Full Packet 03262024Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less
than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may
not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, March 26, 2024 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Approval of Minutes
a.Approve the February 28, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2024-01 Preliminary and Final Plat – Application of Spencer McMillan for
a Preliminary and Final Plat of a 3-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan
Estates
4.New/Unfinished Business
a.Adopt Living Streets Policy
5. Adjourn Meeting
1
February 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 4
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 2024
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday,
February 28, 2024 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,
Cindy Johnson, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners Brian Petschel and
Brian Udell.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair
Chair Field opened the floor for nominations for the Chair position.
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO ELECT
LITTON FIELD AS PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Field opened the floor for nominations for the Vice Chair position.
Commissioner Corbett commented that he would be willing to continue to serve in that position
unless someone else was interested.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO
ELECT PATRICK CORBETT AS PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Approval of January 30, 2024 Minutes
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 30, 2024.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
2 2a.
February 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4
Hearings
A)PLANNING CASE 2024-02
SD CUSTOM HOMES/SEAN DOYLE, 941 WAGON WHEEL – WETLANDS
PERMIT
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicants are seeking a
Wetlands Permit to allow the permitting and construction of a new single-family dwelling adjacent
to Upper (North) Rogers Lake.
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 Manager Sarah Madden 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 referenced the proposed landscaping, noting that she could see the
foundational plantings on the architectural elevation but did not notice a landscaping plan in the
packet.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there is not a perimeter planting
plan associated with construction of the home. She stated that there is a plan showing the seeding,
grass, and trees.
Commissioner Stone asked what is required for a landscaping plan.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that for a residential and/or wetland
district there is no specific requirement of the number of trees and/or plants, therefore there is
nothing that can be referenced for minimal installation.
Commissioner Johnson referenced language within the ordinance and wetlands permit where a
landscaping plan is referenced. She noted that while that language is vague, it is still a requirement.
Commissioner Katz commented that there is a sheet within the packet that states landscape plan.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that does show the seeding and this
would be sufficient for processing the wetlands permit.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Sean Doyle, applicant, commented that the trees are largely diseased, which contributes to the
larger number of trees proposed for removal.
3
February 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT TO SD CUSTOM
HOMES/SEAN DOYLE AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 941 WAGON WHEEL
TRAIL, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE A NEW AND/OR REVISED
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO APPROVE ANY ACCESS FROM THE
UNDEVELOPED SECTION OF ROGERS AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
2.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE THE CITY A REVISED (OR NEW)
SHARED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS (OF
RECORD) OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERITES UTILIZING ROGERS
AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS AND ACCESS.
3.ANY NEW OR EXISTING SANITARY OR WATER SERVICE LINES SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND/OR ST. PAUL REGIONAL
WATER SERVICES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT.
4.THE NEW DWELLING AND ANY RELATED CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND
CONDITIONS UNDER TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, WETLANDS SYSTEMS OF CITY
CODE.
5.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE A BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES (STORMWATER MANAGEMENT) AGREEMENT TO THE CITY AS
PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCESS.
6.ALL DISTURBED AREAS ADJACENT TO THE ROGERS LAKE EDGE SHALL BE
PLANTED OR SEEDED WITH MnDOT SEED MIX LIST #33-261, OR A CITY STAFF
APPROVED SIMILAR PRODUCT.
7.NO ADDITIONAL GRADING OR LAND DISTURBANCE SHALL OCCUR WITHIN
THIRTY -SEVEN POINT FIVE FEET (37.5’) FROM THE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT
WATER BODY, EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES,
INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (IF NEEDED) OR FOR THE
PLANTINGS OF ANY NEW SEED MIXTURES OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS,
AND ONLY WITH CITY APPROVALS.
8.FULL EROSION/SEDIMENTATION MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR
TO COMMENCEMENT OR WORK AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE
DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. EROSION BARRIERS SHALL
BE PLACED AND MAINTAINED ALONG THE OUTER EDGES OF THE NEW
4
February 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4
HOME PROJECT WORK AREA AND REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DISTURBED
AREAS HAVE BEEN RESTORED.
