see email below from MnDOT. It looks like they are not recommending any changes at this time. I did highlight a section for homework below. Let me know if you need anything else now. Thank you, Ryan Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651)255-1152 office phone rruzek(&_mendotaheightsmn.gov www.mendotaheightsmn.gov From: Ficek, Bryant (DOT) [mailto:Bryant.Ficek@state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 1:50 PM page 320 To: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: RE: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Hi Ryan, Following up on this thread, our signal operations have completed a review and have the following information: • EVP operations are working as programmed. Currently, the northbound protected left turn arrow is not active during preemption (in favor of the flashing yellow arrow). We are exploring whether the northbound preemption could operate with the protected left turn movement to clear out vehicles more quickly. • The signal timing was reviewed and is appropriate for the existing travel patterns. • After watching peak periods several times, the northbound queues were observed at a maximum of 700 feet from the signal. Most of the observed time, this queue was a few hundred feet and fully cleared with the signal approach green time. • They are reluctant to add another EVP pole in front of or push button within the station at this time. A key concern is the lack of quantitative data indicating your issue is a consistent problem.They also noted adding either option would require a level of design and significant costs to implement. Not impossible, but definitely difficult. Operations further suggested an abnormal surge in traffic would be needed in order for queues to reach the fire station. One possibility for a surge is if surrounding road construction would push more drivers to this intersection. Even regional construction on 494 could have increased through traffic on Highway 62, increasing northbound queues as more signal time gets devoted to the east-west through traffic. It's possible a bad crash in the surrounding area could also divert more traffic to this intersection. Given this information and how MnDOT operations is viewing the situation, here's what I suggest to move forward: 1. 1 will continue to work with them on the preemptive timing using the northbound protected left turn phase. It's not directly related to the issue of queues in front of the fire station, but more efficient clearing of vehicles would only help emergency vehicles move through the intersection. 2. You work with the Fire Station on documenting when the northbound queue reaches the fire station driveway. Ideally, we could record the date, time, and duration of the blockage.These specifics would help us to understand the issue better and provide details needed for additional changes. I understand we won't get 24-7 monitoring, but anything to help quantify how often it happens would be good. Lastly, did you and Molly ever discuss improvements at the Highway 62/Highway 149 intersection? I am trying to find if any groundwork has been established for future page 321 improvements, which would also help reduce vehicle queues. Let me know if you have any questions/comments about this plan. BJ F Bryant]. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. (he/him) Metro District—South Area Engineer for Dakota County 651.443.2564 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION From: Ficek, Bryant (DOT) Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 11:29 AM To: 'Ryan Ruzek' <RRuzek(@mendotaheightsmn.g_ov> Cc: Wilson, Ryan (DOT) <rvan.wilsonC@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Hi Ryan, Following up with some additional information on this topic for you. MnDOT allows fire station warning signs on the highway, typically to warn of unexpected entries to the highway by those vehicles. Sight distance issues are an example of where flashers would make sense. However, in many cases vehicles from fire stations can both be seen and heard by approaching vehicles, and that is usually enough to alert drivers to their presence without signs or a warning system. We would need to know more about the background and data around this specific issue. Once the issue is fully understood and agreed upon, we can determine the appropriate solution. If it is some type of flasher system, then the City could move forward to install the devices via permit (and be responsible for maintenance). If the issue could be resolved with pavement markings, pavement messages, or static signs, then it might be something MnDOT could complete or assist with. If this is a subject you would like to advance now, then I would suggest we set up a meeting between the City(you and the Fire Chief) and MnDOT(me,Traffic, Signing, and maybe Maintenance). At that meeting, we could discuss the background and issue, determining if there is additional evaluation needed or another step toward agreement on the proper solution. Have a great weekend, BJ F Bryant]. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. (he/him) Metro District—South Area Engineer for Dakota County page 322 651.443.2564 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION From: Ficek, Bryant (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:58 AM To: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzeVDmendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Wilson, Ryan (DOT) <rvan.wilsonC@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Good morning Ryan, Yes, I am familiar with different types of devices intended to warn drivers of emergency vehicles.There are multiple options to achieve this type of warning device, including: <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Alert; flashing beacons or LED lights around the sign <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Power; solar-powered or hard-wired <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Communication; wireless radio signal activation or hard-wired <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Activation; push-button, hand held device activation, console mounted push button, or using the EVP emitters TAPCO has a good website discussing and showing the options - https://www.tapconet.com/product/emergency-vehicle-warning-system - but that's not an endorsement of their products as many companies can provide these set-ups. I suspect this would be a local improvement with MnDOT coordination since it would be placed on MnDOT right-of-way. However, I will confirm the process and get back to you soon. BJ F Bryant]. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. (he/him) Metro District—South Area Engineer for Dakota County 651.443.2564 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION From: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzeVDmendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 1:49 PM To: Wilson, Ryan (DOT) <rvan.wilsonPstate.mn.us>; Ficek, Bryant (DOT) <Bryant.Ficek(@ state.mn.us> Subject: Signal Preemption for Fire Station page 323 This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. Hi Ryan and Bryant, The Mendota Heights Fire Chief left the attached voicemail. He is stating that at times, cars can be backed up from Highway 62 to in front of the fire station (2121 Dodd Road). He is asking about the possibility of a preemption device to help alert traffic to the emergency vehicles. This could be a sensor on the road or even a push button operation from inside the station. I do see devices along curved roadways before an upcoming signal. Do you have information on these devices? Is this something MnDOT does or is this a local improvement? Thank you, Ryan Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1152 office phone rruzek0.mendotaheightsmn.gov www.mendotahei htg smn. og_v From: Tim Benetti Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:13 AM To: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzekl@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Message from WIRELESS CALLER (6514852272) Do you share the Chief's opinion on this one? Maybe the back-ups were recent due to the gas line project north of Hwy 62 intersection.... but really— do they experience back-ups that far up the road?? Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve page 324 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb(@mendota-heights.com From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnectionc@vm-mail.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:03 AM To: timbC@ym-maiLorg Subject: Message from WIRELESS CALLER (6514852272) page 325 A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AND 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION AND EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND WETLAND PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the report packet contains additional information submitted by At Home Apartments,the applicant/developer of the proposed Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 241h meeting,these two planning case items were presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the Commission determined additional information was needed from the applicant/development and voted to table both cases to a future meeting date. The additional information was determined as follows: 1) Provide an overall and proposed impervious surface calculation; 2) Provide a lighting plan; 3) Provide a traffic circulation plan; 4) Provide an updated parking analysis or parking data on the existing site; 5) Provide an update traffic analysis; 6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap stalls; 7) Provide an updated landscape plan; 8) Address fire protection and safety measures. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this report also includes an update on the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24th hearing; along with a legal opinion from the City Attorney addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. The Site Development and Elevation Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those presented at the August 24th meeting. The Commissioners should also refer to the information and analysis contained in the original August 24th Planning Reports which were included in the supplemental packet. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should first consider the 58-unit development and then consider the 89-unit development. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of'29 page 326 Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that even though the applications are being presented as one development, staff would still like to see two motions. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the childcare and restaurant uses and whether those were approved and part of the original PUD. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the approved PUD did include a childcare center use on the Phase III property. He explained that if the developer had an interested childcare business they brought forward, that could move forward without additional approvals. He also confirmed that the Phase II site was approved for a restaurant use and as such, if there was an interested restaurant, the developer could move forward on that in the same manner. He stated that those elements were never built, which is why the developer is requesting the amendment process. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. Leanna Stefaniak, At Home Apartments, that she is available to answer any additional questions. She stated that she believes that they addressed the requests the Commission made at its last review. Commissioner Toth stated that he was not present at the last meeting. He referenced the traffic study and noted that it was said there had been a three percent decrease on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that compared the projected traffic from the current approved uses to the projected traffic from the proposed new uses. She stated that if the restaurant and daycare would add 1,024 trips onto Dodd Road while the proposed uses would add 794 trips on Dodd Road. Commissioner Toth asked if there have been any current studies on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that since 2016 there have been several studies on Dodd Road and at the 62 intersection. She stated that the City conducted its own north/south mobility study in 2017/2018 in addition to the 2016 study they completed. She stated that they completed the analysis for the new uses and then the City's consultant reviewed those results. Commissioner Petschel appreciated the data provided related to parking. He stated that he has driven through the lot quite a bit since the last review to observe parking. He asked how many parking spaces are paid within the underground parking structure. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit receives one underground stall for free,which is a total of 139. She stated that there are also overflow stalls which are available for rental and 20 reserved guest stalls. Commissioner Petschel asked if tenants with two vehicles are allowed to park the second vehicle wherever they want. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 29 page 327 Ms. Stefaniak replied that tenants are told that the parking stalls out front are available for short- term basis parking only. Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicant for working with the Master Gardener and believed that many good things came out of that. She noted that in the count of native plants, not including the wildflower mix, only 48 percent are truly native for Phase 11. She commented that she appreciates that native cultivars were also used as those are also good. She stated that she has some concern with greenspace for residents. She stated that perhaps additional planting could be added. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she would have to defer back to the landscape architect, noting that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener as that plan evolves. She stated that they would want to be concerned that the roots do not impose on each other and/or utilities. Commissioner Johnson stated that she spoke with MnDOT and there is an opportunity for the developer to partner with the City and MnDOT would enter into an agreement, supplying plants. She stated that the developer would install and maintain the plants but would not be responsible for the cost of the plants. Chair Field stated that sounds like an interesting suggestion and perhaps Commissioner Johnson could discuss that with the applicant later. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is somewhat aware of the program. She stated that she would want to review other concerns, such as vehicle safety. She noted that if a vehicle goes off road, they would go down a grass area and would be concerned with placing a tree where a vehicle could hit that. Commissioner Johnson stated that it appears the planting specs are missing from the landscaping plan. She stated that she would like to see the correction made to the planting style of the trees to ensure the planting style from Mendota Plaza does not continue, as those trees are not doing well. Commissioner Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for providing the additional information as she finds it to be a much more complete plan. She stated that a focus of the last discussion was parking. She stated that when she reviewed the additional parking information, the handicap accessible stalls appear to be off. She noted that a total of eight handicap stalls are shown for Phase I. She stated that she counted the non-handicap stalls and those are also off. Ms. Stefaniak stated that there are 155 stalls and acknowledged that there was a miscount. She stated that it is possible that there is a typo or two as they have made changes since July. She stated that the numbers within the narrative are correct. Commissioner Lorberbaum reiterated that the different plans and number of stalls do not match on the different documents. She stated that she would love to see the spaces match the table. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of'29 page 328 Pete , architect for the applicant, stated that there are 155 stalls as opposed to 157 stalls and 117 stalls as opposed to 118. He noted that some of the spaces that Commissioner Lorberbaum may be seeing he may be using for mechanical devices. Commissioner Lorberbaum hoped that would be more accurate when presented to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel stated that he believes there is an existing parking problem that could conceivably get worse. He stated that if he is a resident and given the chose between renting an additional space or parking in the giant surface lot, he would take his chances on the surface lot. He stated that driving through the site there are sometimes 45 cars in front of the building. He noted that vehicles are also parking on the dirt, road, and demarcated spots. He stated that he also suspects that people are parking in the shopping center lot, as there are vehicles parking in front of vacant tenant space at 5:30 a.m. He stated that he cannot wrap his head around the scenario where spaces are counted towards the main allotment that would require an additional rent charge to be paid. He stated that people could, and most likely would, choose not to use those rental spaces. Ms. Stefaniak stated that most buildings charge for parking,but they provide an underground space as a service to residents. She stated that the night there were 45 vehicles there was a parent hosting a Saint Thomas homecoming dinner in the community space. Commissioner Petschel stated that from what he has observed it is typical to see 37 to 40 vehicles in the front lot. