Loading...
2021-11-03 Council Minutes CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday,November 3, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,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,Mazzitello, and Miller, were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council,the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello requested to add an item between 9a and 9b,titled Council Discussion of Intersection Improvements at TH 149 and TH 62. Councilor Duggan asked if there are supplementary materials for the additional item being added. Councilor Mazzitello commented that it is a discussion item spurred by the subsequent item and therefore there is not a staff report. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Duggan) 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 c for a separate discussion. a. Approval of October 19, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the August 24, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e. Approve jeii:A Water-Resources AppheatioR of Weflaiid Exemption for the Par-eels ineluded in the c tt n Acres 3. , ^pment d. Approve the Banking Authorization Signatory Changes e. Approve the September 2021 Treasurer's Report f. Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVE JOINT WATER RESOURCES APPLICATION OF WETLAND EXEMPTION FOR THE PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE SULLIVAN ACRES DEVELOPMENT Councilor Duggan asked for an update on the activity occurring on the site, noting that he has concern with the potential drainage from the area. Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter stated that an application for development has not yet been submitted,therefore this is just an application for a wetland exemption. She confirmed that the activity is just under the threshold needed for an exemption. Councilor Duggan asked if this action should wait for the applicant to submit the development application. Ms. Spreiter explained the process that is followed. She noted that this request would need to be reviewed within the 60-day review period. The City would have the ability to extend the review period by 60 days. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he also desired more explanation and noted that a City wetland permit would still need to be requested which would give the City more time to review. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve the JOINT WATER RESOURCES APPLICATION OF WETLAND EXEMPTION FOR THE PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE SULLIVAN ACRES DEVELOPMENT. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PRESENTATIONS A) RESOLUTION 2021-86 PROVIDING 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 Finance Director Kristen Schabacker provided background information on Resolution 2021-86,providing for the issuance of GO Improvement Bonds. Keith Dahl, representing Ehlers, provided additional details on the City's AAA bond rating and the sale which occurred earlier in the day. He stated that a premium was received in the amount of$210,000 which was used to reduce the amount of the bond to $2,420,000. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of22 Mayor Levine stated that she is proud and commented that the number came in better than anticipated. Councilor Duggan commended Finance Director Kristen Schabacker. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-86 PROVIDING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,420,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2021-85 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public hearing on the assessments for Ivy Falls East neighborhood improvements, and adopt the assessment roll. Councilor Paper commented that the trail connection will not be completed this year, and asked how that impacts the price. Mr. Ruzek stated that the price is locked in through a contract. Councilor Paper recognized the work the City did to change the interest rate charged on the assessments, which is much more equitable. Councilor Duggan noted a duplicate property on the list. Mr. Ruzek replied that the resident owns an undeveloped lot adjacent to their lot, which is why there are two assessments. Councilor Duggan referenced another name that he believes may be misspelled. Mr. Ruzek replied that he will verify that but noted that the property records are pulled from the Dakota County property records. Mayor Levine commended staff and the additional time they have spent on this project going above and beyond the scope of their work. Councilor Miller moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Therese Radford, 613 Sutcliffe Circle, asked why there is a two percent interest spread that the residents receive on the assessments. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker replied that the bonds are structured with a two percent cost that covers the costs the City incurs. Ms. Radford referenced a letter she received dated October 16'h which provided a due date for the assessment payments, which differs from the date in the presentation. Mr. Ruzek replied that the date in the letter is correct. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 22 Ms. Radford commented that her street was opened in July and was just blacktopped today. She noted that it appears a section of the curb is sinking and may need to be replaced in the near future. Mayor Levine stated that staff is tracking the status of the curbs and any necessary repairs will be made in the spring. She apologized to the residents that this project did not remain on time. Sheila Vanahan, 995 Winston Circle, stated that she would prefer to pay the assessment in full but the cement at the end of her driveway was cracked and will not be repaired until spring. She commented that it seems unreasonable to pay the assessment at this time when her driveway and curb will not be repaired until spring. Mr. Ruzek stated that Mendota Heights assesses projects when substantially complete and he explained how the interest accrues. Councilor Duggan asked if it would be appropriate to assess a person when the project is completed to their satisfaction. Mr. Ruzek replied that typically the goal is to have the project substantially complete at the time of the assessment hearing. Councilor Duggan asked if there is any way the City could work to delay payment to the contractor. Mr. Ruzek explained that payment to the contractor is a separate issue. Councilor Paper commented that he is disappointed that there are cracks in the driveway and curbing, but that there is a commitment to repair the driveway and curb in the spring. He did not feel it would be appropriate to place that interest on the remainder of the City for one resident. There being no one further coming forward to speak, Councilor Mazzitello moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Duggan commented that he believes that if the performance was subpar, people should not be paying until they are satisfied. Councilor Mazzitello asked when the remainder of the work is scheduled for the project to be considered substantially complete. Mr. Ruzek replied that work is scheduled for the following Thursday. Councilor Mazzitello asked if there would be any financial penalty if the assessment is delayed to the next meeting when substantial completion is reached. Mr. Ruzek replied that Dakota County requires assessments to be sent to them by December 1st, which would be earlier than the assessment due date. Councilor Mazzitello echoed the concerns of Councilor Paper. He commented that given the weather forecast he is reluctantly okay with approving the action tonight. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-85 ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST STREET IMPROVEMENTS. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 November 3,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 22 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 AND MICHELLE MCHALE) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being 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 square feet in size. Councilor Duggan stated there is a lot of roof on this proposed building and asked the estimated runoff that would be generated. Mr.Benetti replied that the stormwater management plan accounts for that runoff. Councilor Duggan asked if the landscaping plan with the neighbors would account for drainage. Mr. Benetti noted the applicant is planning to have a butterfly garden, vegetable garden, and a net zero home. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he would like staff to improve the process of moving planning applications forward. He noted that another item on the October Planning Commission agenda was tabled but seemed to have similar issues to this application. He believed that applicants should be treated equally. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to make a statement. Steve McHale,applicant,commented that they were not aware they were purchasing within the Minnesota River Corridor and that the City had a moratorium that prohibited construction. He stated that he believes that everything they intend to build is reflective of what should be built within this area. He stated that they aim to build a net zero house in order to be good stewards of the property. He stated that they are working with their neighbors to develop a cohesive landscaping plan for the properties. Councilor Paper moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-87 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA)PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT TH 149 AND TH 62 Councilor Mazzitello commented that he requested to add this to the agenda because of communications the Council has received related to traffic issues at Dodd Road and the TH 62. He stated that he wants to ensure the residents that they are being heard. He believed that it is time the City stops talking about the traffic at this intersection and starts doing something. He referenced a traffic study that was completed in 2016 that did not appear to match the personal experiences. He stated that he has studied the traffic study against what is actually occurring and what is anticipated for the future. He stated that the consulting firm assumed a background daily average traffic,using the worst-case scenario. He stated that the background daily average traffic number of 9,200 vehicles per day was used in the study for Dodd Road. He stated that in September of2019 the State did an actual traffic count on Dodd Road,between Wagon Wheel and TH 62 which provided a count of 7,700 vehicles per day which is less than what was assumed in the study. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 22 He stated that in reviewing the actual numbers against the traffic study, there are less counts on Dodd Road than the base assumption of the traffic study. He commented that is not to say that is not an issue, as Dodd Road has been a discussion prior to 2008. He provided details on the level of service that is given to an intersection which is based on the wait time.He stated that a grade of F does not mean the intersection fails, it relates to the waiting time. He noted that there are actually two more grades that could be given to an intersection, G and H. He stated that the traffic study, under the worst-case scenario, did rate the intersection as an F for four movements out of 12 in the morning hours. He stated that improvements were made to the 1494 and 135E interchange which improved that flow of traffic and detracted traffic from Dodd Road. He stated that if improvements are not made to the intersection, nine of the 12 movements would be rated an F by 2040. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he believed the Council should form a committee to find a solution for Dodd Road and TH 62. He suggested staff members and members of other entities that he believes should participate. He believed that a plan should be mapped out to address improvements for that intersection and throughout the corridor that was included in the study. He asked that this be separate from the next agenda item as this is a regional concern related to traffic. Councilor Duggan asked if there was any discussion related to the difference in the number of trips from the actual traffic count and estimated traffic count in the study. Councilor Mazzitello confirmed that was a part of the discussion and how he was made aware of the improvements that were made to the 1494 and 35E interchange. He stated that there are two ways to get this issue on the radar for MnDQT which would be to continue to let the intersection degrade or the City takes the lead. Councilor Mazzitello noted grant opportunities for this type of project. He stated that the City did this in 2009 when it made pedestrian crossing improvements at Dodd/TH 149,using grants from the Metropolitan Council. He stated the City paid for the design, and the construction was paid for by the grant. Councilor Duggan agreed that a committee should be established to develop the appropriate steps that would work for the City, County and State. He stated he appreciates Councilor Mazzitello bringing this forward and proposing a plan to address the issue. Councilor Paper agreed that this is the right time with the State Representatives the community has. He acknowledged that this is a regional problem. Mayor Levine thanked Councilor Mazzitello for the work he did and recognized his expertise in this area. She liked the structure of the committee but believed a citizen representative should be added. She suggested a resident living south of Hwy 62 be on the committee. Mayor Levine recognized that residents came tonight with the intention of sharing comments with the Council. She stated that if anyone wants to speak to the traffic issues,they should speak during this agenda item rather than the next. Mayor Levine noted that the Council has heard the comments made at the previous Planning Commission public hearing and has read and heard the comments made through calls and emails. She asked that comments focus on any new information residents would like to share. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 22 Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, commented that the discussion that Councilor Mazzitello has introduced in view of the hearings was inappropriate. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that the traffic issues at Hwy 62 and Dodd is more complicated than just at the intersection. He stated that access management causes problems with nearby intersections. He stated that North Plaza Drive and the intersection on the other side of the street impact the functions of the intersection. He stated the gas station and South Plaza Drive all factor into the intersection. He applauded the fact that the City wants to look at it. He stated that he would like to be a member of the committee. Mindy Miklya, 2130 Aztec Lane, stated that the traffic study sounds good but asked if there has been thought to the additional people that would be brought in to this area through additional expansion. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that she is glad to hear that the Council supports addressing the issue of traffic. She stated that there is something else on the agenda that would contribute up to 1,000 additional trips per day before the traffic issue is addressed. She stated that perhaps there is a moratorium on development in this corridor until traffic can be addressed. Tamara Will, 788 Hokah Avenue, stated that within the traffic study the intersections were labeled above the critical crash rate and crash severity rate. She thanked Ms. Smith for her suggestion to have a moratorium. She worries that bringing up the issue of traffic prior to the next agenda item would taint the discussion as traffic may not seem to be as much of a factor in that discussion to come. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that about 18 or 20 months ago there was a traffic study done with a grade of F. He stated that rush hour is already a mess and if two apartment buildings are added that would place additional burden on the bad intersection. He stated that townhomes would have a lesser impact on traffic and would provide lifecycle housing. He stated that the residents worked hard to keep Mendota Heights spacious and gracious and would like to see that continue. Joe Betlej, 1335 Riverside Lane, stated that it is disingenuous to separate the traffic discussion from the next agenda item. He asked if the Fire Chief would be a part of that committee. He stated that if traffic worsens at that intersection,the people in the Ivy Falls neighborhood could be at risk if there were a need for emergency services. Allen Olsen, 2153 Fox Place, stated that he has known this intersection throughout his commuting career. He stated that he tracks the time it takes him to get in and out of his neighborhood, the close calls with safety,the delays due to distracted drivers, and other items that are not counted in a traffic study. He stated that he cannot believe the City is even considering adding to that problem. Janine Joseph, 1915 Walsh Lane, stated her commutes have become a nightmare on Hwy 62. She did not think traffic issues on Dodd could be separated out from the item considering the proposed apartments. She stated that bringing in more people that would use the side roads would add traffic on other roads and not just Hwy 62. She stated that she gets up earlier and stays at work later to avoid the traffic. Stacy Styles, 2188 Aztec Lane, agreed that traffic on Dodd Road is less than it has been in the past but that does not mean it will not get worse as people return to work. She has concerns with her children biking because Dodd Road is dangerous. She stated that it feels like Dodd Road should be widened. She believed that adding more apartments would only worsen the situation. She did not agree with high density living in that area and perhaps those apartments could be added to a less congested area. November 3,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 22 Glen, resident of The Reserve, commented that his unit looks northwest at the intersection. He stated that traffic is worse in other areas of the cities, where he travels, and where he has lived in the past. He stated that he does not have any problems leaving or coming back to his home. He stated that he would support an additional apartment building in this area because The Reserve is a great place to live. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights, commented that traffic should be considered as an element of negativity and separating the issues is wrong. Councilor Duggan commented that he has noticed that the concern is the left turns that are made after the light has turned, which causes a delay to the other movements at the intersection. Councilor Mazzitello summarized the consensus of the Council to direct City staff to establish a committee to start the process of making improvements to the intersection of TH 149 and TH 62 and other areas in the region. The committee should consist of Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Fire Chief Dave Dreelan, the Assistant County Engineer, MnDOT South Area Manager, two residents living south of 62,and a member of the City Council. He reviewed the purpose of the committee. Mayor Levine thanked the residents that provided input. She stated that regardless of what happens in the next agenda item, traffic needs to be addressed. Q CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) AND CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE Ill/89 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECTS WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated the Council was being asked to consider 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. 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. Mr. Benetti commented that the findings of fact should be considered after the public input is received. He noted that after discussion, the Council can then direct staff to prepare the desired resolutions to be brought back to the next Council meeting for approval. Mr. Benetti requested that the actions be separated but the discussion could occur together. Councilor Duggan asked for clarification on the statement that there are no typical standards under an MU PUD. He asked how a plan could be developed if there are no typical standards. Mr. Benetti replied that under the PUD ordinance there are different categories. There are certain setbacks under a typical zoning district, but a PUD does not include such standards which allows flexibility for the development. A PUD does not have minimum standards. He stated that the developer is presenting their requests, which the City can then accept or reject. November 3,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 22 Councilor Mazzitello commented, that based on that statement, he asked if it would be safe to say there are no variances associated with the PUD. Mr. Benetti confirmed that no variances are included. Under the PUD process, a development plan is presented, which the Council can accept, modify, or reject. Councilor Mazzitello referenced what is referred to as the underlying zoning district, which would be R- 3 and commented that it would appear then that those standards are meant as a guide but are not requirements. Mr. Benetti confirmed that those standards can be used for comparison. Councilor Duggan commented that he does not accept that description that there are no typical standards. He asked how many of the proposed apartments would be less than the 750 square feet required. Mr. Benetti replied that is a standard within the R-3 district. He believed that 16 units were in the range of 674 and 720 square feet in Phase Il and a number of units were under 750 square feet in Phase 1II. Councilor Miller commented that 34 units, or 23 percent of the units, are below 750 square feet. Councilor Duggan asked why that number of units are below the threshold of 750 square feet. Mr. Benetti replied that the developer has the right to propose what they would like under the PUD. Councilor Duggan commented that it would seem that things are being juggled to suit the applicant. Mr. Benetti commented that he is presenting the request of the applicant. Mayor Levine commented that the Council should be respectful to staff-. She stated that she requested from staff to receive an example of an R-3 development. She noted that an R-3 zone looks very different from a Mixed-Use PUD. She referenced the land use plan as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this area as the only area in the city as Mixed-Use PUD. She commented that there are no standards for MU-PUD,which has residential,restaurants, gas stations,Market Square, and the Plaza. She noted that this is about .7 percent of the land in Mendota Heights and is known as the downtown area. She stated that it is meant to be a place of gathering,walking, shopping, etc. She stated that the developer purchased this property with the intent to develop it and they are bringing forward the last pieces for development. Mayor Levine commented that it is the job of the Council to ensure adequate measures are in place, such as setbacks. She referenced the parcel north of 62 and noted that those parcels do not meet the standards of R-3 because it is also zoned MU-PUD. She stated that 750 square feet is the minimum size of an apartment within R-3, but not for a PUD. Bernard Friel commented that this is meant to be a public hearing and not a dialogue of the City Council. He stated that he has practiced law for almost 60 years and served on the Planning Commission for 12 years and has never witnessed so much ineptitude. Mayor Levine asked Mr. Friel to sit down and noted that if he cannot behave himself, he will be asked to leave. She stated that this is not a public hearing but if the Council decides, they can allow the public to speak. She stated that the Council has decided to allow public comments,following the Council questions. Councilor Duggan asked for the number of parking spaces less than the required dimensions. He believed that is a guideline set by the State and not the City. Mr. Benetti stated that most of the stalls have been revised to meet the standards required by ordinance and noted that some stalls remain shorter to accommodate compact vehicles. He noted that one phase would propose 2.0 spaces per living unit and the other phase proposes 1.76 spaces per living unit. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of22 Councilor Duggan asked the State regulations for the number of parking stalls. Mr. Benetti replied that if the Council feels that parking is not met, the Council can require additional parking. Councilor Miller acknowledged the efforts of the Planning Commission. He stated that he is disappointed on the lack of big picture planning of the City and the disregard for the general welfare of the community on behalf of the applicants. He stated that to date there has been no discussion on the impact to public infrastructure,public safety,or shared public spaces. This plan exceeds density, steps over the regulations of setbacks, and widely deviates from the established PUD plan as well as a disregard for a well- established concern with traffic in this area. He stated that there is a vision for the City and what is wanted, and the City is not obligated to approve this request. He stated that the R-3 zoning regulation was trampled upon in The Reserve which does not provide a free pass for the second phase. He stated that a PUD provides flexibility to zoning but there is still a ceiling that should be recognized when deviations are requested. He stated that in his opinion the applicant is skewing numbers by including land that has already been developed in their math calculations. He stated that while convenient for the applicant, the Comprehensive Plan clearly uses the term undeveloped land. He stated that the math does not pass the density test under three scenarios he reviewed. He stated that The Reserve appears to be a mistake and allowing these projects would only compound the problem that already exists. He stated that these subsequent projects would include 34 substandard units in terms of square footage. He stated that the applicant is proposing setbacks well beyond the established regulations, noting that he could not find one building in this corridor with similar setbacks. He supports the right of the landowner to develop the