9.ANY GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT.
10.BEST EFFORTS WILL BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR(S) TO “COME CLEAN,
LEAVE CLEAN” DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, AND ENSURE NEW GROUND MULCH OR PLANT MATERIALS ARE
FREE OF ANY INVASIVE SPECIES.
11.PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF ANY ESCROW PAYMENT OR ISSUANCE OF ANY
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C/O) ON THE NEW DWELLING, ALL
DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE SHOWN OR DEMONSTRATED THAT THE NEW
VEGETATIVE BUFFER SEED MIXTURE WAS SUCCESSFULLY PLANTED, AND
PLANT GROWTH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, TAKING PLACE, OR IS HOLDING.
12.A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OR ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING.
CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00
A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS; AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2024 meeting.
New/Unfinished Business
Chair Field noted that the April meeting falls on the second night of Passover and a suggestion
was made to change the date of that meeting to accommodate the Passover holiday.
It was the consensus of the Commission to hold its April meeting on April 30th.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on recent City Council
actions on planning cases as well as other development and planning related items.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:33 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
5
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 1 of 9
Planning Staff Report
DATE: March 26, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2024-01
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT of MCMILLAN ESTATES
APPLICANT: Spencer McMillan
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1707 Delaware Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1A One Family Residential / RR-Rural Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: May 23, 2024 (One 60-day Extension already granted)
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is seeking a new Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the properties located at 1707 Delaware
Avenue and two vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. The residential property
and the two vacant parcels are all owned by Spencer McMillan, the applicant in this Planning Case. The proposed
plat is titled McMillan Estates and the subdivision would divide and redistribute the existing land within the three
parcels into three new lots of record.
In 2021, an application was submitted to the City for the subject site (by a different applicant and property owner)
with a very similar proposal for subdivision of the existing three parcels into three new lots of record (Planning
Case No. 2021-19). That prior application was withdrawn before the public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Within the prior applicant’s written notice of withdrawal, they indicated that the applicant team was unable to come
to an agreement with the Seller and property owner regarding a request for dedicated right-of-way along Delaware
Avenue for Dakota County. The property sold following this withdrawn application, and the item in this planning
case is a separate application by the current applicant and property owner.
This item is being presented under a fully noticed public hearing process, with notices published in the Pioneer
Press newspaper; notice letters mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels, and with notices
posted on the city’s website and city hall bulletin board, in accordance with statutory and City Code requirements.
Written public comments have been received and are included as an attachment to this report. As of the submittal
of this report, there were five instances of public comment. Any additional comments received prior to the
meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and made part of the public record.
6 3a0.
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 2 of 9
BACKGROUND
The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels. The primary property
addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is a long, rectangular, unplatted parcel consisting of 10.06 acres, measuring
329.18-ft. in width along Delaware Avenue to the east. This parcel contains an existing single-family home. The
remaining two parcels are known as Outlots A and B of Grappendorf Addition, which was approved in 1984. The
two Outlots are situated at the end of Ridgewood Drive and consist of 4.5 acres (Outlot A) and 2 acres (Outlot B).
Both outlots are vacant.
The proposed subdivision requested by the applicant will create three new lots from these parcels. Lot 1 and Lot 3
are intended to be platted for future development of new single-family homes. The proposed Lot 2 would remain
as the applicant’s residence but would be subdivided into a smaller parcel.
In order to establish the required 125-foot of frontage on a city approved street for new platted lots in an R-1A
District, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 7,664 s.f. (.18 acres) of right-of-way extending north from the existing
Ridgewood Drive right-of-way. The dedicated right-of-way would consist of an approximately 128-ft extension
northward into the proposed subdivision. More information on this request will be provided in the Analysis section
of this report. Additionally, 19,751 s.f. (.45 acres) of right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along Delaware
Avenue, to accommodate Dakota County’s request for 60-ft of half right-of-way.