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not aware of residents parking in the commercial lot and has not received complaints from Pastor or their tenants. She stated that tenants are required to register their vehicles with the apartment, whether they have one or two vehicles. She reported a total of 193 registered vehicles and 223 interior stalls. She stated that some of this is a seasonal and communication issue. She noted that in the summer, some people prefer to park outdoors. She noted that in the winter,people do use the underground stalls. She stated that there was an instance where a vehicle was parked in the dirt lot for a few days, explaining that was a unique situation where a resident's parents were being treated at the Mayo Clinic and parked their vehicle to be out of the way. She stated that with the addition of Phase II,they would have additional surface stalls that could be used by Phase I residents as well. Commissioner Petschel commented that he feels that there is a parking problem. He stated that if people are parking in the dirt or on the street,that is an issue, and those spaces cannot be used. He agreed that the applicant was very transparent with their data, but that data enforces the interpretation that there appears to be a parking problem. Ms. Stefaniak stated that people park on the dirt because it has been undeveloped since 2016. She stated that the development of the lot and providing additional striped stalls would alleviate that problem. Commissioner Petschel commented that the data the applicant provided looks accurate compared to what he observed. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 29 page 329 Lee Copy, engineer for the applicant, referenced the impervious values that were shown in the staff report, noting that those were incorrect. He stated that for Phase 11, the numbers are correct, but they did not compare those to the previous design numbers and compared that to the impervious surface that exists today. He stated that gravel is considered impervious surface and therefore the proposed development would reduce the impervious coverage for that lot. He stated that currently the overall PUD has an impervious rate of 62.4 percent and noted that if both developments are considered, the impervious percentage would then be 65.5 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there was a typo in what was presented by staff related to the lot coverage and provided additional clarification. Maurice , 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, he referenced the project for Lot 7 and stated that lot has been vacant for some time. Chair Field noted that the Commission is considering the first request at this time and noted that there would be time to provide input on the second request. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that at the last hearing comments were permitted in respect to both sites simultaneously and asked if that pattern is being changed tonight. Chair Field confirmed that the intent is to vote separately and therefore the comments should be reflected separately. Mr. Friel stated that most of the comments would apply to both requests and asked if the Commission prefers to have residents repeat themselves. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are two different planning applications, and the Commission could take those separately or accept public input at once. Chair Field stated that if comments apply to both requests, those could be made once. He stated that related to the last speaker,those comments were specific to the second request and should be reserved for that discussion. Mr. Friel commented that his comments apply to both requests. He noted that the comments of Mr. Hanton will apply to traffic and applies to both requests. Chair Field stated that those comments could then be made now and would apply to the second request as well. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that two months ago he spoke about traffic and the problems he believed the development may aggravate. He stated that he has since had a chance to test his theories as there was a medical emergency at his home and it took about 15 minutes for the ambulance to reach him home on a Sunday morning. He stated that because of the traffic styles of the prime and secondary accesses for the project, he would be concerned with the traffic that would be generated by this traffic and the health and safety concerns it would impose on the October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 29 page 330 community. He stated that he is concerned of those north of 62. He stated that people go by that Dodd Road and 62 intersection whether they want to or not, and it is terrible. He commented on the traffic studies that have been done and noted that several different companies have been involved in the studies since 2008 and the resources those companies used. He stated that this application is using materials for a project that never happened and the projected traffic numbers mention a decrease compared to the project that never happened. He stated that the City's north/south study is not even mentioned, which showed the intersection of Dodd and 62 as an F, failing, rating at that time. He stated that the Fire Department comments mention an Opticom system but stated that system would not provide benefit because during times of traffic there is no area for vehicles to move out of the way for an emergency vehicle. Tamara Wills, 788 Hoca Avenue, stated that she shares similar concerns with the last speaker. She stated that the residents do not feel that they are being heard on this matter. She stated that the 2017 north/south mobility study is dated as many things have changed in the area since that time. She referenced areas that were above the critical crash rate within the report with failing ratings. She hoped that the City would learn from those changes,noting that there has been a lot of building and more traffic. She stated that if traffic was bad then, she was unsure why the City is not paying attention to those studies and numbers. She stated that the traffic alone should be showing that this would not work. She appreciated that people buy parcels of land for development, but that should not be at the cost of the safety and convenience of the residents. She stated that she must use Dodd Road daily and hopes that the Commission considers traffic more heavily than it has. She commented that MnDOT would not allow an exit on 62 from The Reserve because traffic moves too fast and because of the proximity to the lights, therefore that would not be allowed for these new developments. She commented that South Plaza Drive and Dodd would then be the only options and those are already bad. She referenced a neighborhood meeting that was held that had representatives from the County and MnDOT, at which time it was stated that Dodd Road was not on their radar because they have higher priorities. John Matsco, 751 Cheyenne Lane, also commented on the traffic on Dodd Road. He stated that if another 800 vehicles are added to Dodd Road, the developer should be required to make improvements. He stated that if traffic issues are caused by a development, the developer should be required to make the necessary improvements. He stated that to add 800 vehicles per day to Dodd Road without making improvements should not be allowed. He referenced the Phase II development and stated that it seems that building this building near the 110 right-of-way would change the character of 110 as there are no other buildings that close to the roadway. He stated that this would seem to be maximizing what can be put on the site to maximize returns. He stated that the Commission does not have to go along with what the developer wants and should instead continue to focus on what the residents want and overall vision for the community is. He stated that it is hard to believe this would be 51 percent impervious. He stated that at his lake place, the gravel driveway is not considered impervious because it is not bituminous or concrete. He stated that just because the site is gravel does not mean it was intended to stay gravel and therefore, he was unsure why a comparison was provided as it is a vacant lot. He stated that there is a lot of parking occurring on the street, on the vacant lot, in the parking facility, and in the commercial area from residents of The Reserve. He stated that he drives by the facility every day and it occurs daily. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 29 page 331 Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for additional ideas for traffic improvement. Mr. Matsco stated that developers have been required to add traffic control, additional lanes, and other improvements that would support the proposed development. He stated that it is clear that the development would place increased stress on the issue. He stated that the improvements are typically a negotiation between the different entities. He stated that it is clear there is already a traffic problem and adding 800 vehicles would not make it better. He stated that 62 and Dodd Road already has Opticom. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that Opticom is being anticipated for 149 and 62, noting that both are controlled by MnDOT. She stated that any improvements for Dodd Road are very far down on the priority list for MnDOT. She stated that even if this would be needed, MnDOT approval would be required and is not guaranteed. She stated that the Mendota Plaza guidelines were used to support plan consistencies, but the setback set as a standard by McDonalds is not being used for Phase 11. Chair Field asked if the setback from 62 has been changed from the original review. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it has not been changed. Chair Field asked that comments be focused on the additional information. He noted that many of the speakers had an opportunity to speak at the last public hearing and the Commission received those comments, therefore any comments tonight should focus on the new information provided since that time. Ms. Smith stated that the Fire Department previously required access behind the Phase 11 building and asked if this is no longer needed and how that would impact those residents. She stated that many of the items within the findings of fact are not facts and suggested the Commission review those carefully. She stated that this development would have an impact far beyond Mendota Plaza and asked the Commission to consider the impacts to the overall community. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, referenced the landscaping plan and comments of the Master Gardener. She wanted to ensure that the model landscape ordinance is reviewed more carefully from the standpoint of the developer. She stated that the current ordinance is very gray, and the PUD allows the City to make additional requests. She would want to ensure that the GreenStep Cities model is followed and that the plan of the Master Gardener is followed rather than the plan proposed. Kate Christianson,2280 Ocala Court, stated that the traffic study completed in 2017 was well done with facts and data. She stated that it includes a summary and conclusion with suggested improvements. She believed that should be considered and the City should work with MnDOT and implement those improvements before additional development is added. Chair Field encouraged the residents to reach out to their State Representatives to push pressure on MnDOT. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 29 page 332 Ms. Christianson stated that the City should not make the situation more difficult for the residents. Jim , 815 Hazel Court, stated that he uses Dodd Road as the main route to leave his home and the road is already overloaded. He commented that Dodd Road has serious problems with the existing traffic and adding this amount of traffic would only make the situation worse. He stated that he was a member of the City Council from 1973 through 1984, and in 1979 they had some tough times with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to keep Mendota Heights spacious and gracious. He commented that most people like to live in the community because it is an open space area. He stated that four or five years ago, the City began to lose the spacious and gracious attitude and is once again under pressure to give away that vision. He asked that the Comprehensive Plan be used as a guide for new development with a focus on keeping existing residents happy. He stated that because of the proximity to the Twin Cities, developers are attracted to Mendota Heights and there will continue to be pressure placed upon the City. He stated that Dodd Road is in trouble right now and encouraged the City to be cautious with the traffic that is added. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the Commission is being asked to possibly approve the revised proposal for these two buildings. He stated that the revised proposal does not deserve serious consideration as it offers very little change from the August proposal. He referenced the staff analysis and stated that he disagrees with some of the proposed findings of fact for approval. He stated that a number of years ago the traffic rating for Dodd Road and 62 was an F,which is the lowest grade you can receive. He referenced the findings of fact listed in the report supporting denial and provided additional comments. He asked what rationale there could be for the Commission to approve the revised project as there is no change from the original project. He considered it to be an insult that the developer would bring back this "revised" proposal and provides opportunity for denial. He did not believe the Commission has a choice other than denying the request. He commented that he doubts that the developer would provide a plan that would change the nature of the proposals. Mr. Friel commented that he would prefer to hold his comments until the presentation is made for the second case. Chair Field stated that the Commission would most likely vote on this request prior to Mr. Friel's comments if he chooses to make his comments in that fashion. Mr. Friel asked if the actions would be separated rather than making motions at the end of the complete presentations. Chair Field stated that he believes that is the expectation of the Commission. Mr. Friel stated that he would make his comments at this time then. He stated that the staff report mentions a five-year completion for the PUD, which was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. He clarified that the project, not the PUD needed to be completed by 2026. He noted at that time the apartment complexes were not contemplated and therefore cannot be considered. He stated that the extension allowed time for the project and not the PUD. He stated that the PUD appears no longer to be, withstanding the assertions of the October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 29 page 333 applicant, a 21-acre PUD as some land was sold. He stated that the tenants within the plaza have not been made aware of the proposals, which he found unusual. He stated that he also found it troubling that staff and the Commission are not understanding the terrible difficulty people in the first section of Friendly Hills have accessing Dodd Road. He noted that those residents were also not notified of this meeting and proposed development. He commented on the issues that exist in terms of safety and traffic volumes on Dodd Road from the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that the developer has suggested that it is important to compare the traffic generated by what was proposed in amendment six,the retail space, restaurant and childcare facility and was unsure why that would be relevant to compare something that was not with something proposed. He stated that there never was a plan for the size of the childcare facility, retail facility or restaurant and there was not a plan for the parking that would be available. He stated that the only thing that was approved by the City is amendment six, which was an agreement that those proposals could be made but nothing was ever planned for or submitted. He stated that he has not heard a word of how these projects benefit the people of Mendota Heights. He stated that it would appear that these projects would only hurt the residents by making the traffic issues worse and would make access to the shopping center even worse. He stated that he has comments with respect to the second project when that presentation is provided. Chair Field briefly recessed the meeting. Chair Field reconvened the meeting. Ms. Stefaniak stated that some residents brought up the north/south mobility study,which she also mentioned. She stated that report used assumptions and modeling available at that time which included the retail, restaurant and childcare uses as well as the Tramal Crow project which was larger than the Linden project. She stated that report highlighted that the most significant area of concern was Dodd and Market Street, not Dodd and South Plaza Drive. She stated that using the modeling and assumptions in that study,which were the higher and more intrusive uses,the results are still valid as these would be less intensive uses. She stated that the recommendations were made for a ten-year period rather than immediate needs. She stated that the report also considered to be built scenarios that were outside of the control of the City, as the assumptions concluded that Inver Grove Heights would be built out as would Vikings Lakes and both of those have not been completed. She stated that MnDOT owns those roads and there would be time to address those concerns over time as originally planned. She stated that she visited four times per day for two weeks at peak times in order to obtain traffic counts as well as non-peak times. She stated that in terms of requiring a developer to complete improvements, that applies to City owned roadways. She stated that their plans were submitted to MnDOT and MnDOT chose not to opine on the project. She stated that it is not their purview to tell MnDOT how to operate their roads. She stated that the Opticom system exists and is located at South Plaza Drive. She stated that the Fire Chief was commenting that it would be helpful to have a trigger closer to the door to trigger the light. She stated that is not their responsibility, but they have been happy to participate in those conversations. She stated that a resident mentioned the GreenStep program, but the City has not developed its own ordinance of that manner. She stated that they have worked with the Master Gardener and have implemented some of her suggestions, but others could not be due to utility and underground water tank storage location. She noted that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener throughout this process. She commented that she lives in Mendota Heights October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 29 page 334 and enjoys the community. She stated that she is not proposing to put apartments in a residential neighborhood or on park property and is instead proposing this development in a business corridor in order to complete the PUD and housing would be the best use. She stated that MnDOT objected to the right-in/right-out access which limits the development opportunity for that parcel. She stated that without that access housing becomes the highest and best use of the property. She stated that they spoke about the mixed-use designation and 75 percent of that should be housing, which this would achieve. She stated that these two parcels were identified in the Comprehensive Plan as underutilized, and this proposal matches the goals of that plan. She stated that many residents of The Reserve sent in supportive emails stating that they wanted this development and believes it would complete the vision and be better than a dirt lot. She stated that business owners within the Plaza would also like to see this development. She stated that details plan for the other proposes uses were included in the 2009 amendment. She stated that they are requesting to change those because market needs have changed. She stated that regardless of the ownership of the property there is an overlying OEA that is encumbered against the entire PUD. Commissioner Corbett provided clarification on the statement within the Comprehensive Plan which states that undeveloped land proposed to develop mixed use is at 75 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that these lots are undeveloped. She noted that the statement intent is that of the undeveloped land, 75 percent of that should be housing. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked and received confirmation that there would be four handicap stalls would be provided for each of the proposed buildings. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett referenced the Comprehensive Plan mixed use section that was discussed along with tabled identifying the dwelling units within mixed use within the staff report. He stated that he was confused on the language used and the related 75 percent. He stated that it seems to be a discontinuity as the majority of the land is developed, and with other uses. He stated that the math seems to be convenient in making the calculations work for mixed use and has concern with the density as proposed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this method was used consistently with The Reserve. Commissioner Corbett stated that his concern would be that the convenient math would continue to compound the problem that already exists. He stated that if this is reviewed lot specifically and October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 29 page 335 not under the PUD,perhaps a different calculation should be used and that would still exceed the dwelling units per acre. He commented that he does not believe that math to be appropriate. Commissioner Katz stated that the original PUD includes language related to traffic impacts and that access and exits to the mall could be adjusted if there are impacts to traffic. He stated that there were specific requirements that stated if a traffic grade of such is issued, these specific adjustments/improvements would be made. He noted that it appears those may have been lost through the multiple amendments that have been made. He noted that the primary concern from residents is related to traffic. He asked who would then pay for improvements if deemed necessary. He understood that staff may be unable to answer his question tonight. Commissioner Petschel asked staff for the best assessment of the traffic grade for Dodd and 62. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City's north/south mobility study, completed in 2018, showed a level of service at F for that intersection. He stated that the other intersections along Dodd were identified in green. He stated that looking towards 2040, assuming other communities build out, a number of intersections will go to a poor level of service. He stated that the City continues to work with MnDOT as the study includes ideas for improvements. He stated that the City would just need to continue to work with MnDOT to install improvements. Commissioner Johnson stated that the original developer agreement dated March 31, 2008 a degrading level of service D or worse was included, but amendment six stated an overall below level of service F. She asked if an intersection could get below an F. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that F is the lowest level of service. Commissioner Johnson referenced the 2016 amendment and asked how the below level of service F would be obtained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that the 2016 amendment mentioned the South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road intersection. He stated that the level of service for Dodd Road and 62 existed before that 2016 amendment. Commissioner Petschel stated that he commutes through this intersection twice per day and The Plaza does not get credit for the southbound traffic as that is moving right or left on 62. He asked the opinion of staff for the direction of traffic attributing to the poor level of service. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the southbound traffic for Dodd Road at 62 provides the worst level of service. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data determining where the northbound traffic is originating. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is a streetlights program that could track cell phone data, but he does not have that for Dodd Road. He stated that the City met with MnDOT in early September and MnDOT received the feedback from the City and has been watching the October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 29 page 336 cameras. He provided details on the ques for northbound traffic,noting that all vehicles in the que are able to make it through the first traffic light cycle. Commissioner Toth commented that he uses Dodd Road,traveling from the south to the north and has been in traffic behind Mendakota Park,taking 11 minutes to make it through the light,therefore he questions that data. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that MnDOT has asked the Fire Department to provide additional data on their observations and MnDOT would then review the cameras on those dates/times. Commissioner Corbett stated that he struggles with how this is framed. He stated that this is a mixed-use PUD and asked how the appropriate levels of density and setbacks would be determined. He stated that within City Code, it would appear the appropriate underlying zoning standards should be applied for the use. He stated that using R-3, the square footage of units was breeching with The Reserve and therefore the developers have consumed the residential footprint for the site. He stated that when reviewing the mixed-use language within the Comprehensive Plan it appears the numbers are made to work rather than reasonable. He recognizes the input on traffic and noted that he does not experience that firsthand and therefore appreciates those comments. He stated that the traffic backs up past the park every day. He appreciated the comments of the developer comparing what could be versus what is proposed but the comments should have focused on what exists and the current circumstances versus what is proposed. He stated that traffic will increase and there was no plan to mitigate for that. He stated that this plan relies on the City going outside of its ordinances and requirements requesting additional flexibility in return for financial motivation. He believed that consideration should be put into the effort that was put into creating ordinance and guidance for development by previous Councils and residents. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2021-12 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR THE REASONS HE SPECIFIED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH APARTMENTS OR THE DENSITY. HE STATED THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF DENSITY BECAUSE THIS IS PHASED DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS HIS LARGEST CONCERN AND IT IS ALREADY HORRIBLE. HE STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES HE HAS SAT THROUGH THREE LIGHT CYCLES. HE STATED THAT HE CANNOT IMAGINE MAKING THAT TRAFFIC WORSE AND HE CANNOT IMAGINE A WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT MAKE IT WORSE. HE STATED THAT ULTIMATELY, HE BELIEVES THESE APARTMENTS SHOULD BE BUILT, BUT THE INTERSECTION HAS TO BE FIXED FIRST. COMMISSIONER TOTH AGREED THAT HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BUT HE HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT IF A BETTER PLAN CAN BE REACHED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC, THEN THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED. HE STATED THAT THERE October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 29 page 337 IS ALREADY A CONCERN WITH HOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN MANEUVER THROUGH THE TRAFFIC. HE STATED THAT THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HOPEFULLY PROPOSE SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ECHOED THE COMMENTS MADE. SHE THANKED THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS AND MADE COMMENTS. SHE AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS RELATED TO SETBACKS, DENSITY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND BELIEVED A SOLUTION COULD BE FOUND THAT IS LESS DENSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECISION MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HEARS THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND SHARES THAT CONCERN. SHE STATED THAT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT SPLITTING THE TWO REQUESTS, SHE HAS CONCERNS WITH DENSITY, SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SHE COMMENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE THIS PHASE MORE APPEALING TO THE RESIDENTS BY USING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WORKING WITH MNDOT TO DO THAT. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS PLEASED TO SEE A 2.0 RATIO FOR PARKING FOR THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS MUCH HAPPIER WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS MANY MORE CONCERNS WITH PHASE III. SHE COMMENTED THAT THIS PHASE WOULD ADD SOME TO THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT IS ONLY 58 UNITS. SHE BELIEVED THE CITY SHOULD WORK DILIGENTLY WITH MNDOT AND REVIEW OPTIONS WITH OPTICOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT IN HER MIND, SHE WAS OKAY MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PHASE. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT TO SOME EXTENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WILL PUSH MNDOT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Johnson and Fields) Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:G requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purposes of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7) and is generally located south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building, or the vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is an 89-unit apartment building. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 29 page 338 Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. Ms. Stefaniak stated that given the conversations they have already had, she will stand for questions. She stated that the supplemental information they provided applies to this request as well. Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the plan it appears a ratio of 1.76 for parking for a total of 155 stalls. She stated that when reviewing the traffic circulation, on the west side of the building there is no yellow or red lines, only traffic. She asked why a sidewalk was not proposed. Pete , architect, stated that the reasoning is based on the connections. He stated that the access is on the east side with another access on the east and both of those would have sidewalks. He stated that those accesses would connect to the sidewalk and then to a sidewalk to the shopping center. He noted that the west side has a parking ramp. Commissioner Johnson commented on the walkability of the entire PUD and believed that would be the shortest path of resistance. She believed people would walk in that street. Mr. replied that they could include a sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson asked if that could be fit in without modifying the landscaping. Mr. replied that the landscaping would need to be moved in that area in order to accommodate additional sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson provided clarity on the actual percentage of native plantings,which would be 52 percent. Maurice , 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, stated that he studied this application with friends,and they found this to be wholly noncompliant in terms of the unit square footage,density,and building and setbacks. He also commented on issues with parking and traffic. He commented that this is an excessive development and the allocation for residential development within the Plaza was already filled through The Reserve. He asked the Commission to carefully consider the lot line boundaries for Lot 7. Jill Smith,625 Hampshire Drive,referenced the area behind the Plaza building,which she assumed is for employee parking but noted that those stalls are identified and included within the apartment October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 29 page 339 count. She also provided comments related to open space and greenspace,noting that the building could be smaller to accomplish that goal. John Matsco, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that he understands that the whole idea is to create a mixed-use PUD, but it is developed piecemeal. He stated that when he looks at this, he cannot help but think of how this is being individually rather than as a whole. He acknowledged that the market desires have changed. He referenced the development across the street that was built as a whole unit with places for people to go and with open space for recreation. He stated that this is concentrated residential development on a portion of the property,and it is not walkable. He stated that every available piece of property is being used,reducing setbacks, and decreasing greenspace. He commented that the density does not match with the vision people had to make that happen. He stated that the setbacks proposed are too tight and are dramatic compared to the original concept. He stated that this is a maximization of what can be developed rather than thinking of people that will live there or use the space. He stated that parking is an issue and employees use the parking behind the Plaza. He did not believe there is enough vision to put this in. He commented that when you continue to deviate from the plan and piecemeal development, it deviates from the original vision. He stated that people have a right to develop property,but it has to be within the vision for what the community is rather than the availability of what developers want. He stated that the longer-term vision does not play out with this proposal that puts buildings on every inch of the property, exceeding density, in order to maximize profits. He stated that there is a reason people come to Mendota Heights and want to live here, and it is not because they develop every square inch. He stated that this would take exception from every ordinance in order to make this fit and the residents deserve better than this. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, referenced the size of the parcel and property lines. He stated that it appears the two acres includes half the private drive, all of the alley,the parking on the south side of the alley, and all of South Plaza Way. He stated that it seems to utilize parts of the PUD that have already been used to support other portions of the PUD in order to provide additional size on this parcel. He stated that if the delivery access to the Plaza and employee parking would be lost to this development as presented. He stated that he also has concern with the density and parking issues already addressed. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the PUD does allow for accommodations to the underlying zoning code. She stated that the deviations from various zoning code applications are not different or uncommon from other PUD developments. She stated that the Code was written in 1980 and the size of the units was considered in 1980, while apartment trend development has changed since that time. She stated that the deviations requested are similar to The Reserve which was a collaborative process through the developer, Commission and City Council. She stated that also applies to two other recent apartment developments. She stated that she is more sensitive to greenspace because this would be for her residents. She stated that the residents at The Reserve appreciate the greenspace and amenities that are provided. She stated that they would not develop a building where they want people to live without providing the necessary amenities. She stated that the parking stalls employees currently use for the Plaza are on Lot 7. She stated that she cannot speak of how the strip mall will parks its employees when Lot 7 develops but noted there is ample parking in front of the Plaza. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 29 page 340 Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he grew up in Mendota Heights and lived on Douglas Road prior to City Hall being constructed in this location. He stated that he has sat patiently and has not been happy with the way the night has gone. He commented on the changes and expansion of the strip mall throughout the years noting that he and his father before him working cooperatively with the City on the project during that time. He stated that he is open to the comments from the residents. He stated that he is a long-term owner of the Plaza and is not just interested in financial gain or the return on investment. He commented on his involvement in the Plaza and community which shows they are committed to the communities and neighborhoods they invest in and are interested in making more livable and enjoyable developments. He believed that this is a unique and rare opportunity to be able to look at the Plaza and have a vision they have worked with the City to create. He stated that the vision has somewhat changed, as the market conditions have changed. He stated that they took a guess in 2016 and discovered the market was not there to support that change. He stated that part of being a retail and commercial developer is that you can create unique places that bring people together and allow them to congregate. He commented on the businesses that have been a part of the development throughout the years. He commented that perhaps he should have spoken during the first review in August. He noted that positive comments that have been received via telephone and email. He stated that as a long-term owner he looks at the Plaza to determine what could be made to make the area to most attractive and bring people in. He stated that in today's world,more density adds more vibrancy and energy to an area which is critical to retail in today's world. He noted that the retail sector has been challenged even before COVID because of the introduction of Amazon into that market. He stated that Mendota Heights is much stronger is the retail node at 110 and Dodd is as strong as possible, and density is required in order to make that strong. He stated that perhaps the mindset is shifted to consider that area as a downtown where people can come together. He acknowledged that many have a perspective that they do not want to see change and that the land should stay open. He stated that while everyone appreciates open space,things become denser in a first ring suburb. He believed that the PUD allows this flexibility. He stated that today is a different world than 2009 when the initial PUD was approved. He asked everyone on the Commission how they are shopping differently and visiting restaurants differently than they did in 2009. He ventured that those experiences are pretty different, and those things should be considered when thinking about the vision for Mendota Plaza and what is appropriate. He commented that they area quality developer, which is reflective in their work not only in this development but in others throughout the metro. He acknowledged that change is hard, especially in a community where things have remained the same for a long time. He believed that the proposal from At Home would increase the housing stock and provide people to come to Mendota Heights as a renters, which is a good thing and would be a good thing for the retailers in the shopping center as well. He stated that if they want to continue to maintain the existing retailers and fill the vacancy,they will need additional density to support that. He stated that he was involved with the PUD in 2009 and he thinks it was a great disservice to include the calculation related to vacant lots and should have been sorted out ahead of time to make that calculation clear. He stated that there is no question that traffic is a problem, noting that it was a problem in 2009 when they began working on the PUD and the intersection was rated a D. He stated that this development is not what is causing the traffic grade and that is an unreasonable standard. He noted that traffic is already at a level F. He noted that they are openminded as to how that can be fixed, but it should be fair and reasonable. He believed they should be treated as an equal partner, and they should be able to make this work in a reasonable October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 27 of 29 page 341 manner. He apologized if his frustration shown through but noted that this is important to him and this is important to the future of Mendota Plaza. Commissioner Corbett referenced the language that was used in terms of the previous amendments being "bad guesses" and commented that he would want to ensure that this was not another bad guess. Mr. Pastor stated that what he referred to was that in 2009 and again in 2016 they could not just leave parcels blank and therefore they planned for childcare, a restaurant and drive-thru coffee. He stated that prior to 2016 they included office and retail, which was somewhat of a guess based on the market. He stated that there is not always a retailer or proposal for those spaces. He stated that the difference is that today there is a viable proposal for viable uses on the two remaining lots rather than a guesstimate on what could be on those parcels. Commissioner Corbett commented that there have been a lot of amendments since 2009. He noted that times will change again in another two years and therefore the use has to be considered in the immediate timeframe as well as the future. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that Pastor Properties has been a long-term community leader hosting many public events. She hoped that Mr. Pastor heard that many of the Commissioners believe there is a way to get to the desired result,but changes would be necessary. She stated that there was not a no to the concept,but to this plan. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-13 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS WELL AS THE REASONS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THE POINTS HE MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS CASE APPLY TO A HIGHER DEGREE ON THIS PROPOSAL AS THIS IS A MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE APPRECIATES MR. PASTOR'S INTENSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DENSITY AND DOES NOT EXPECT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE RAZED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THE SAME THING WITH THE SAME DENSITY AS IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE PROJECT. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION COULD DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC WORSE IN GOOD CONSCIOUS. HE AGREED THAT MNDOT HAS TO DO SOMETHING BUT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE"IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME"PLAN AND October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 28 of 29 page 342 BELIEVES THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE SOLVED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDED. HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PLAN, ONLY WITH THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON A SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY BAD IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAD MORE CONCERNS ON THIS PHASE DUE TO THE DENSITY AND PARKING. SHE COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PASTOR. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE 2 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT WITH A SIDEWALK TO MAKE IT MORE USABLE AND WALKABLE, WHILE KEEPING THE GREENSPACE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOWER DENSITY WITH BETTER SETBACKS. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 22 YEARS AND PASTOR PROPERTIES BRINGS RESIDENTS TOGETHER THROUGH THEIR BONFIRE. HE STATED THAT HE HOPES THAT THEY COULD COME TOGETHER AND WORK TOGETHER, THE CITY, PASTOR PROPERTIES, AND MNDOT AND FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK FOR EVERYONE. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN HIS MIND. HE THANKED MR. PASTOR FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THE CITY. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Field) NewlUnfinished Business No comments. Adiournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:43 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 29 of 29 page 343 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24,2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Commissioners Michael Toth and Andrew Katz. Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuzust 9, 2021 Special Meeting Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE ONE, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...MUD WAS..." ON PAGE TWO, THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...AND ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DESIGNER WERE TO MAKE..." AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings Chair Field stated that he is going to amend the agenda to consider Case C first. C) PLANNING CASE 2021-15 ZACH ROBINSON, 684 3"AVENUE—VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Zach Robinson, owner,and resident of 684 3rd Avenue, is requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 One Family Residential District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a list of adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to the staff report; and one email letter of support from a neighbor. No other comments or objections were received. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page I of 16 page 344 Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Zach Robinson, applicant, thanked staff for making this process accessible and thanked his neighbors for their support. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she stopped by the home and was impressed by the garden. She stated that the addition will go closer to the street and asked if there is a reason that was chosen over the existing setback. Mr. Robinson stated that the addition will go forward six inches because of the recommendation of the builder for the garage space. Chair Field thanked the applicant for attending. Misty Becken, 685 3rd Avenue, stated that the Robinsons are great neighbors, and she would hate to see them leave for something so minor. Ken Noack, 677 4th Avenue, stated that they are happy to have the Robinsons into the neighborhood. He noted that they have a smaller lot, smaller house and garage and it would be nice for the family to update the home with an attached garage and front porch. He commented that they are good neighbors, and the updated home will fit well with the neighborhood. Robert Bonine, 688 3rd Avenue, commented that he lives directly next door, and the proposal will enhance the home and property, as well as the neighboring properties. He commented that he strongly supports the proposal. Mr. Robinson thanked everyone that attended in support of his request. He asked the Commission to approve the request. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS TO August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 page 345 SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF SAID VARIANCE TO ZACH ROBINSON OF 684 3RD AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT WHILE THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SETBACK IN A FEW AREAS, THIS IS REASONABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SHE NOTED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS DUE TO THE LOT SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE HOME. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 9, 2021 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:g requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as Phase 11 of The Reserve of Mendota Village and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment complex (720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City's website). Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the impervious surface calculation for the proposed calculation, which would be based on taking away the wetland area. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 page 346 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the applicant's engineer could provide that information. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the stormwater standards for The Reserve and whether that meets the current requirements. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that Phase 11 was designed under the City's current design standards, noting that there are two underground chambers designed to serve the property. He noted that the new apartment proposed is a slight reduction to the originally planned development. He stated that the 2016 design standard goals were met. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she heard two different parking stall references within the report and asked for clarification between the 118 stalls mentioned and the 122 stalls mentioned. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied there would be 118 stalls. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the number of two-bedroom units. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there would be 30 two-bedroom units. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Leanna Stefaniak with At Home Apartments, stated that they are present to address any questions the Commission may have on the two housing proposals. She stated that they are requesting a PUD amendment for the two housing parcels. She stated that the proposes uses approved in 2016 never came to be, but The Reserve fully leased within six months which proves that is a desired housing type in the community. She noted that The Reserve continues to be fully leased with additional interest. She stated that the additional restaurant and retail components never came to be, and the undeveloped portion of the site continues to be an eyesore. She stated that they intend for this to be a second phase of The Reserve. She noted that they have seen a lot of demand for two-bedroom units, which allows the older population to move into the apartment home option and turns over the single-family homes for new families in the community. She stated that they would treat this as one property together noting that the residents could access all the amenities from the different buildings. Commissioner Corbett asked the breakdown of units within The Reserve. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she believed that 65 percent of the units are one bedroom while 35 percent of the units are two bedroom. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on impervious surface. She asked the impervious surface of the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have that information for the entire 21-acre PUD. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 page 347 Lee Copy, architect representing the applicant, stated that the impervious surface calculation is provided within the stormwater report. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the stormwater report is a very large book and noted that this proposal would be a slight reduction of about 2,000 square feet from what was previously approved. He stated that the stormwater reports submitted are specific to this parcel and not the entire PUD. Mr. Copy stated that he could provide that calculation as a follow up with staff or could attempt to gain that information tonight. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she would want that information in order to consider the application complete. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan and asked if the darker shaded area around the perimeter is where the wildflower is mix proposed and whether sod would be in the lighter shaded areas. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that the lighter shaded areas are sod, and the darker shaded areas are the wildflower mix. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it is her understanding that a lighting plan has not been submitted, which is supposed to be provided. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she does not have the lighting plan with her, but that information could be provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she could not recommend approval without that information. She stated that it is her understanding that a circulation diagram should be provided for traffic, which she did not see. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to the entire PUD or this parcel. Commissioner Lorberbaum replied that it would need to be for the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak asked for clarification if that is required as this is already a PUD and whether that would be required for the CUP requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Bolton and Menk provided the third-party traffic review and will be completing the site circulation prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the parking study is based on information from three years ago, although there were updates. She stated that things have changed, and she was concerned that the study does not compare the current conditions to the proposal. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to traffic or parking. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 page 348 Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified that she was referring to traffic. Ms. Stefaniak replied that they provided their proposed use to the previously approved uses and would not compare the proposed use to Vikings Lakes. She explained that the trip generation compares the proposed residential uses to the previously approved restaurant and daycare uses. She stated that if a full-fledged market study would be required, they could entertain that, but that direction was not provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she has driven by The Reserve a number of times. She noted that staff has said that less than the required parking stalls were allowed, and it has worked out just fine. She noted that when she has visited the site, she has seen all the outdoor parking stalls used, along with the spaces along the curb, and there are also vehicles parked in the triangle that is going to be an addition to The Reserve. She commented that it appears there is not sufficient parking already and this would remove parking and make the situation worse. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she cannot say that all the parking in the dirt is a result of The Reserve. She noted that this proposal would increase parking from 1.6 stalls to 2.03 stalls and would add a significant surface lot. She stated that the additional surface lot would be shared with the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she spoke with a resident of The Reserve and the resident commented that they love living there but it can be difficult to park there. She stated that the resident commented that people do not want to pay for underground parking which is why the surface parking is full. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit of The Reserve receives one underground parking stall included in their rent. She stated that there are additional spaces that can be rented for an additional cost. She noted that there are an additional 22 guest stalls in the underground parking as well. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that her thought was that if a lesser number of parking stalls are allowed, people would need to find a place to park which would put additional burden on the restaurant parking area. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there is not a parking shortage for the commercial space and did not believe there was a complaint from the residents utilizing commercial stalls. She again reviewed the proposed parking for this request, which would provide additional parking for the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on the request for the shorter parking stall length. Pete Keely, architect representing the applicant, stated that the stalls would be 18 feet deep and nine feet wide, while some would be deeper, and handicap stalls would meet the required dimensions. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 page 349 Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it appears there are only three handicap spaces for The Reserve. Mr. Keely replied that two percent of the parking stalls are required to be handicap per the guidelines from the State and generally speaking those stalls are not heavily utilized. Commissioner Lorberbaum believed that handicap stalls in Mendota Heights would need to be 12 feet by 20 feet,not including the access aisle. She believed that the stalls would need to be adjusted to meet that requirement. Mr. Keely replied that they met the State of Minnesota standard. He noted that if that is the requirement, it could be made a condition. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that this proposal would include 2.03 parking stalls per unit. She stated that information was included in the packet which included comments from the Department of Transportation, specific to noise standards for residential uses adjacent to highways. She stated that the comment was made that the noise from the highway in this location could exceed the standards. She asked what would be done to mitigate noise. Mr. Keely stated that noise is something they are always concerned about and provided details on the elements that they incorporate in order to mitigate for noise. He stated that noise has not been a complaint and the tests have exceeded the standards from the State. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that a review from the Fire Department was included in the packet and asked if those concerns would be addressed. Mr.Keely provided additional details,noting that fire hose connections are included in the building permit review. He commented that there is fire access around the property and did not note any concern with that. He was not aware of any specific concerns noted in that report. Commissioner Corbett stated that it has been brought up that the last amendment is not working as planned. He asked the effort that was given towards those uses. Mike Sturdivant with Paster Properties,stated that they have been marketing all of the undeveloped lots since 2009. He noted that there were issues with access from retailers as there is not direct access from 62. He stated that Mendota Plaza is currently 22 percent vacant,therefore the market is showing there is not sufficient demand to develop additional commercial space on that parcel. Commissioner Petschel commented that a deviation was granted on the number of parking stalls for the original Reserve property and asked if there is any data available that would help inform whether that plan worked. He asked if there is any parking utilization data for the remainder of the Paster property. Mr. Sturdivant stated that since The Reserve was developed in 2016 there have been no complaints. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 page 350 Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data or methodology to review current utilization of the parking. Mr. Sturdivant commented that the video he has seen shows parking available at any given point. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would like to have the data to support that the parking is sufficient. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have quantitative data to provide tonight but could provide that information. Commissioner Petschel explained that the City deviated from its parking requirement on The Reserve and would like to see those results before deviating again. Ms. Stefaniak stated that from a general Code perspective and what occurs in other communities. Commissioner Petschel interrupted and stated that Mendota Heights is no other communities, and he does not want to hear that information. Ms. Stefaniak asked if there has been any analysis done by the City on the 2.5 stalls required in the 1980s and whether that continues to be necessary. She stated that she was simply attempting to show the current development trends compared to the standards set in the 1980s. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that the standard may be outdated but that is the standard the Commission has to use until it is shown to be outdated Ms. Stefaniak asked if that should be an analysis by the other properties that used a smaller ratios or whether that would fall to only this property. Commissioner Petschel stated that a deviation from the standard was granted and there has been some discussion as to whether it worked, and that information has been provided. Ms. Stefaniak stated that deviation was granted for other developments as well. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that deviation may have worked but he would like to have the data before continuing to make the deviation. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it would be great to have data that shows that it worked. Commissioner Corbett asked how the data would be defined or measured. He stated that the City has deviated on multiple occasions,but this would be the third deviation within the PUD. He noted that he has been to a restaurant in that development recently and the lot was 85 to 90 percent full. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is a quantitative method in which that could be evaluated. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 page 351 Commissioner Corbett agreed that he would like to see the data if that is available. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that data would be difficult to obtain. She noted that one of the restaurants is only providing take-out service, therefore it would be difficult to assume what eat in parking would demand. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is difficult as the Commission can only discuss this project and cannot go back to what has been done before. She stated that they are also talking about a community where people need vehicles and therefore that data would be important. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the restaurant that is only providing take-out service at this time. Commissioner Johnson referenced the review from the Fire Department and concern with the additional traffic that would utilize South Plaza Drive. She referenced a statement that mentioned traffic would increase 28 percent from the existing conditions. Ms. Stefaniak commented that was an error that they clarified and updated as it did not take into account the current allowed use of the daycare. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that it would be a local responsibility to add the preemptive traffic measure as that issue already exists. He confirmed that the City would handle that update independent of the application. Bernard Friel 750 Mohican Lane, stated that his comments are not directed just at this project, but both proposed projects. He stated that the planning staff reports on the projects are very disappointing. He stated that he could not tell if the reports were prepared on behalf of the Metropolitan Council or developer but did not believe they were prepared on behalf of the City. He stated that the current staff indicated and made several suggestions that Mendota Heights' ordinances should be updated to be similar to other communities. He stated that perhaps staff does not understand that Mendota Heights does not want to be like other communities in the area and is known and rated as one of the most desirable metro communities. He stated that residents like that Mendota Heights is characterized as spacious and gracious. He commented that the objective of a PUD seems to have gotten lost in current years as it has become a mechanism to increase density rather than for the purposes PUDs were created in the first place. He provided a historical definition and purpose of PUD. He stated that these two proposals fail badly on the scale test as they do not preserve natural and scenic quality of any area. He stated that the original PUD concept plans for this property were presented in 2003 and was before the Council six more times in 2007. He stated that a long-held contention shared by the Planning Commission and Council was that no part of the PUD be any closer to 62 than the existing McDonalds building. He stated that the applicant at that time proposed relocation of the restaurant and retail space to 70 feet from the right-of-way, which this proposes that the apartments be setback only 15 feet from 62. He stated that in 2008 the City indicated a strong desire to maintain as much greenspace as possible along 110, also supported by Dakota County. He stated that would be an important feature to maintain greenspace for those living in The Reserve. He stated that the City also expressed concern with a lack of usable greenspace for this 12-year-old PUD. He stated that the PUD ordinance devotes August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 page 352 two pages to usable open space issues, yet said space is hard to find in this PUD. He stated that the City also expressed concern that the developer could cherry pick for certain types of development and does not get around to the other uses and believes that this proposal is an example of that cherry picking. He stated that while there have been several plan amendments, all of those have been consistent in carrying out the original PUD objectives while this amendment proposes to eliminate original uses without benefit of a feasibility study and adds uses at locations not intended for such uses. He stated that one of the most troubling features of PUDs is the willingness of cities to give up open space in return for the payment of money rather than usable open space. He stated that there is a bill pending that would place limits on the use of PUDs. He commented that in the 2008 traffic study,the City had to request that McDonalds be included in the study. He stated if approved, traffic would be the most devastating legacy of these apartments. He believed an updated traffic study should be completed to provide meaningful information for these applications. He stated that the entire PUD should be considered for traffic studies and impervious surface, rather than considering bits and pieces. He stated that the original PUD report states that the total time of completion for the construction shall be within five years from the approval of the final development plan, which was approved in 2009. He stated that a PUD should terminate at the end of the five-year period as only the developer benefits after that length of time expires. He did not believe sufficient context was provided within the staff report. He stated that a PUD has a unified ownership, or all individual owners must be signatories on any potential amendment. He stated that these applications should be treated as applications for new PUDs. He stated that in 2008 there was concern with a percentage of 69 percent of impervious surface for the site. He stated that the staff report mentions that R-3 would be the suitable zoning district but then suggests that those standards do not apply. He did not believe the Commission should consider the requested setbacks or density. He commented that the obligation to the residents of Mendota Heights is greater than the obligation to the Metropolitan Council. He did not believe that these two apartment buildings would be a good fit for the site and instead believed the spaces should be converted to open space in order to help the Plaza achieve the objectives of the PUD. He requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the PUD be formally terminated and adopted the findings of fact supporting denial of the requests. He asked that the Commission require the two parcels to be developed as open space. He provided copies of his statements to staff. He commented that the staff report was 169 pages and therefore residents should be given sufficient time to make their comments. Gary Fishbach, 2150 Fox Place, stated that he loves his neighborhood and neighbors. He commented that the entrance to the mall property is a mess for those that have to use those roads every day. He stated that the statement was made that retailers are not interested in the site because of the poor access to the property. He noted that he does not agree that this development would generate less traffic than what was originally proposed. He stated that if this is approved the City would be adding onto something that is already a mess. He believed that a representative from MnDOT should have been involved. He stated that if this development moved forward, it would create more of a mess and a situation where the residents have to wait until MnDOT schedules improvements. He asked the Commission to think of the residents that live in that area. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that this lot is part of the mixed-use PUD for Mendota Plaza which includes residential uses and is subject to the general zoning regulations for R-3. She stated that this property is also subject to the guidelines of Mendota Plaza. She stated August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 page 353 that while the requirements and regulations are mentioned within the report, staff also goes into detail about how those standards would not have to be met. She provided examples of where the proposal does not meet the standards. She reviewed the requirements of a wetland permit and the related site work proposed that would require wetland permitting. She commented that distance to structures is not shown on the sketch. She reviewed the different variances that she believed would be necessary for the proposed project. She commented that these two projects are being shoehorned into the site and an updated traffic study should be provided. She asked where overflow vehicles from The Reserve would park. She believed a circulation study would be needed for Fire Department safety. She asked who would benefit from the proposal outside of the developer, the owner of Mendota Plaza and the residents that choose to live there. She stated that this proposal, however, would negatively impact residents traveling on Dodd Road and residents that live north of 62. She stated that this is Mendota Heights and not another adjacent community and the City should continue to impose its standards in order to keep the City in its excellent standard. She stated that she was a member of the City Council when this PUD was adopted, and it was never envisioned that a PUD would be abused in this manner as a way to eliminate the zoning standards. Dr. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that he believes that analysis of traffic volumes works best when what has happened is studied rather than what could happen in the future. He stated that driving up and down Dodd Road is already unpleasant in that area and adding that number of apartments to a confined space would increase that problem. He stated that to say these uses would be better than other potential uses is not an applicable argument. He referenced the 2008 traffic and impact study that was done in preparation for the original Mendota Plaza PUD and read excerpts from the report. He also compared that report to the 2013 report. He stated that the 2020 scenario which reported calm reports. He also referred to a north/south mobility study that provided comparisons to the 2017 existing intersection ratings to the anticipated 2040 build scenario and base conditions. He stated that he is unsure how the Fire Department would get to his property during times of heavy traffic. He stated that when apartment buildings are constructed,those are temporary living conditions, and those people are going out much more than those living in single-family homes. He stated that the Commission has a tough job. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, stated that her main concerns for the proposal are related to density and traffic. She commented that the density exceeds the density specified in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the biggest problem would be traffic and that this density would cause more traffic. She believed that improvements should be implemented before additional traffic is added. She referenced the study completed by the developer that compared what might have been to this proposal. She referenced the incorrect percentage of trips shown in the report and noted that it would be helpful to have the correct number. She stated that Bolton and Menk commented on the improvements to the plaza and not the other roadways but mentioned that the City needs to focus on other improvements to control traffic. She believed that the improvements should occur prior to the additional apartments being added. She stated that many Mendota Heights residents use 149 as their main way out of their neighborhoods and the City should concentrate on those improvements before adding additional density. She asked that the Commission recommend denial of the plans. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 page 354 Randy Swenson, 775 Creek Avenue, echoed the comments made thus far including traffic. He stated that he has concern with light pollution. He stated that he is unsure of the impact from lighting from the big apartment buildings. He referenced noise pollution, noting that he has Anderson windows in his 1957 home, along with new insulation and siding but is still awakened by the garbage trucks that empty the mall trash containers. He stated that on the other side of his fence is the south plaza office building and therefore he hears those trash trucks three times per week as well. He stated that there is a taekwondo center adjacent to his home as well, which creates additional noise for his property. He commented that in the winter, the parking lot behind his home causes additional noise from snow plowing. He stated that additional apartment buildings and surface lots would create additional noise for his property. Thomas Smith,625 Hampshire Drive, offered a broader perspective on the comments that previous speakers have made tonight. He pointed out that Mendota Heights is fully developed and furthermore throughout that development history the City has avoided rampant commercial development and rampant density development that is characteristic of other adjacent communities. He stated that as a first-tier community, Mendota Heights is unique in that category because many decades ago, City officials recognized that the community had unique appeal in terms of development. He stated that the first Mayor was a leader in saying the City would not pander to developers and that mantra prevailed over the succeeding decades and therefore the pattern of development has been prudent and careful. He stated that there are numerous flaws with this current proposal including traffic, setbacks, unit size, etc. He stated that it seems that the developer is asking the City to pander to them. He asked who the Commission would rely on to guide the City in the future. He noted that City staff does not seem to have a sense of defending the special character of the City. He stated that developers are also not invested in the future of the City, only making money. He commented that the future of the City and sustaining its pattern of development lies to the Commission and City Council. He believed that the requests for parcel two and parcel three should be denied because of the number of flaws. He commented that residents like the City the way it is. Allen Olson, 2153 Fox Place, commented that he is in awe of the previous speakers who were incredibly prepared. He commented that he agrees with the comments made thus far. He commented that the intersection of 62 and Dodd is already a failure and therefore a study is not needed. He commented that it is often difficult and unsafe to get out of his neighborhood. He stated that the smoke and mirror statistics/study was offensive. He stated that even though he lives close to the Plaza, he does not frequent those businesses because of the traffic problems. He commented that there is a daycare facility on his street and that is enough. He stated that he likes the open space and does not see it as an eyesore. He commented that in his experience wildflowers is a nice way to say weed patch. He referenced median plantings that were done that turned into weed patches. He echoed the comments of the previous speakers and stated that he is adamantly opposed to the request. Beth Henry Olson, 2153 Fox Place, stated that making a left turn onto Dodd Road has always been a struggle and therefore she cannot imagine more traffic. She stated that when she moved to her property, Mendakota Park was still being hayed and people were riding horses in that area. She stated that there is nothing specific about this proposed addition that she would like to address but noted that pieces added to the development have a cumulative effect. She believed that the traffic August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 page 355 issues should be addressed with communication with MnDOT prior to allowing additional development. She stated that if traffic is not addressed with this proposal, the request should not move forward. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they are not proposing a daycare, that is the current proposed use, and this request is for apartment housing. She stated that they understand the concerns with traffic. She noted that MnDOT was communicated with and chose not to opine on the traffic piece. She acknowledged that there are different owners within the PUD but noted that The Reserve and housing projects proposed would be of the same owner. She stated that there is an OEA and Declaration Agreement that governs the overall PUD and how the properties and uses exist in harmony. She requested that the vote be tabled in order for her to provide the additional information requested by the Commission including an impervious surface study for the entire PUD, a lighting plan, a traffic circulation study, and quantitative parking analysis. She asked if they are being asked to complete a traffic study for the entire 21 acres, as that would be quite an undertaking. Commissioner Lorberbaum deferred to staff, noting that it is her understanding that would be required for what is current. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff asked the developer to provide a traffic analysis based on the conditions that would be added to the PUD. She stated that the City review was done independently and separately and was provided in the packet. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the plans should be adjusted to reflect the required handicap stall dimensions. She also asked that those stalls be marked on the plans. Ms. Stefaniak stated that her request to table would extend to the following case as those same concerns would exist for that proposal. Commissioner Petschel stated that the apartment is proposed to be 15 feet from the right-of-way and asked what concerns would exist for placing an apartment building that close to the highway, below the grade of the road, without barriers. Pete Keely stated that the distance is 15 feet from the right-of-way, which is 75 feet. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the location of the traffic study language. Chair Field clarified the request of the applicant to table this request with the public hearing open and forgoing opening the public hearing on the next case at this time. He asked if the applicant would submit a written request to that nature for the public record related to the 60-day review period. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was not mentioned that the unit sizes do not meet the minimum of 750 square feet. She stated that she would like to see balance in that area or for the standard to be met. She noted that for the following plan there is no landscaping plan, and the Master Gardener was not provided the ability to provide input. She noted that request is also August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 page 356 missing the lighting plan. She referenced the Comprehensive Plan which mentions goals and policies in chapters seven and eight related to development and suggested the applicant review that information. She stated that there were comments from the Master Gardener that were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a follow up was received from the Master Gardener related to the hole diagram for the trees and related to the mulching near the base of the tree. He confirmed that staff shared that information with the applicant. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that they can work with those recommendations from the Master Gardener. She stated that the Master Gardener was helpful in creating the landscaping plan for The Reserve and many of those elements carried over into these plans. Commissioner Johnson referenced the Bolton and Menk review and recommendations for City and MnDOT improvements and asked that the applicant review and address those. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the recommendation of the southbound left turn lane would fall to MnDOT. She noted that they could have another discussion but was unsure what the reply from MnDOT would be. Chair Field commented that statements were made related to the standing of the PUD and stated that it would be interesting to have a comment related to that. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that it is his opinion that the application for the amendment of the PUD would be the proper course to take as the existing 21-acre parcel is zoned PUD and there have been seven amendments within that 21-acre PUD. He stated that because the existing parcel is already zoned PUD there would be no point in requiring a new PUD application as it already exists within a PUD and therefore an amendment would be the appropriate course to take. Commissioner Corbett asked if the City is acting out of its own rules and guidelines and whether the PUD should have been closed after the time period expired. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that whether this was proceeding as a new PUD application or an amendment to the PUD, the City's regulatory powers are not diminished or lessened. He stated that the standards existing within the City's ordinances would still need to be met. Commissioner Corbett asked whether this was supposed to be closed five to seven years ago. Commissioner Petschel asked if that is specific to the rights of the applicant to execute against a hypothetically sunset plan. He asked if the project was not completed within the appropriate time, would the approvals expire. Commissioner Corbett stated that the PUD is done in accordance with the wants of the City and developer. He asked if too much leeway has been provided in continuing to amend the PUD to meet the needs of the developer. He stated that units are used as a measure of volume. He stated August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 page 357 that when referencing R-3 the square footage is based on bedrooms. He asked if the acreage this is based on is 75 percent of 18 for density. That was confirmed to be true. He stated that The Reserve has gone 15 percent over the threshold for that area, in that there are 618,000 square feet permissible for residential and 694,000 is consumed by The Reserve. He stated that The Reserve exceeds the highest density for that entire site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in 2016 when The Reserve was approved, staff presented 139 over the two-acre parcel. He stated that the parcel equates to about 60 units per acre,but staff presented an overall density calculation on the entire 21-acre site,which dropped the density to 10.7 or 10.8 units per acre. Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps there should be some recollection as to how the density is calculated. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are differences between R-3 and MU-PUD. Commissioner Corbett stated that obviously there is leeway but if the proposal exceeds over ten percent past the guidelines it would appear to fail. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE CASE 2021-12 WITH CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO TABLE CASE 2021-13. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT ONE RESIDENT WAS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON 2021-13. THE RESIDENT CONFIRMED THAT HE WOULD POSTPONE HIS COMMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 7, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No additional comments as the item were tabled. Staff Announcements/Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • All cases recommended for approval at the Commission's special meeting were approved by the City Council. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she did not notice a screen along Lexington. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 page 358 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff is working with Xcel to have that screen installed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief update on road projects. Adiournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:58 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 page 359 First, let me say thank you Mayor and Council members for your service to the community. My wife, Louise and I became Mendota Heights residents 3+years ago with the opening of the Reserve. After over 30 years of raising a family in our Eagan home,we decided to downsize. We were so excited to be able to find an upscale housing facility such as The Reserve and have been very happy since. We feel Mendota Heights is a hidden gem of a community and appreciate your efforts in guiding the city. We find many of our fellow residents in similar situations, still working (mostly professionals), not needing 4000 square foot homes and starting to travel more with our families raised. In this sense,the Reserve fills an important need. Upscale amenities, great location and the opportunity to be a part of a great community. This is not your stereotypical apartment. It is quiet, friendly and community oriented. We and fellow residents love supporting our local restaurants and businesses. I feel a greater local pride than I would have expected moving in. The management has been wonderful keeping property and units beautifully maintained and are very responsive. I would without reservation endorse their further development in the area and would find an additional Reserve development a great neighbor. Thank you again for your community service. I tell people weekly about what a great place Mendota Heights is and encourage them to consider this a place to live and work. Sincerely, Glenn L Detlefsen, MD Louise Detlefsen Cell #651-26-6669 page 360 From: Reid Bradley To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: Meeting Tonight Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 2:55:38 PM Hey Tim &Stephanie, My name is Reid Bradley and I am the franchisee for Anytime Fitness—Mendota Heights. We have been in business since 2006 in Mendota Heights and survived the pandemic! I wanted to send you an email as I know you have the planning commission tonight to discuss some proposed market rate housing projects potentially coming soon to Mendota Heights. I won't be able to attend but I wanted to make sure and share my thoughts with you. I am 100%supportive of these projects as we desperately need additional housing options to keep the community thriving with young professionals. Our gym depends on local residents and Mendota Heights needs additional opportunities for new families to join the community. Apartments are also needed to help support local restaurants, making Mendota Heights a more desirable community to visit. Please keep us in mind as we depend on projects like these to stay in business. Thanks! REID BRADLEY Anytime Fitness Franchisee Direct: 612.309.2246 Reid6DAnytimeMN.com page 361 From: Nilsson,Steve To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: New Mendota Heights apartments Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 12:42:38 PM Good afternoon Mayor Levine and Mr. Benetti. My name is Steve Nilsson and I live at 1220 Sylvandale Road. I have lived at this address the past 15 years with my wife and three children. We love this community and all that it has to offer our friends & family! I am writing you today to offer my support for the proposed new apartment project at Highway 62 & Dodd Road. This proposed project should not only strengthen demand for new restaurants and retail in the immediate area, but also increase the tax base for our beautiful community! Please call with any questions on my position to this project and hoping the council approves this quality development being proposed. Enjoy your day and thanks for considering my position! Steve Nilsson 612-719-6058 Please excuse any typos as this message was sent from my mobile device. page 362 From: Betsy Jovice To: Stephanie Levine;Tim Benetti Subject: The Reserve at Mendota Plaza Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 10:11:05 AM Good morning Stephanie and Tim, On behalf of At Home Apartments and Paster Enterprises I would like to express to you my support of phase 2 of The Reserve. I have been a lifelong resident of Mendota Heights. My husband, three kids and two dogs are currently renting at The Reserve while we undergo a remodel on our home located on South Lane. I grew up in Copperfield and attended Mendota Elementary and Visitation. The project at the Mendota Village and now Linden have been great additions to the community. Allowing At Home and Paster to finish off The Reserve and Mendota Plaza would give the intersection of Dodd and 62 its final touches. Not to mention all the benefits the businesses at Mendota Plaza would receive as well with more residents just a short walk away. The Reserve has done an outstanding job with preserving the areas closest to the beloved Dodge nature center. It encourages all its residents to enjoy but also respect the cleanliness of the community. The landscaping At Home has incorporated around the building is of superior quality and design. We have been so grateful to be able to live in a beautiful and comfortable building and community while we are remodeling our forever home. Our children and their friends all thought it was a five star hotel we were moving to Thank you for your time. Betsy Joyce 1862 South Lane Mendota Heights 651-428-9249 page 363 From: Dave Kvarnlov To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine;Joel Paper;duaaan.ultan(@amail.com;John Mazzitello;Jav Miller Subject: Proposed Reserve Phase 2 Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 10:01:00 AM Mayor,Council and Staff I understand that At Home will be presenting their phase 2 plans to the council soon. I have been a resident of Mendota Heights for 28 years and love our community. I sold my house on Canton Court 4 years ago and without the"then proposed"Reserve apartments in progress,I would have had to leave our community. The Reserve has exceeded my expectations in every way and believe it has brought value to our community.I have no doubt that this same quality would carry over to Phase 2. When talking with friends outside of the MH area,many have commented on what a beautiful building and area we have. I believe that Phase 2 will bring additional value to our community. This will definitely enhance the aesthetics of the existing dirt area in front of our building,add to the vibrancy of the mall,but more importantly,will provide additional opportunities for MH residents who want to downsize,but would love to remain in our city. Based on the above comments I wholeheartedly support the city granting approval to At Homes to move forward with Phase 2. Thank you. Dave Kvamlov Sent from my iPad page 364 From: felipe mata To: Tim Benetti Subject: From Teresas Mexican Rests. Date: Monday,October 25,2021 8:49:13 PM Dear Tim, I have been a longstanding Tenant at the Mendota Plaza shopping center and wanted to write in my support for these two projects. We think they will add to the vibrancy of the existing center and businesses. We believe our proposed projects will benefit business owners located in the Mendota Plaza shopping center in the following ways: -Apartment development will strengthen the demand for patrons of the shopping center. - Enhancing Mendota Plaza with these two projects helps strengthen the tax base for the community, and locating housing density in the commercial corridor increases the City's walkability. Sincerely, Felipe page 365 From: Mortensen,Scott To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine;Joel Paper;Jay Miller;duaaan.ultan(cbamail.com;John Mazzitello; Litton Field Subject: At Home Apartments-support Date: Monday,October 25,2021 7:43:11 PM Attachments: imaae001ona Stephanie,Joel,Jay, Ultan,John, Lit and Tim, I am writing in support of the continued development of the Mendota Plaza area. I have been life- long resident of this community and for as long as I can remember the cyclical failures of Mendota Plaza has and continues to be a black eye on our city. We finally have one part of it that lives up to a "Mendota Heights standard," the At Home Apartments building. In speaking with Mike Cashill and Leanna Stefaniak, it is my understanding that before you is an opportunity to significantly upgrade two additional areas of the development. I know they are committed to a standard of quality that we can be proud of. My hope is that you use the additional tax revenue generated toward further upgrading the entire area. At Home Apartments raises the bar in the Mendota Plaza development and other apartment buildings throughout our community. We do not have much retail space in this town and what we have is substandard. Adding more residential space and thus furthering the mixed use to this space can only help the merchants which will hopefully lead to Mendota Plaza being a more vibrant part of town. Thank you for reading and your consideration, Scott Scott A. Mortensen Principal T +1 612-758-5014 scott.mortensenO)bernstein.com BERNSTEIN **Please note our change of address- 225 South Sixth Street Suite 2500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 www.bernstein.com CONTEXT/AB Bloa YouTube Linkedln ............................................................................ For further important information about AllianceBernstein please click here page 366 From: John Gelderman To: Tim Benetti Subject: Mendota Plaza Date: Monday,October 25,2021 5:26:16 PM Hi Tim, I just want to offer my support for the apartment projects planned for Mendota Plaza. The existing apartments that were developed by At Home are some of the nicest ones in the entire metro area, and it sounds like the new ones will be similar. Also, I think Mendota Plaza is the PERFECT place for high density housing in Mendota Heights. The existing center is an ideal candidate for redevelopment and there seems to be plenty of undeveloped land behind the center. John Gelderman 1812 Valley Curve Road Mendota Heights MN 55118 Office: (612) 840 2096 Cell: (612) 840 2096 page 367 From: Alexander R.Bisanz To: Tim Benetti Subject: Resident Support for Mendota Plaza Multifamily Projects Date: Monday,October 25,2021 5:27:17 PM Hi Tim, My name is Alex Bisanz. I am a resident of Mendota Heights and live at 741 Evergreen Knolls. I am writing to acknowledge my strong level of support for the two multifamily projects that are being proposed at tomorrow evenings Planning Commission meeting. The projects I am referring to are the second phase of The Reserve at Mendota Heights as well as the proposed 85 unit project that would be located behind the Mendota Plaza on the vacant land parcel. As a real estate developer within the Twin Cities, I have a pretty good fundamental understanding regarding how these projects can impact a community in a positive way. Please see below a few of the highlights that I believe these projects will do to enhance the community as well as the local economy: -These projects that add to the density surrounding Mendota Plaza will continue to strengthen the Highway 62 & Dodd Road intersection as a commercial node.The proposed projects will provide additional housing options for Mendota Heights residents that want to downsize and stay in the area. The project located behind the plaza is geared to young professionals who want to live near employment opportunities in the area they grew up in without needing to purchase a home (yet). Additionally, downsizing helps turnover existing single family home housing stock and provides opportunities for new families to move into Mendota Heights and support our local school systems. -Apartment development will strengthen the demand and desire for existing and new restaurants and retail at Mendota Plaza and The Village. - Enhancing Mendota Plaza with these two projects helps strengthen the tax base for the community, and locating housing density in the commercial corridor increases the City's walkability. In addition, not that either group needs the acknowledgement based on reputation, but At Home Apartments and Paster Properties are both incredible development firms that build a very high- quality product and are very strong and responsible landlords. Long term ownership and management in the multifamily business is important particularly from good reputable companies. Please consider this email as my personal endorsement as a resident of Mendota Heights to see these projects approved at the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meetings. To the extent you have any questions or would like to speak with me, feel free to contact me on my cell at (651) 895-5418. Thanks! Alex Bisanz Development Partner REAI. F T TE EQUITIES 579 Selby Ave, St. Paul, MN 55102 d 651.389.3801 f 651.389.3701 c 651.895.5418 REEapartments.com page 368 From: David Williams To: Tim Benetti;slevineCalmendotaheightmn.gov;Joel Paper Subject: Planning Cases 2021-12 and 2021-13 Date: Monday,October 25,2021 4:54:15 PM Dear Mr. Benetti, Mrs. Levine and Mr. Paper I have been a resident of Mendota Heights for 7 years after looking to move to the area for more than 15 years. We love our home, the community, access to the greater metro area, parks, walking trails, schools, etc. We are glad to see that the city is encouraging development in and around the Mendota Town Center and Mendota Plaza area. As you know, Mendota Heights has very few options for well designed rental housing. That means that seniors that want to sell their homes and stay in the area have very few options. It also means that young adults that have family in the area need to locate further away from the community due to lack of adequate rental housing options. The proposed additions to Lot 1 and Lot 7 will add much needed quality rental housing to the area giving both empty nesters an option to sell homes to younger families that want to take advantage of all the benefits of raising a family in Mendota Heights. The new apartments will also give young adults an attractive option to rent in the area that they may have grown up in or hope to someday own a home and raise a family. This land has been sitting idle for too long and if there were better development options they would have come to fruition by now. It's time that they started generating some tax revenue for the city and school system. As you can see by the Reserve at Mendota Heights property and any other At Home Apartments property in the metro area, they are truly expert developers and managers that take tremendous pride in their properties. I'm sure from your past experience in dealing with them and the success of the Reserve that they are definitely a known quantity to the city and staff. Maintaining consistent quality, while being sensitive to unit mix is obviously important for the success of this housing. I think that having the same owner/developer make this additional rental housing even more attractive and complimentary to the success of the Mendota Plaza mixed use development. The additional housing units should also make the retail more valuable and hopefully help attract some more businesses to our community. Thank you for all you do for our wonderful city and thank you in advance for considering approval of this high quality rental housing. Sincerely, David Williams Mendota Heights Resident page 369 From: ellen sue stillman To: Tim Benetti; Stephanie Levine Subject: Supporting Howard Paster Properties and At Home Apartments Project Date: Sunday,October 24,2021 7:18:15 AM Dear Planning Commission for the City of Mendota Heights, We are in favor of two newly proposed high quality projects that include a 58 Unit apartment, considered as the second phase of The Reserve at Mendota Village, and an 85 unit apartment project located behind The Plaza. The corners of Hwy 62 and Dodd Rd have a great opportunity to enhance quality living in Mendota. It will bring in new people, breathe in "new life" and an "updated" living community that our city needs. People who want to sell their homes in Mendota and stay in Mendota are looking for quality places to live after their move. We want to keep our Mendota Hts citizens here after their transitions, along with enticing new citizens who will have a reason to move here. It would provide a reason to stay, rather than move to other suburbs and communities. There is a need for high quality places where professionals can live before deciding to stay and purchase a home in Mendota. This will also promote new businesses and restaurants and keep our community vital. Our neighborhoods are continuing to turn over to new families with children who come here for quality schooling. We have lived here for 48 years and we see the turnover. We wonder where we will move. Walkability for seniors is desirable and housing within good and vital commercial real estate is a plus for all ages and necessary. People who have lived in Mendota all their lives, stayed to raise children and want to remain in Mendota. They are looking for the next step in their lives. Mendota is close to the airport, and 20-30 minutes to downtown Mpls, St. Paul and other suburbs. Mendota would be a nice place to entice other suburbs to come and visit as we go to their residential and commercial areas. page 370 It has a country feel and has needed NEW quality restaurants and retail for a long time. Howard Paster builds quality apartments and commercial real estate with community in mind. An expansion of The Reserve would be the next step in providing a desirable next step living,plus bring in professional people to our city to work and decide to stay buildIng their families here. We are in favor of this new proposal on October 26. We need more NEW in Mendota Heights. Thank you. Sincerely, Tom and Sue Stillman Sent from my iPad page 371 From: Holly Douohty To: Stephanie Levine;Tim Benetti Subject: The Reserve Date: Sunday,October 24,2021 10:12:34 AM Dear Stephanie and Tim, My name is Holly Doughty and I am a resident at The Reserve.I was the first person to move into The Reserve in July of 2018.As a long time home owner in the city of St.Paul being a renter was a big change for me and it has been a very positive experience.At Home management is second to none with their quick response to resident concems,upkeep of the building and a fostering a warm welcome community.I love the"neighborhood"feel of the building and the strong connection with the residents. I am also enjoying being a resident of Mendota Heights,i.e.voting in your city elections,supporting local businesses,and taking advantage of the beautiful amenities. My grandchildren and I spend countless hours at Dodge Nature Center and the local parks.I have fully embraced being a resident of this great community and have a strong connection with family here as well.My son,daughter in law and their children live in the Ivy Falls area and my brother became a resident at The Reserve in January of 2020. I am in full support of and looking forward to the next phase of The Reserve community development. I believe expanding our"neighborhood"will attract new restaurants and retail spaces which will be a very welcome addition. I urge you to support At Home Apartments and Paster Properties with this exciting and vibrant project. Please reach out to me with any questions you may have about my experience at The Reserve. Thank you. Holly Doughty 720 South Plaza Way, 102 Mendota Heights,MN 55120 page 372 From: Bob McNaney To: Tim Benetti Subject: RERSERVE CONSTRUCTION LETTER OF SUPPORT Date: Sunday,October 24,2021 6:22:14 PM October 24, 2021 Dear Council Member Benetti, I am writing in support of the proposed "Phase 2" construction project at The Reserve. I view the project as an important addition to the City of Mendota Heights. For nearly three years, I have called The Reserve home and could not be more impressed with the management team, the property itself and the residents who have become my neighbors. I have no doubt that the proposed project will enhance the community significantly. As a business professional who travels extensively for work, I view the addition of more rental housing close to the airport and both downtowns to be imperative to attracting working professionals such as myself. It is my understanding that the project will create the high quality, well-maintained, safe and friendly environment residents and neighbors have experienced in the current building. Having such rental housing available is serving many folks-from travelers like myself, to "empty- nesters" who want to keep a residence close to their families without the burden of maintaining the homes their kids grew up in. Simply put, the proposed project is exactly the type of addition any community would welcome. Again, I wholeheartedly support the project At Home Apartments and Paster Properties have proposed. Very best regards, Bob McNaney Resident, The Reserve Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. page 373 From: Will Stewart To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: apartment development Date: Monday,October 25,2021 9:20:05 AM Greetings, As a resident of Mendota Heights I am writing you in support of the two proposed apartment developments being presented to Planning Commission on 10/26. Both Paster Properties and At Home Apartments have proven to be of the highest quality when it comes to past developments. The Reserve was a wonderful addition to our community and I look forward to the addition of the two new buildings being proposed for the following reasons..... -Additional quality buildings that add to the density surrounding Mendota Plaza will continue to strengthen the Highway 62 & Dodd Road intersection as a commercial node.The proposed projects will provide additional housing options for Mendota Heights residents that want to downsize and stay in the area.The project located behind the plaza is geared to young professionals who want to live near employment opportunities in the area they grew up in without needing to purchase a home (yet). Additionally, downsizing helps turnover existing single family home housing stock and provides opportunities for new families to move into Mendota Heights and support our local school systems. -Apartment development will strengthen the demand and desire for existing and new restaurants and retail at Mendota Plaza and The Village. - Enhancing Mendota Plaza with these two projects helps strengthen the tax base for the community, and locating housing density in the commercial corridor increases the City's walkability. All the best Will Stewart President MFC (Minnesota Flexible Corporation) Phone: 651-645-7522 Direct: 651-789-8925 Cell: 612-805-6049 www.mfchose.com For all the latest information follow us on Please check out our intro video Come To Know MFC page 374 From: Michael Waldman To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: Reserve at Mendota Village Project Date: Monday,October 25,2021 9:44:57 AM Dear Stephanie and Tim, I am not able to attend the planning commission meeting tomorrow night, but I understand there is some question about the approval of the support for the 2nd phase of the Mendota Reserve project at Mendota Village. As a Copperfield neighborhood home owner, I am very much in support of the project that adds density to Mendota Plaza, encourages more stores and restaurants to open in our neighborhood, and strengthens the shopping area at 62 and Dodd Road. I know you usually hear more often from the very few that oppose this type of growth for our community, and more rarely from the much larger group that thinks it is terrific. So I wanted to make sure your heard from the majority on this issue. Thank you for all you are doing to build our wonderful community! Best, Michael Waldman page 375 From: Loren Geller To: Tim Benetti Subject: Two New Apartment Projects Proposed at Mendota Plaza Date: Monday,October 25,2021 11:27:27 AM Dear Mr. Benetti, We are expressing our support for the two new apartment projects proposed by At Home Apartments and Paster Properties. We believe the proposed projects will benefit the Mendota Heights community by adding additional quality apartments to strengthen the Highway 62 & Dodd Road intersection both residentially and commercially. Thank you for your consideration of our support. Loren and Rosie Geller 165 Stonebridge Rd. Lilydale, MN 55118 Get Outlook for iOS page 376 From: Gerry Frisch To: Tim Benetti Subject: Paster Properties Apartment Projects Date: Monday,October 25,2021 12:39:33 PM Mr. Benetti: As a home owner in Mendota Heights I support the Pater Properties proposed projects at Mendota Village. The proposed projects will bring a more visual awareness to the growth of our city. We need quality apartments for existing homeowners to move to so they can remain in the city after the sale of their homes as elders and it will also encourage new residents to the city. I think it will help our community to thrive. Gerald E. Frisch page 377 From: Mary Horan To: Tim Benetti Subject: Please approve At Home Apartments Expansion Date: Monday,October 25,2021 3:37:21 PM Hello Mr.Benetti, I am a resident at the The Reserve Apartments in Mendota Heights.I have greatly enjoyed living here and At Home Apartments has been gracious and attentive owners and landlords to the residents here. Currently,I look out my window at a dirt lot. I think it is begging for development.I believe the proposed Phase 2 of The Reserve will enhance the livability here and will greatly benefit the existing businesses,as well as attract new ones. I'm asking for your support to approve the variance needed to make this project a needed and welcomed addition to our neighborhood.Thank you! Sincerely, Mary Horan Resident The Reserve Apartments page 378 From: Paul Wagner To: Stephanie Levine;Tim Benetti;Joel Paper;duagan.ultanCabgmail.com;John Mazzitello;Jay Miller Cc: Carrie Ferris;Cindy Wagner Subject: Mendota Heights Reserve Expansion Date: Monday,October 25,2021 4:45:45 PM Attachments: imaae006.pna Good Afternoon, I appreciate some of you taking my call as I was making the rounds. I also appreciate all the work you do given the variation of all opinions; that is never easy on any level. Just a short message from a local Mendota Heights citizen and an original Reserve tenant. I have heard and read what I could from the Reserve to expand their footprint near our apartment building. I am in support and here is why: I have always been treated well and they seem like good, honest, nice folks. They have been good people to deal with if any issue arises. I have talked to most of the owner operators across the street, and often times know them by their first names; it seems to me they are also in support. Granted, it is in their best interest but yes, I think they are sincere. The Reserve are local folks. I am a life-long St. Paul resident until I recently moved to Mendota Heights. In St. Paul, everything is local. Being local, they seem like long term players vs just builders. I think they navigated the Covid challenges in a first class manner; not easy considering the stress and circumstances. If anyone of you would like to chat about my personal experiences, feel free to call my cell listed below. Good luck with the vote. Paul Paul J. Wagner Chairman / CEO Minnesota Wire Mobile: 651.592.5999 mnwire.com J" MINNESOTA WIRE cl1'Si—V lf<w'rk. 