land, but under the vision that the City has. He stated that he would make a motion to deny the request for both applications. Councilor Miller moved to direct staff to draft a resolution DENYING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE I1/58 UNIT APARTMENT) AND CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE 111/89 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECTS WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Duggan asked legal counsel for input related to the standards for PUD and MU-PUD. City Attorney Shana Conklin: commented that the way the PUD was described by Community Development Director Tim Benetti and Mayor Levine is accurate. She stated that a PUD provides flexibility as that is the purpose; to allow the City Council to consider a plan that would vary from typical standards. She stated that is not to say the standards in other comparable zoning districts have to be disregarded. She stated that other zoning districts may be looked to as a guide, but the Council is not bound by those standards. She explained that a variance is not required within a PUD as the intent is to provide flexibility. She stated that the Council has the ability to determine what is reasonable and consistent. She stated that it is accurate to say there is not a specific standard within the Code or that a variance would be required. Councilor Duggan asked if a PUD were located in the critical area, would the critical area standards no longer apply. Ms. Conklin replied that certain ordinances may still apply to property zoned PUD. She stated that a PUD zoning district would not be exempt from State Statute or things that govern certain areas. She commented that each PUD is unique on the uses included within,which is where the discretion of the Council comes in to determine whether those uses are appropriate. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of22 Councilor Duggan asked what the underlying guideline would be for mixed use. Ms. Conklin noted that for this PUD there is no stipulation. She noted that the Council can look to other zoning districts as a guide but there are no set standards that must be followed. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan should still be followed as well as ensuring public health, safety and welfare. Councilor Duggan explained that is part of the reason setbacks are established. Ms. Conklin replied that is why setbacks are established in other zoning districts but there is no such regulation within the PUD. Councilor Mazzitello asked for clarification on the process,as a motion has been made. He asked whether public input would still be received. Mayor Levine suggested continuing on in the typical manner. The Council would ask questions of staff, allow the applicant to speak, then accept public comments, have additional Council discussion, and then vote on the motion on the floor. Councilor Mazzitello stated that multiple iterations have been provided on how to calculate density, referencing the term creative math. He stated that he ran calculations and noted that they match that of staff,as the proper method of calculating density. He asked staff to run through their density calculations. Mr. Benetti explained the density calculations as determine by staff including the sites that would be included in the MU PUD site. Councilor Duggan stated that the gas station and McDonalds are part of the land mass but not the land use category. Mr. Benetti explained that the density could be calculated over the entire land use area or the project area. He noted that staff use the project area to determine the density. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he ran a calculation using the assumption of the undeveloped land in the PUD. He stated that the language stated undeveloped, not undevelopable. He stated that he applied that to the entire PUD approved in 2008,including all the different land uses,and 15.08 acres was undeveloped in 2008. He stated that all four ways this density would be compliant under the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the ordinance does allow the Council to set the density, and these are the options provided by staff. Councilor Mazzitello stated that if the motion on the floor moves forward, the findings of fact for denial should be solid. He stated that whatever decision is made,the findings of fact must back up that decision. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to address the Council. Leanna Stefaniak,At Home Apartments, stated that she had a different presentation to provide but because of the direction this has taken she will pivot. She referenced the comments made by Councilor Duggan related to the unit sizes. She stated that Councilor Duggan was a member of the Council when The Reserve was approved which involved a thorough discussion of the trend for unit sizes compared to the 1980s when the Code was written. She noted that Councilor Duggan and the other members of the Council at that time, as well as the Planning Commission, approved The Reserve and recognized that there was a need for some smaller units. She stated that this is the second phase of the development that matches the needs for the market today and what was approved in The Reserve, The Linden and The Heights. She referenced the density requirements and mention of funny math by Councilor Miller. She stated that in the PUD there is 6.83 acres, and the density comes out to 28.71 units per acre. She asked which math Councilor Mazzitello is not buying. November 3>2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 22 Councilor Mazzitello commented that he is not buying what was testified to or read at the Planning Commission that the density is not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stefaniak stated that The Reserve is a part of the community. Her business partners and herself are members of this community themselves and have provided housing infrastructure that the community needs in an area that makes sense for it. She stated that she would not request this in an R-I zoning district and is instead requesting to place it in an area identified for this type of housing, to attract young professionals that are needed to keep the community vibrant and support the local businesses; residents enjoy the walkability this area provides. She stated that they are proposing to complete the PUD with the highest and best use in 2021. She stated that the City would go through an RFP if it owned the land and that would show that the highest and best use of these acres is housing. She stated that people in the housing industry have provided comments to the Council stating that this is the highest and best use. She stated that the comments received through email and calls in support of the project are just as important as the verbal comments being provided tonight and should be considered in equal weight. Mayor Levine briefly recessed the meeting. Mayor Levine reconvened the meeting. Councilor Mazzitello stated that if this were going to be approved, he would not want Phase III to begin until Phase II receives its certificate of occupancy. He stated that way the traffic impact would be spread out over a number of years and would provide more time for traffic improvements. Ms. Stefaniak commented that the initial development stated that this would be a phased development. She stated that Phase II would be completed prior to the construction of Phase III beginning. Councilor Duggan stated that the overall site has been described by 20 some acres but recognized that portions of the property have been sold to different entities. He asked if those entities are part of the PUD. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that even if portions of the property are sold to different owners, there is an overlaying operating easement that is placed onto the property and provides control as if it were all under common ownership. She stated that certain standards and conduct are required to ensure that the properties continue to operate in the same manner. Councilor Duggan stated that he would find it smart to wait for a proposal that meets the guidelines and requirements in place but was frustrated to find that there are not standards in place for the PUD. Ms. Stefaniak commented that the PUD allows for accommodations from the guardrails, and they are asking for some deviations from the guardrails, similar to other developments within this PUD and The Village. Councilor Duggan stated that part of his hesitation is the comparison to what has been done in the past. He stated this project does not appear to make sense because he feels it is too large for the site. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not talking about what was done in 1980 or 1990 but recent approvals of projects that have come online in the past year and have set precedent. She believed that applicants should be treated fairly and consistently and would argue that they are not being treated the same as other applicants in the past year. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 22 Mayor Levine stated that she heard the comment that if the Council were to approve these apartment buildings it would open up the opportunity for other apartment buildings in different parts of the City. She commented that it is her understanding that these would be the last two parcels that could be developed as apartment buildings. Ms. Stefaniak commented that these are allowed uses within the current zoning. Mayor Levine commented that many residents are concerned with sustain ability. She asked what the applicant is doing to promote sustainability and renewable energy. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they take that issue seriously. She stated that at The Reserve there is a solar array on top of the roof that provides energy for the building. She noted that they were one of the first developers to take advantage of their rooftop and garage roofs to place solar arrays. She stated that the design features within the units also promote sustainability such as low flow toilets and showerheads. She stated that the units are also single metered where the resident is responsible for the water usage as they have found that promotes more responsible water use. She stated that energy efficient appliances are used and highlighted other ways they incorporate sustainability. She noted that they place the majority of the parking underground in order to provide more greenspace for residents. She stated that they also work hard with their landscape experts to provide features to protect the environment and promote pollinator friendly plantings. Mayor Levine asked for information on the GreenStep Program and whether the plan could provide more overstory trees, and if they could accommodate organics recycling in the building. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they do provide overstory trees. She stated that while there may appear to be areas to place more trees, those locations would impact other elements of the plan in terms of underground utilities and retaining walls, and safety in regard to impacting sightlines for drivers. She stated that they have experimented with organics recycling and would be willing to facilitate that. Mayor Levine stated that one of her concerns is the user experience at the Plaza. She stated that she does not believe the Plaza is walkable. She stated that one advantage of the apartment location would be the access to the restaurants and retail. She asked how the issue of walkability would be addressed so that people do not have to take their cars to frequent businesses. Ms. Stefaniak commented that the traffic configuration plan identified the existing and new sidewalks. She stated that they created access points from The Reserve to the county trail and existing trails within the Plaza. She noted that with the new phases, they would add additional sidewalks, including an additional connection near South Plaza Drive that provides connectivity to Walgreens. She stated that she agrees with the earlier comments that the crosswalk at Dodd and South Plaza Drive is not safe. She noted that she would love to be a part of the discussion as to how they could facilitate additional connectivity if that crosswalk is upgraded. Mayor Levine commented that there have been comments from residents that there is a lack of a grocery store in the community and staff has been looking at an opportunity for a farmers' market. She asked if the applicant would be amenable to working with the City to talk about a farmers' market and if that could work on one of their sites. November 3,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 22 Ms. Stefaniak commented that would be a good question to address with Mr. Pastor, owner of the Plaza, She noted that there is ample parking in the front of his development and perhaps there would be space that could be used for that purpose. Mayor Levine asked the target market of parcel seven. Ms. Stefaniak commented that parcel seven would be general occupancy similar to The Reserve and would be designed with the young professional in mind. She stated that the community has a housing stock issue as there is a lack of housing products for young professionals. She stated that they want a smaller space, close to amenities, close to restaurants and other retailers. She stated that there is a real opportunity to keep the young professionals in the community and keep the businesses vibrant. Pete Keely, architect for the project, stated that parcel seven was designed to take advantage of the opportunity to put people next to commercial and retail businesses and restaurants. He stated that they are attempting to make this side as vibrant as The Village side of Hwy 62. He stated that The Reserve provided some connections and amenities, and they are looking to expand that in Phase II. He stated that Phase Il would have larger units to service other members of the community. He highlighted the amenities that would be provided in Phase II and would work together with Phase I. He stated that this helps to create a synergy and energy between the buildings. He stated that building community is a huge part of sustainability and efficiency. He stated that parcel seven would be aimed towards younger residents. He noted that they would continue to provide amenities and opportunities to gather. He stated that a PUD provides an opportunity for the City to envision what they see for the community. He noted that a younger resident could live at parcel seven, visit their parents at The Reserve and visit their grandparents at The Pines. He noted that they would be adding additional sidewalks to ensure connectivity and will provide landscaping that resonates with the outdoor spaces for the residents to enjoy. Mayor Levine addressed the issue of traffic, noting that the community will be reviewing traffic suggestions and she asked for a commitment from the applicant in being a partner in this. She stated that this development will increase traffic by 798 vehicles per day. She recognized that the PUD provided the ability to increase traffic by 1,000 vehicles through the allowed daycare and restaurant uses. She noted that even though this is a reduction,there will still be an increase in traffic. She noted that Phase II would be an increase of about four percent to traffic. Councilor Mazzitello stated that even with the increase, it still is below the projections used in the 2017 traffic study. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they are always willing to work with the City to do what they can as a developer. Mayor Levine commented that it would be great to have a safe place for younger adults to live in the community. She noted that although this is not a public hearing, she will accept public comments. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, commented that the standards apply in an MU-PUD. He stated that in respect to traffic, the Council should review its ordinance for Conditional Use Permits. He noted that in order to approve a PUD, an application must not adversely impact public health, safety, and welfare. He commented that any decision in favor of these projects would be a monumental lie in view of the apparent traffic issues. He commented that there is a question as to whether the PUD even exists at this time as the original 2009 PUD had a termination date of five years,as did the development agreement. He commented that a PUD requires that the applicant own all the property that is the basis of the PUD. He stated that Novenzher 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 22 comparison has been made to The Village and while he agrees that The Village also added traffic to Dodd, it is clear that the Village has exits other than Dodd Road. He stated that The Linden also has public space for enjoyment of the public. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Pastor made a comment that the older residents do not like change and that is why they are opposed to the project. He stated that at 91 years old and a 65 year resident, he fits that profile, and his experience has taught him that projects like this that have negative impacts and should be opposed. He read language related to the findings that must be made in order to grant a Conditional Use Permit and noted that there is no question that this would have an adverse impact on traffic. He stated that a traffic study is warranted, and any improvements recommended should occur prior to this project. Mayor Levine noted that many of the comments stated were mentioned at the Planning Commission and asked residents to be cognizant of the time and not to repeat comments. Denny McCardle, 2159 Fox Place, stated that he and his wife are not in favor of the proposed project. He asked that the Council give strong weight to the fourth finding supporting denial which states that this project is not a good fit for this site or area. Glen Detlefson,resident at The Reserve, stated that he lives in a unit under 750 square feet. He noted that this is exactly what he and his wife were looking for when they decided to downsize. He noted that The Reserve is occupied by professionals noting that his neighbor is a dentist and another is a CEO. He explained that the apartment allows them to travel but still remain a part of the community. He stated that this housing fills a need in the community. He noted that they would love to see the empty lot built upon and another building added to the community. He stated that the apartment is a great asset and they love the walkability and often visit the restaurants in the area by foot. He commented that even though they have a smaller unit there are beautiful amenities and common spaces that allow them to be a part of the community. He commented that this is a great asset to the community and acknowledged that the traffic should be fixed. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that she was a member of the Council when the PUD ordinance was passed in the mid-90s, and it was never anticipated that it would be used in this way. She stated that the primary purpose was to provide some flexibility and cluster. She stated that if there was variation to the setbacks, it was in return for more greenspace or open space. She stated that she does not support these proposals and urged the Council to reject the applications. Jaffrey Blanks, 727 Willow Lane, stated that the value of the apartment complex would outweigh the detriment to the community.He commented that Councilor Mazzitello stated that the counts are under the 9,200 used in the study but reminded the group that 9,200 was the worst-case scenario. He stated that this is not just an issue of traffic but also public safety. He asked that the traffic problem be fixed. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vickie Lane,commented that the discussion has been about two buildings rather than the design for the overall site. She stated that Mendota Plaza is a parking lot and does not have space for public gathering and there is no open space. She stated that an urban plan should include greenspace and walkability. She sees opportunities for additional trees and greenspace. She stated that this is a PUD and therefore the City has the ability to ask for what it wants. Rita Lew, 726 Decorah Lane, stated that there is a vision for Mendota Heights and the PUD gives the City the opportunity to achieve that vision rather than accepting the vision of a developer. She stated that the residents are relying on the Council to continue to support the vision they have for their community. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council ,Page 15 of 22 Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, commented that the issue of traffic should be solved before the additional burden is added. He commented that he would like to see Mendota Heights stay spacious and gracious. Tamara Wills, 788 Hokah Avenue, referenced the comment of phasing the apartment buildings which would allow time to resolve the traffic issue. She noted that there is no guarantee on when the traffic will be fixed. She stated that traffic is being mentioned but the real issues are related to safety and livability. She stated that the more people that are added, the less the vision of Mendota Heights exists. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, commented that traffic will be a problem regardless of what is developed on this site. He commented that in 2008 there was a plan for a certain level of high-density housing that was doubled by The Reserve. He noted that there has not been a part of this development that has not required an amendment to the original plan. He commented that the PUD provides flexibility but also provides flexibility for the City to say no. He asked where the public open space is on this plan. He stated that every portion of this development was maximized to provide the overall return rather than the public benefit. He stated that the footprint of the buildings can be reduced to create additional greenspace. He stated that this should be delayed until after the traffic study is completed. He asked the Council to tape the time to do this right. Chad Trochlil,2145 Fox Place, stated that he supports the recommendation of denial. He commented that this is too much density for the small space and would damage the character of Mendota Heights. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented in the staff report for the Planning Commission there was a series of six statements of fact to support denial of the proposal. He stated that same information was not provided tonight. Mayor Levine commented that she will not hear disparaging comments about staff. Mr. Smith commented that he has made his point. He commented that if it is made more difficult for customers to access the existing businesses, there would not be good consequences. He stated that vision has nothing to do with PUDs or R-3 zoning,but with principal. He stated that the principal that has guided this community over decades has focused on careful,prudent development and as a consequence the city is unique among all other first tier suburbs. He noted that the majority of residents love the City because it has not pandered to developers and has rejected high density proposals. He commented that it is not developers that drive the vision of the City, but the Council, and this application should be rejected. Jeff Nath, 911 Knob Road, commented that Mendota Heights does not have the gobs of apartment buildings that every other suburb has. He stated that The Reserve then popped up in a large greenspace area. He stated that another apartment then popped up for seniors. He stated that these new apartment buildings are huge and there is a room full of people here that are unhappy with the conditions on Dodd Road. He stated that people like the community because it is a hidden gem. He stated that perhaps the developer can bring back something that is not so big and would better fit into the community. Allen Olson, 2153 Fox Place, stated that he moved to this community because it was a sleepy, peaceful place to live. He stated that it has transitioned from that and now this downtown area is practically in his backyard. He stated that while density is great for the checkbook of the developer, it does nothing for the people that live there. He referenced the rating the City recently received for the bond rating and was unsure that density was part of that formula. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to address any comments that have been made. November 3,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 16 of22 Ms. Stefaniak stated that there have been a lot of comments made and did not believe it would be productive to respond to them all. She stated that there are people in this community that are supportive of the projects for a number of reasons. She believed that people that emailed should have the same weight given to their comments as there are reasons unknown as to why those people chose to comment in that manner, noting that perhaps they were not comfortable attending in person because of COVID or had to be at home with their children. She noted that some of the comments would be better addressed by Mr. Pastor as they related to his development and the contributions that his family made to the community. Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he is very appreciative of the residents that have made comments tonight as that is an important part of the process. He stated that Councilors Duggan and Mazzitello most likely remember his father coming before the Planning Commission and Council in the past. He stated that they have far more in common and that they share in their vision of the City and the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62 than they have differences. He stated that the issues are clearly important to everyone even though there may be tweaks from person to person. He shared the mission and vision of Pastor Properties and believes that these proposals meet that intent. He stated that a local restaurateur was present tonight but was not able to wait until 10:30 pm to make his comment. He stated that the written comments he provided prior to the meeting were very supportive to adding more people to the project. He noted that perhaps Mr. Smith spoke with employees of the businesses rather than the owners. He stated that part of what makes this Plaza great is the restaurants and retailers that service the community. He noted that even those that spoke against the proposals stated that they frequent the Plaza businesses, which is an important part of having a livable community. He stated that these retail uses bring people together. He noted that there is outdoor public seating at all the restaurants that also bring people together. He stated that the positive of bringing in more people,having more housing options, and creating a more livable area is a benefit for the community. He stated that they want to bring people together to connect and create a sense of place. He stated that part of making that area more vibrant is bringing in more people. He stated that the greenspace to the north of Hwy 62 is owned by the City. He stated that this is a plan they have worked on together for almost 20 years,and this would be the realization of completing that plan. He commented that this is a good vision and good project. He stated that At Home Apartments are best in class and the lead people at the company are Mendota Heights residents. He stated that clustering was mentioned as a purpose of a PUD and that is what this concept would do, cluster the housing to connect it to the retail and restaurant uses in the Plaza and to the area north of Hwy 62 as well. He recognized that there have been changes to the PUD plan over the years, but he believed that this still fits the intended vision. He stated that this project would allow multigenerational living and would allow people to live close to shopping and restaurants. He recognized that he will be part of the solution for the traffic problem, but did not believe that they should be blamed for the problem. He stated that they are currently approved to build something more intensive on the property. He stated that Pastor Properties has been dedicated to Mendota Heights and he has been a part of the City for so long and was unsure how he is supposed to feel that he is now being treated differently. He noted that Councilor Miller made a motion for denial before the comments were even received which does not feel good and makes him feel like the Council feels that their comments are not important. He stated that density is appropriate in this location, and this is the only location in Mendota Heights where density can be added in a responsible way. He appreciated the comments related to greenspace and noted that they have been intentful to maintain greenspace and open space and will continue to do that with this development and the shopping center, but recognized that this property is not zoned as greenspace and there is a right to develop the property. He stated that they are committed to working together to provide the best product possible to meet the needs of the community, as they always have. He thanked the Council for their time as well as the time and energy that everyone has contributed tonight. November 3, 2021 Adendota Heights City Council Page 17 of22 Mayor Levine invited the Council to continue discussion and reminded them of the motion on the table. Councilor Duggan asked how much greenspace is currently in the Plaza and how much additional greenspace would be included in the proposal. Mr. Pastor commented that he does not have that calculation. Lee Koppy, representing Anderson Engineering, reviewed the impervious calculations within the staff report, noting that currently 37.6 percent of the site is pervious and upon buildout 34.5 would remain pervious. Councilor Duggan asked if the greenspaces could be identified on a map. Mr. Koppy displayed the site plan and identified the greenspace areas in the site. Councilor Duggan commented that although the creek area is there, he was unsure it could be claimed as greenspace. He stated that it would be nice to have more seating for people to enjoy the greenspace areas. He stated that it would have been nice to see a three-dimensional rendering to see how the proposed buildings would fit in with what is already in the Plaza area. Mr. Koppy provided a rendering of how the 5 8-unit building would be seen from Hwy 62. He noted that the other building would not be visible from Hwy 62. Mayor Levine commented that public input is important to the Council, and she wanted residents to know that their opinions are valued. She noted that every person she spoke with that lives in The Reserve love living there and support the applications. She stated that the most common concern against the development was related to traffic. She referenced the comment made that those who attended in person should be given more weight to their comments but stated that she does not believe that because everyone's opinions matter. Councilor Mazzitello asked if it was the intention of the motioner to base the denial on the findings of fact within the staff report. Councilor Miller confirmed that was his intention. Councilor Mazzitello stated that there were many comments comparing The Village to the Plaza. He stated that The Village has access points other than Dodd Road but noted that the Plaza also has a right- in access off 62. He stated that.most of the traffic for The Village is accessing off Dodd at Market Street. He noted that Market Street is the first intersection to attain an F rating after Dodd and Hwy 62, rather than North Plaza Drive. He stated that the north leg of Dodd has more traffic than the south leg of Dodd, by 2,200 vehicles per day. He stated that he did not hear complaints about The Linden and the 518 trips per day that development added. He stated that he made a pledge when he joined the Council to Iook at issues objectively and factually. He stated that as he dug into the issues, he found things that were disturbing. He stated that they need to work on treating applicants fairly and equitably. He stated that he was a member of the Planning Commission when The Linden came through and is very familiar with how that applicant was treated. He noted that the Linden had a parking ratio of 1.4 stalls per unit, while this application has a ratio of 1.87 between the two buildings. He noted that parking was not mentioned as an issue for The Linden. He stated that this applicant was required to provide traffic circulation mapping while The Linden was not. This applicant was required to provide an impervious surface analysis across the entire PUD while The Linden was only required to analyze their site. He stated that this applicant proposes less impervious surface than the original PUD proposed but The Linden proposed more. He November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 18 of22 stated that the Linden proposed 518 trips per day, which was 37 less than the original concept while this applicant proposes 798 trips per day, 226 less than the original concept. He noted that while traffic is the major issue for this applicant, it was rarely mentioned for The Linden. He stated that this applicant was asked under public testimony to provide contributions to pay for infrastructure improvements while The Linden, the original developer of The Linden, and the developer of the first phase of Mendota Plaza and each amendment that followed were not. He stated that one developer did provide an infrastructure improvement because the State asked them to-the Michaels development. He noted that MnDOT provided no input when asked about this and the City cannot require an applicant to make an improvement on an infrastructure it does not own. He stated that this applicant proposes a density of 21.52 units per acre, while The Linden proposed 23.08 units per acre in addition to a restaurant. He referenced the proposed setback noting that this applicant is requesting 15 feet from the right-of-way while The Linden requested 17 feet. He noted that this applicant is requesting a setback of 100 feet from a State TH while The Linden has a setback of 31 feet. He referenced ADA parking, noting that the City Code requires a width of 12 feet, while The Linden was not held to that standard and used the State standard of nine feet. He stated that this applicant was asked to complete a parking study for the entire site because of the parking ratio proposed, but The Linden was not asked to do the same for a lower ratio. He asked what possible reasons there could be for such disparity in reviewing two high density developments three years apart. Councilor Mazzitello also stated that he also made a pledge to make decisions based on fact and therefore the findings of fact in staff reports are supposed to be fact. He referenced the proposed findings of fact supporting denial and reviewed the statements he found to be untrue and not fact. He stated that he has reviewed the findings of fact supporting approval and would request a statement deemed to be an opinion to be removed. He stated that he may be agitated but he likes things to be based on fact and tonight there has been a lot of opinions and