A large portion of the subject site is encumbered by wetlands. Prior to this application, the previous property owner
hired an environmental specialist to study, identify, and map out these wetlands on the property; an official Wetland
Delineation Report dated 06/22/2021 was submitted to the City for review and was later accepted by the City
Council on September 9, 2021. This report is valid for five years.
In addition to the Wetland Delineation Report on file and those standards for wetland impacts as outlined under the
Wetland Conservation Act, future development on the new lots may require a separate application and review of a
City wetlands permit. The application under review as part of this planning case is solely for the subdivision to be
known as McMillan Estates, as outlined in the applicant’s proposal and Preliminary and Final Plat documents
attached to this report.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided RR-Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Plan includes the
following general description for said uses in this land use category:
RR – Rural Residential (0.1 - 1.45 DU/Acre)
This land use is generally located in the east central part of the city. This designation is intended for large lot
single-family residences and includes properties with and without city sewer. The Rural Residential areas are
planned with a density not to exceed 1.45 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is R-
1A (One Family Residential).
The overall site consists of 16.63 acres, and of that approximately 5.6 acres are encumbered by wetlands, leaving a
net acreage value of 11.03 acres. The overall density created by the potential two new residences plus the existing
residential unit calculates to a density of 0.27 units/acre, which is under the maximum outlined within the RR –
Rural Residential land use category.
In the 2040 Plan, the city also identified (based upon previous 2030 Plan and others) a number of specific properties
in the city that were or are vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or identified as either potential infill or
redevelopment areas. These sites or areas are referred to as “Focus Areas”. Infill means that the property has the
opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. One of these focus areas is the Somerset Area, or #21
on Map 2-5: Focus Areas with Future Land Use Overlay Map (see map – Pg. 3).
7
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 3 of 9
21.Somerset Area: This area has been referred
to as the “Superblock” due to its collection of
large residential lots. It consists of over 20
separate parcels on approximately 90 acres
located directly south of Somerset Country
Club and Golf Course. The area is developed
with single-family homes on large lots with
private septic systems. The neighborhood is
bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue,
the north by Wentworth Avenue, and the
south and west by smaller single-family lots.
The neighborhood contains significant
wetlands and woodlands. The area is guided
RR - Rural Residential use. Due to the
existing large lot configuration, the area has
the potential to be further subdivided,
provided public sewer, water and road
systems would be extended to the area.
Plat Standards
Under Title 11, Subdivision Regulations, the intent and purpose of this section is to “safeguard the best interests of
the city, and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing [their] interests with those of the city at large, this title is
adopted in order that adherence to same will bring results beneficial to both parties. It is the purpose of this title to
make certain regulations and requirements for the platting of land within the city pursuant to the authority
contained in Minnesota statutes, which regulations the city council deems necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of this community.”
City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-2 allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are
compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district, and meets the following standards:
A.Lot Area, Width and Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the
zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat.
B.Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from
both streets as required in the zoning ordinance.
C.Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines.
D.Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved
street other than an alley.
E.Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less
than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business
use, the setback shall be at least that required by the zoning ordinance.
For the R-1A District, all new lots must have a minimum of 30,000-sf. of lot area. All three lots significantly exceed
the size minimum requirement with 9.92 acres, 3.52 acres and 2.56 acres respectively.
The proposed Preliminary Plat and preliminary plans provided by the applicant illustrate outlines of potential
building areas on Lot 1 and Lot 3. In reviewing these outlined layouts, setbacks to front, side, and rear lot lines can
be met due to the large acreage on both parcels.