'STTReTCFr CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, and any attachments and/or documents linked to this email, are intended for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by law. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. This notice serves as a confidentiality marking for the purpose of any confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement and covers the contents of this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this communication in page 379 From: Tom Mattaini To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: Mendota Heights Apartment projects Date: Friday,October 22,2021 4:10:07 PM Attachments: image002.ona Dear Mr. Benetti and Mayor Levine, It is my understanding that there is a proposal for two (2) new construction apartment projects at the Mendota Plaza by At Home Apartments and Paster Properties. The proposed projects include a 58 unit apartment building as a 2nd phase of the Reserve at Mendota Village and an 85 unit apartment project to be located behind the plaza. As a business owner in Mendota Heights, and one who grew up in the city, I strongly feel that it is important to strengthen the tax base for the community as well as strengthen the demand and desire for new restaurants and retail at the Mendota Plaza and the Village. The proposed projects will also provide additional housing options for current Mendota Heights residents that want to downsize but also remain in the area as well as allows for younger families to afford living (and remaining) in our great city. I am in support of this project and I hope that you consider the benefits to our community when you vote to approve this project. SICn wam rimer TOM MATTAINI BRANCH MANAGER NMLS#283258 GET PREQUALIFIED I WEBSITE MOBILE 651.245.5855 1 DIRECT 651.255.6506 FAx 651.256.2054 800 S. Plaza Dr., Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Tom.Mattaini annafinc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email message and any attachments are for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review, use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message along with any attachments,from your computer system. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. page 380 From: Mark Kamomever To: Tim Benetti Subject: The Reserve Phase II at Mendota Plaza Date: Friday,October 15,2021 3:37:20 PM Good afternoon Mr. Benetti— I am a resident of Mendota Heights and have been following the proposal to add a second phase to the Reserve at Mendota Plaza apartments. I would like to voice my support of the project for a number of reasons—The project brings additional needed tax base, and helps to further solidify the intersection of Hwy 62 and Dodd Road as a destination. This helps support retail and generates demand for more services to an appropriate location in Mendota Heights, which benefits all of us in Mendota Heights. More quality multi-family, like the Reserve also provides more options for older residents like me, to downsize and stay in Mendota Heights community. Probably most importantly, it creates more residential density without requiring vast raw land to accommodate housing. We enjoy a beautiful community in Mendota Heights and demand for housing is very strong—We love and want to preserve our parks and open areas but also want to welcome new neighbors to our community. This project satisfies our needs in a responsible fashion and will be good for Mendota Heights. I urge you to support this project and to vote in favor of it. Thank you! Mark Kampmeyer I TRANSWESTERN Senior Associate - Retail Services 706 Second Ave. South I Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Direct: 612.359.1684 1 transwestern.com Member cYl: FFe CAL -rY ;ZtG 0 U R C E .S This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Transwestern and its affiliated companies, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or if you have reason to believe you have received this message in error,please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding,printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. page 381 From: Mark McNeill To: Tim Benetti; Ryan Ruzek Subject: FW: Comments on August 24 Planning meeting Date: Wednesday,September 8, 2021 10:47:44 AM Attachments: OutlookEmoii-161151350327916571084-7fb2-443c-9873-9a6714d lfe32.ono OutlookEmoii-16115135032799a8fld lb-7c42-4f62-bd 16-af3930ab8d23.ona From: Belina Reisman <belinareismanPcomcast.net> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 9:02:00 PM To: Stephanie Levine; Joel Paper; duggan.ultanPgmail.com;John Mazzitello; Jay Miller; Litton Field; Sally Lorberbaum; Patrick Corbett; Cindy Johnson; Brian Petschel; Michael Toth; Andrew Katz Subject: Comments on August 24 Planning meeting Mayor, City Council members, Planning Commissioners, I am concerned that the MH City Council and the MH Planning Commission do not adequately comply with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or consider community needs in their review of proposals. I have been to some planning meetings, live in a planned community, am a 28 year resident, and observed the decisions already made. My comments on the At Home proposal and the August 24 planning meeting • Traffic congestion in Mendota Plaza and on the major roads around it and on Dodd Rd. are again at issue. This has been an issue for other projects, yet building continues to be proposed in that area. The city is supposed to address this and potential traffic problems. I would like to see the city prioritize solving traffic issues in MH and put a hold on development in affected city areas, such as Dodd Rd and Hwy 62. Will Delaware Rd. also have this problem? • Character and open spaces are emphasized in the 2040 plan, but the Reserve, At Home apartments and the new senior housing on Dodd Rd. do not reflect that. The apartments are very tall and close together compared to the shorter buildings in view. Eliminating the setback for the Dodd building amazed me, because it left no open space between the building and the road. At Home apartments with the setback variance to 62 also eliminates open space. It will look like a hotel in a busy commercial area at a major intersection instead of the feel of a small community. Variances provide developer flexibility, but variances should not eliminate the overall character of our community unless the residents obtain some substantial benefit. No explanation was given for this benefit, other than to have a large apartment building in an already developed suburb. Note that the architectural renderings of At Home do not show the surrounding roads or buildings, which could give a better idea of its fit in the current setting. • Parking and traffic flow are getting tight at Mendota Plaza at times. Eliminating the allowable parking spaces and increasing the allowable density for At Home page 382 adds to the concern for parking and traffic. Again, what benefit would residents and store customers have for this inconvenience? • At the August 24 meeting one commissioner asked a number of questions on the impact of variances requested in the At Home proposal. The other commissioners asked few or no questions. I left the meeting wondering, firstly, how thorough the commissioners were in questioning a project with many variances and with a major impact on the community, and, secondly, how carefully they made their decisions to the city council. I am pleased that Mendota Heights will contribute to the need for affordable housing in the metro area. Thank you for considering my comments. Belina Reisman 2338 Lemay Shores Dr est .79011 p `�-� s t`W► r, St�LauiS Park MN 55416�a5 palter rop.c pasterprap.corn PROPERTIES October 29, 2021 Mayor Stephanie Levine Mr.Joel Paper Mr. Ultan Duggan Mr.John R. Mazzitello Mr.Jay Miller City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Planning Case No. 2021-12& No. 2021-13 New Apartment Developments Phase II & Phase III of The Mendota Plaza Dear Mayor Levine and City Council Members Paper, Duggan, Mazzitello,and Miller, I am writing on behalf the owners of Mendota Plaza, Paster Properties, and my family to request your consideration of the above referenced proposed developments scheduled to be presented to the city council on Wednesday, November 3, 2021. 1 discussed with the Planning Commission the reasons Paster Properties decided to consider selling to At Home Apartments our remaining vacant parcels at Mendota Plaza.We believe these proposed projects will add a critical element to our overall project that will be integral for the continued success of Mendota Plaza and its retail and restaurant businesses and greater Mendota Heights community. We believe the Planning Commission addressed several issues erroneously during their consideration of the proposal by At Home Apartments to develop additional residential housing on undeveloped lots within the overall Mendota Plaza PUD development("the Property").As such,we want to highlight the objective measures under which we believe these proposals should be approved. The issues the Planning Commission identified as their basis for recommending denial focused on density of the proposed projects and the traffic that both projects would generate and add to the existing Dodd Road and Highway 62 area. As it relates to the concerns about the allowable residential density, please consider the following: • The Property is guided and zoned Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development(MU-PUD),which allows for residential development. • The proposed density is fully consistent with the 2040 Plan,which envisions 21-30 dwelling units per acre for MU-PUD uses. Adding the 147 units proposed in Phases II and III to the existing 185 units on the Property, brings the total to 332, or just under 18 units per acre. p /^y (+ / �i 5320 West 23rd St.,Suite 205 651.646,7901 �,.+1 s7 4i St.Louis Park,MN 55416 pasterprop.com PROPERTIES New language in the 2040 Plan envisions residential uses making up no more than approximately 75 percent of the total area of a MU-PUD development. If residential development here were targeted at 75 percent of the 18.5 acres comprising the Property,the proposed total of 332 units would fall well within the range of 291-416 units that would result using the allowed range of 21- 30 units per acre. Please see below table for more detail. Factoring in the other 58-unit apartment development(Phase 11),the density total on the entire Plaza PUD site re-calculates as follows: Parcel _E1 Parcel Area Residential Description d (Net Acres) Units Lot 1—Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1,"Block 1 (proposed Phase 11 opts.) 205 58 Lot 1,Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7 (proposed Phase III apts.) 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 76%=13.876 acres Total Units(existing 8 proposed) 332 units Total Density 23.9 or approx. 4'A'nitslacre *Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the billowed density for the proposed PUD amendment;and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As it relates to concerns addressed during the Planning Commission meeting that any new development at Mendota Plaza will create additional traffic issues in the area, it must be remembered that Paster Properties already has the necessary approvals to develop uses on the Property that would generate more traffic than the projected trip generation associated with the proposed apartments in Phases II and III. The proposed apartment developments will create less traffic than the uses already approved at Mendota Plaza. Please see the below calculation from City staff report: When considering the two lots together in terms of daily trip generation,the traffic report shows the proposed developments would produce twenty-two (22%)fewer daily trips than the uses in the currently approved PUD(Restaurant, retail, and daycare). Table 1 from traffic report Table 1 Comparative Daily Trip Generation for Two Development Scenarios Alternative Development Scenario _ Daily Trip Generation Approved and Adopted Scenario 1: • 2008/2009 Approved and Adopted PUD(10,130 Sr Childcare Facility) 482 • 2016, Approved and Adopted Mendota Plaza Expansion Program: 6,000 sr Restaurant 422 4,826 SF Retall _120 • Total 1,024 Proposed Amendment Scenario 2: • Phase 2 of the Reserve at Mendota Village(58-Unit Apartment) 314 • Mendota tot 7(89-Unit Apartment) 484 • Total 798 .... ,...a..,.. Source: Biko Associates,Inc.,September 9,2021. r'y T/4:► rrA 5320 West 23rd St.,Suite 651.646.7�301 4.e1 1 St.Louis Park,MN 55416 pasterprop.coro PROPERTIES Based on the above information,we believe that the findings of fact adopted by the Planning Commission do not support the Commission's recommended denial of the applications.The reasons for denial of the application do not make sense given that there is a previously approved use that generates more traffic than what is currently proposed,and it is clear the density being proposed is allowable per the 2016 PUD amendment. When we consider that the City Council and Planning Commission recently approved The Linden apartment project across the street from Mendota Plaza and did not have issues with traffic and residential density,we are concerned that our proposals are receiving different treatment. It appears that we are being held to a different standard than other projects that have come before the City. Our family has been a part of Mendota Heights since 1970,when my parents built a home at 1081 Douglas Road at Douglas& Lexington.We purchased Mendota Plaza in 1985 and have dedicated our professional efforts to constantly creating a high-quality neighborhood shopping center and mixed-use project that strives to be a valuable community asset and fulfills the needs and desires of the City's residents. We believe that is important in Mendota Heights. Paster Properties and the City of Mendota Heights have worked together for a long time and we have accomplished a great deal for the benefit of all the stakeholders in the community. Please consider these factors and our arguments above when you weigh the Proposals in front of you at the November 3, 2021 City Council Meeting. Sincerely, Paster Properties, ILL11 Howard Paster President CC: Mike 5turdivant, Paster Properties Leanna Stefaniak,At Home Apartments Mike Cashill,At Home Apartments Mark Thieroff,Siegel Brill Tony Gleekel,Siegel Brill page 383 9c. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 3, 2021 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Establish Date for City Council Work Session INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to schedule a work session to discuss a variety of topics. BACKGROUND There are a number of topics which the City Council needs to discuss in a work setting. Potential subjects for the agenda include: • Field and Facility Use Policy Annual Review • Park and Recreation Strategic Plan • Special Event Requests The work session would be in-person and open to the public. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION RECOMMENDED Staff is asking Council to identify a meeting date and time for a proposed work session during the week of November 15. Possible dates include: November 15 November 16 prior to the regular city council meeting November 17—after 1:00 pm and completed by 6:00 PM November 18—after 1:00 pm and completed by 6:00 PM If the week of November 15 does not work, due to the Thanksgiving holiday and staff availability, the Council is asked to discuss dates and available times during the week of December 6. ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is asked to determine a date and time for a council work session November 2021 SUN • 1 2 3 4 5 6 School Board City Council Mtg Election 6pm No public meetings from 6-8pm 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Daylights Saving Not Parks Comm Mtg Veterans Day Time Ends 6:30pm Not City Hall & Public Available Available Works Closed 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 City Council Mtg Airport Council Chambers 6pm Comm.Mtg booked beg. 6pm 6pm 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Not Planning Comm Thanksgiving Day Mtg City Hall & Public City Hall Closed Available 7pm Works Closed (Public Works Open) 28 29 30 December 1 2 3 4 Chanukah (Nov 28-Dec 6) December 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 December 2021 1 2 3 4 Chanukah (Nov 28-Dec 6) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Not City Council Mtg 6pm Available 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Parks Comm Mtg 6:30pm 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City Council Mtg Christmas Eve Christmas Day 6pm City Hall & Public Works Closed 26 27 28 29 30 31 Planning Comm City Hall & Public New Year's Day Mtg Works Closed 7pm January 2022 1 3 4 5 6 7'. S 7.�- 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19-__________20 21'.... 22 2 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30' 31