manipulation based on fear. He referenced the last finding of fact supporting denial and noted that this proposed development exactly matches the high-density housing and retail that exists in this area. He stated that if the Council wants to move forward with a motion for denial,he would suggest it develop actual findings of fact. Councilor Miller stated that he believes the finding of fact to be true as drafted by City staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he drafted the proposed findings of fact and noted that the Council would have every right to amend or revise those if desired. He commented that these are standard findings and are typical and used in other cases as well, for or against. City Attorney Shana Conklin commented that the findings of fact within the report can be modified as the Council sees fit. She stated that typically staff will provide findings of fact as a discussion point for the Council. She stated that the written findings do not have to be produced this evening, as State law allows a motion to be made and written findings to be adopted at the following meeting. She noted that she could work with City staff to write findings in support of approval or denial. Councilor Paper referenced the findings of fact for denial that mention this would not fit with the development but noted that there is a building that already exists that loops similar. He noted that this looks to be a nice building that would fit. Mayor Levine stated that a number of people have written and expressed the desire to preserve greenspace. She stated that these are developable lots and the cost to purchase the lots to preserve as greenspace would be $5,000,000. She commented that the City has the right to say no but then it must consider what may come forward in its place. She stated that they want something they are excited about. She stated that people that live in At Home Apartments are excited about living there and they are one of the best November 3,2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 19 of 22 apartment builders and managers in the business. She commented that Ms. Stefaniak is a resident of Mendota Heights and is invested in the community as a resident and businessperson. She stated that she likes this concept, and it would be nice to bring some vibrancy into this area. Councilor Paper referenced the Comprehensive Plan which provides the density for the parcels and noted that the proposed density fits within the range specified in Chapter Two. He stated that Chapter Five encourages life cycle housing in various forms and also suggests additional multi-family rental or affordable options for young people. He referenced Chapter 11 which provides a goal to meet future needs with a variety of housing products. He noted that the City is committed to working within the Comprehensive Plan,which was created with a tremendous amount of community input,engagement,and work. He stated that the document supports Phase 11. Councilor Duggan stated he did not believe the City is against the concept of apartments,but more finding the right fit. He stated that he previously pointed out that Mendota Plaza was a sea of concrete but realized that was developed under different standards and in different times. He noted that if this goes through as proposed there would be almost no greenspace within the Plaza, which he did not believe matches the intent of the City. He stated that he previously spoke of a need for a downtown area in Mendota Heights in order to have a gathering space for the community. He stated that this would be a minimal contribution to the spacious and gracious vision for Mendota Heights. He recognized that this is the land of the developer, but the City also has a challenge to determine what it wants under the PUD. He stated that denying this request does not mean they could not still work with the applicant and Pastor Properties to find something that would work for everyone. He stated that he believes that there is a great opportunity to have a better development than what is currently proposed. Councilor Paper commented that the City speaks about wanting its businesses to succeed and this would help to make this area more vibrant which would bring in new businesses. He stated that the businesses need the help and Phase II would support that. Councilor Miller stated that he believes developing this area needs to be done wisely, He stated that he suggested that At Home Apartments propose the same project as they did for The Linden site. He believed that At Home Apartments are the best at what they do, and he has faith in them as a developer. He stated that his problem with this request is that it is too large for the property. He called the question. Mayor Levine recapped the motion on the floor to deny PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) AND CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE III/89 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECTS WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD. City Attorney Shana Conklin stated that the actions should be separated into two motions and noted that there is opportunity to submit written findings of fact in support or approval or denial at the next meeting. She recommended that it be stated whether the motion is based on the findings of fact in the packet or adopted at the next meeting. Councilor Miller commented that he based his motion on the findings of fact within the staff report but would consider amendment to the third finding. Councilor Miller moved to amend his motion to direct staff to draft a resolution DENYING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS DRAFTED AND TO BE MODIFIED WORKING WITH STAFF TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING, November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 20 of 22 Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Nays: 3 (Levine, Paper, Mazzitello) The motion failed 2-3. Councilor Mazzitello moved to direct staff to draft a resolution APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE I1/58 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 (Levine, Paper, Mazzitello) Nays: 2 (Duggan, Miller) The motion was approved 3-2. Councilor Mazzitello moved to direct staff to draft a resolution APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE 111/89 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BEGIN UNTIL PHASE II RECEIVES CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Duggan asked if this item could be deferred because of the late time. City Attorney Shana Conklin stated that the 60-day deadline has been extended giving the City until December 23, 2021 but recognized upcoming Council absences. She stated that if the full Council were planning to be present, the item could be tabled if found appropriate or the discussion could continue tonight. Mayor Levine asked if people could join remotely if unable to attend in person. Councilor Duggan stated that he was told that without the emergency powers intact,any Council members not present would not be allowed to vote. City Attorney Shana Conklin stated that if a Council member were attending remotely there would be stipulations which would allow participation. She noted that the member of the Council attending remotely would need to be located in a public location that is publicly noticed. Mayor Levine commented that the next Council meeting is scheduled for November 161h and asked if everyone is available to participate. It was believed that everyone would be in attendance. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he would prefer to make the decision tonight but could support tabling. Councilor Paper stated this requires a separate discussion and would support tabling. Councilor Miller stated that he could support either option. Mayor Levine commented that she would prefer to table this item in order to provide a thorough review. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 21 of 22 Councilor Mazzitello, withdrew his motion. Councilor Paper agreed, Councilor Mazzitello moved to table the discussion of PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE 111/89 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD, CouncilorDuggan seconded the motion. Ayes, 5 Nays: 0 D) ESTABLISH DATE FOR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained that the Council is, asked to schedule a. work-session to discuss a variety of topics. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a worksession on November 15"' at 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming events, COUNCIL COMMENTS No additional comnients. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion, Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m, Step6nie Levine Mayor ATTEST: Lorn%f Smith City Clerk November 3, 021 Mendota Hedghfs City Council Page 22 ol'22