For the R-1A District, all new lots require a minimum of 125-ft. of lot width along a city approved street. Lot 2
(existing residence) will maintain its 329+ feet of frontage along Delaware Avenue. Lots 1 and 3 are being proposed
to have their frontage and lot width met by the Applicant dedicating an extension of Ridgewood Drive right-of-way
by approximately 128-feet. The Applicant indicates that they do not plan to develop a full roadway extension in
8
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 4 of 9
the dedicated right-of-way, and are only intending to provide a shared driveway in this added section of right-of-
way. A potential future drive would be installed directly north to access the potential home on Lot 1, and an
additional split access point on the undeveloped right-of-way would provide a single lane driveway to a home on
Lot 3. Because this request and proposed right-of-way extension does not include installation of a standard city
street within the roadway section, the city must consider if this extended right-of-way segment is consistent with
the City Subdivision and Zoning Code provisions for frontage and lot width, and for street dedication within plats.
This issue is addressed later in the “Street Design” section of this report.
Dakota County Review
Because this property fronts on a Dakota County road system (CSAH 63 – Delaware Avenue), this plat requires
county review and approval. As mentioned in the “Introduction” section of this report, a previous plat of the subject
site was reviewed in 2021, and right-of-way dedication along Delaware Avenue was required by Dakota County at
that time. The former application did not move forward and cited the right-of-way dedication as the reason for their
withdrawal. This current application has been reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission, and the proposed
plat provides the requested right-of-way of 60-ft of half right-of-way, in accordance with their review procedures.
The Plat Commission approved the Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions. The memo from the Dakota County
Surveyor’s Office is included as an attachment to this report.
Utility and Grading Plan
The applicant has provided a detailed Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan (Plan Sheets 2-4). The plan shows a joint
driveway connection coming off the north end of the cul-de-sec roadway section of Ridgewood Drive. The
driveways as proposed are preliminary, with the northern drive to Lot 1 measuring at 12’ in width, and the eastern
drive to Lot measuring at 10’ in width.
According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code:
Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions
shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than twenty five percent
(25%) in grade.
The staff review of the provided grading and contour elevation markings illustrated on the preliminary plans did
not identify any steep slopes or bluffs on the property, or slopes over 25% in the areas where the potential dwellings,
accessory structures, or driveways are being proposed. The house locations as shown on the provided plans are
potential, and final house locations, grading, and impacts will depend on a final design for the respective houses.
These future developments will be evaluated at the time that those applications come forward and will be subject
to the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements and any other applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes,
as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. A condition has been included in
the staff recommendation section of this report which reflects these requirements.
There is an existing 6-inch watermain underneath Ridgewood Drive that was stubbed to the end of the cul-de-sec
roadway. The plans notate that the applicant will extend this watermain line approximately 10-ft into the Ridgewood
Drive right-of-way to a new fire hydrant, and from this extension, two new 2-inch residential water service lines
will lead off from the main, with new stubs for each of the two new lots remaining for future development. The
plans also show a 9-inch sanitary sewer line underneath Ridgewood Drive that was stubbed approximately 11-ft
north of the cul-de-sac, just outside the upper circle of the roadway edge and approximately 41-ft north of the
existing manhole. From this stub, the developer will extend the sanitary sewer services further into the plat and seal
with an additional manhole. Two new 6-inch sanitary sewer service lines will run parallel to the water service lines
to a new stub point for future development access. The plans show the ability for future service connections to be
made into the provided stubs for any future construction of homes on the two respective lots.
All new lots will have perimeter drainage and utility easements provided, noted at 5’ in width at side and rear lot
lines, and 10’ in width at front lot lines. All wetlands will be covered by similar drainage and utility easements for
added protection. Those easements will be provided and officially dedicated under the final plat approval and
recording, if approved.
9
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 5 of 9
Wetland Impacts
The proposed plat identifies a number of large and smaller wetlands throughout the site, which are proposed to be
dedicated as drainage and utility easements on the plat. The applicant’s plans also indicate a 20’ wetland buffer area
(illustrated on the plans as hatching around wetlands).
The potential new driveway leading back to the Lot 1 site would begin at the end of Ridgewood Drive, and would
impact a small narrow segment of wetlands connecting the two larger wetlands in this area. This driveway would
then continue northward and curve slightly and between the two larger wetlands situated south of the buildable area
for a home. It should be noted that the City Council approved a Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption,
submitted by this property’s previous Developer/Applicant, on November 3, 2021, whereby approval was granted
to remove up to 1,000 sq.ft. of wetlands for the driveway and the structure improvements which were proposed at
that time. The extent of the previous structure improvements from the previous application are not outlined in this
planning case, however 369 square feet of wetland impact and fill area included in that 2021 approval is still
illustrated in this subject application’s plans as a 359 sq.ft. impact area which would accommodate a future culvert
under the northern driveway to Lot 1. This decision of approval is valid for five years. The Notice of Decision and
supporting documents are included as an attachment to this report. Exclusive of the existing approval for wetland
impacts exemption on the subject site, no additional part of the wetlands may be removed unless it is part of any
approved construction project, which may or may not come after plat approvals on the property.
On the preliminary plans, the two new home sites will be placed in areas in dry, non-wetland areas of each parcel,
according to the wetland mapping provided by Jacobson Environmental. The applicant does not have a finalized
construction and development plan for homes on either of the two vacant properties, and those plans are not under
the review of the City at this time. Current zoning ordinance standards require a Wetlands Permit for any work or
improvements within 100’ of wetlands or water resource areas. The full extent of a wetlands review under the
zoning ordinance and other local city codes and ordinances will be evaluated at the time a developer or applicant
comes forward with realized final plans for each site.
Tree Inventory
The Developer/Applicant has included a Tree Inventory of the site, which is included as an attachment to this report.
The inventory outlines the species and diameter of the 464 trees within the anticipated development area, out of
approximately 1,900 or more trees which exist on the property today. Potential future removal of trees are illustrated
on the inventory plans which could be removed as part of any construction activities for the future building and
driveway improvements. Final tree impacts are to be determined with the full construction and building permit plan
sets at the time an application and final site plan design comes forward for review.
Street Design
City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides
for all the required standards related to new subdivisions,
including streets, utilities, easements, etc. When Breckenridge
Estates, the plat to the south of the subject site, was approved
in 1969, it contained a variance request to allow lots less than
40,000-sq. ft. in area (required for R-1A district at that time),
but did not include any variance or allowance for an over-
length cul-de-sac. The plat was presented with the Ridgewood
Drive roadway that exists today, and also included a small
“nub” extension of 60-feet in width at the top of the road ROW
circle (see plat image –right).
This nub was likely created or called for based on the
assumption that the properties to the north could be or would
be similarly platted, and any future roadway extension would
10
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 6 of 9
have likely come off the end of Ridgewood Drive and ran northward into these properties. The Subdivision
ordinance does require in Section 11-3-3: Streets and Alleys, that when a plat is submitted which includes only a
portion of land intended for development, that a tentative plan of a proposed future street system should be provided.
The Grappendorf Addition (see plat image – below) did not show or provide any plans for extending Ridgewood
Drive into the plat or outlots, nor provided any plans for any other roadway inside this plat as well.
Under this plat request, the Applicant is seeking to provide an extension of this right-of-way at least 60-feet in
width, and approx. 128 feet in length. This extension is right-of-way only; and no physical roadway is proposed to
be built in this extension, just private driveways and utilities.
Ridgewood Drive measures from the point coming off Marie Avenue to the end of the cul-de-sac as 649.58-feet in
total length. From earlier [known] records of the City Code, the Subdivision Code of 1956 indicated “dead-end
streets shall not be longer than 400-feet…” while the Code of 1975 included: “…cul-de-sacs shall normally not
be longer than 500-feet….” as seen today in the current Subdivision Code (noted below).
Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys:
D.Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where
topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet
(500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of
at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than 60-ft.
Some of the commissioners may recall giving consideration to a variance related to a cul-de-sac roadway, which
was presented under the Orchard Heights plat in 2017. Under that case, the developers requested a variance to
exceed the “normally not longer than 500-ft.” standard to allow a new cul-de-sac of 950-feet in length. As part of
the report on that case, it was noted that the city allowed a number of other subdivision developments throughout
the city with over-length dead end and cul-de-sac streets (approximately 19 at that time); and it was unclear from
research if the 500-foot standard was in places at the time of these various plat approvals or developments; or if
variances were approved for these separate developments. Nevertheless, the city required the developer to submit
and request a variance to exceed this 500-ft. standard, and although the planning commission and city council
rejected this variance request, the development (and new roadway) was ultimately allowed by a Dakota County
District Court ruling.
In that ruling, it is noted that there was dispute on whether or not a Variance was required for the length of the cul-
de-sac, as the City’s subdivision ordinance only states that cul-de-sacs “shall normally not” be longer than 500 feet.
11
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 7 of 9
Existing Minnesota case law states that “Regulatory standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application
of objective standards to similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements that they
must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance” When
interpreting language in a zoning ordinance, the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms has generally been more
favorable in court procedures. Because of the imprecise language within the subdivision ordinance regarding cul-
de-sac length that “shall not normally” be longer than 500-ft, and because the existing length of Ridgewood Drive
has already been approved through a prior subdivision, staff did not request the applicant to revise their application
and incorporate a Variance request to the cul-de-sac length standard.
The Applicant’s plans indicate that they do not intend to physically extend the roadway with full street construction
elements or a cul-de-sac surface into their plat of McMillan Estates, but only plat out the right-of-way extension in
order to provide the 125-feet of minimum lot width and frontage along a city street for Lots 1 and 3 of this plat. The
proposed right-of-way dedication to the City would add an additional 128-ft of right-of-way to the roadway, without
the construction of a developed public street. The right-of-way is proposed to be utilized by a shared driveway
access point, which would then separate into two separate private drives for the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the
plat. The developed portion of Ridgewood Drive would remain as it is currently constructed, with a new curb cut
for the proposed driveway extension approximately 26-ft in width, reducing to 22-ft in width at what is currently
the south property line of the existing parcel. The planning commission should consider if the undeveloped right-
of-way extension is consistent with ordinance requirements for a dead end street, as the constructed roadway does
not end in a dead end, but in a previously approved cul-de-sac dedicated in the Breckenridge Estates plat, and the
proposed development within the right-of-way is designed as a shared access driveway.
Section 11-3-3 of the Subdivision ordinance also states that “when a tract is subdivided into larger than normal
building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and openings of
future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision for adequate utility connections for such
resubdivision”. The proposed lots greatly exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 30,000 sq.ft., however the
existing topography and wetland conditions do play a part in the available buildable area within the subject site.
The provided plans do display provision for some utility stubbed connections within the dedicated Ridgewood
Avenue right-of-way, however the right-of-way extension does not connect to the northern boundary of the plat to
provide an opening for future street connections and appropriate resubdivision. The Somerset area outlined in the
2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies additional large lots to the north of this proposed plat which may be eligible
for future subdivision, provided adequate roadway access and utility connections are provided. Staff and the
applicant did discuss the possibility of dedicating additional right-of-way further northward in order to provide a
planned access for any future subdivisions, but the applicant expressed a desire to maintain the natural area on the
northern half of the proposed Lot 1 for personal use as a future home site. While the proposed plan for dedicated
but undeveloped right-of-way may minimize or reduce any further impacts to the wetlands inside the plat, the
Planning Commission should consider if the design of the proposed plat supports the surrounding area’s ability to
be subdivided further in the future on the northern parcel (proposed Lot 1), in addition to considering the logical
arrangement of lots to provide for future street and access planning for tracts of land outside the currently proposed
subdivision.
The provided plans illustrate an outline of potential building areas, but are not the final development plan for a new
home construction at this time. The lot configuration of Lot 1 of the proposed plat may lend itself to future
subdivision and street extension, provided adequate access and utility connections are set aside with the Plat of
McMillan Estates in this application. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed
plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan.
12
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 8 of 9
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates, based on the attached findings-
of-fact as noted herein; or
2.Recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates, based on revised findings-of-
fact and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; or
3. Table the plat application, and request additional information from the Applicant and/or city staff.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the application of
Spencer McMillan for the Preliminary and Final Plat of a three-lot residential subdivision to be known as
McMillan Estates, based on the attached Findings-of-Fact for Denial as noted herein.
ATTACHMENTS
1. General Location/Aerial Map
2.Narrative Letter
3.Preliminary Plat
4.Final Plat
5.Site Plan & Title Sheet
6. Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan (Sheets 2-4)
7.Tree Inventory (Sheets 5-8)
8. Dakota County Plat Commission Memo
9.Minnesota WCA Notice of Decision
10.1707 Delaware Avenue Notice of Decision
11.Public Comments Received (as of the submittal of this report)
13
Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan)
Page 9 of 9
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates
1707 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request:
1. The subject site is zoned R-1A One Family Residential, and guided as RR – Rural Residential in the 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
2.The minimum lot area in the R-1A zoning district is 30,000 sq. ft.
3.The lot areas in the proposed plat of McMillan Estates are 432,071 sq. ft. for Lot 1, Block 1; 153,532 sq.
ft. for Lot 2, Block 1; and 111,520 sq. ft. for Lot 3, Block 1.
4. The Subdivision Regulations of the City require that when a tract is subdivided into larger than normal
building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and
openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision for adequate utility connections
for each resubdivision.
5. The Subdivision Regulations of the City require that each lot have the minimum frontage as required in
the zoning ordinance on a city approved street.
6. The minimum lot width standard in the R-1A zoning district is 125-ft.
7. The dedication of additional right-of-way extending north of this cul-de-sac provides 189.01-ft of
frontage for Lot 1, Block 1 of the proposed Plat, and provides 127.79-ft of frontage for Lot 3, Block 1 of
the proposed Plat.
8. The Subdivision Regulations of the City prohibit dead end streets.
9. The dedication of additional right-of-way extending north of this cul-de-sac ends in a dead end.
10. The Developer/Applicant is not proposing to construct the extension of Ridgewood Avenue as a street.
The Developer/Applicant is proposing to utilize the undeveloped right-of-way as access to two separate
private driveways.
11. The proposed plat relies upon the acceptance by the City of additional dedication of right-of-way
extending north of the cul-de-sac of Ridgewood Drive.
12. The dedication of additional right-of-way extending north of this cul-de-sac would not conform with the
City’s standards, unless it were accompanied by further right-of-way dedication to extend the street
northward as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision.
13.The City does not accept this additional right-of-way dedication because it does not serve any public
purpose and instead serves to avoid the need for a Variance for less than 125-ft of minimum lot width and
frontage on a city approved street for the proposed Lots 1 and 3, Block 1, McMillan Estates
14.The proposed plat of McMillan Estates does not meet the minimum lot standards of the R-1A One Family
Residential zoning district.
14
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.666666 666666666666 6666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERIDGEWOOD
DR
MARIE AVE W
Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Location Aerial Map1707 Delaware Ave/McMillan Estates
Date: 3/21/2024
City of
Mendota
Heights0340
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
15 3a1.
16 3a2.
17
MCMILLAN ESTATES101055Preliminary Plat11202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATIONOWNER/DEVELOPERENGINEER/SURVEYORLEGAL DESCRIPTIONPRELIMINARY PLATPLAT AREASLand Surveying& Engineering2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDSPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSWETLAND DELINEATORUTILITIESSTORMWATERSEE THE PRELIMINARY GRADING, UTILITY, AND TREEPRESERVATION PLANS FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTSLEGEND183a3.
SITE2460149MARIE AVE.8DODD RD.WENTWORTH AVE.DELAWARE AVE.WACHTLER AVE.123BLOCK 1MCMILLAN ESTATESLOCATION MAPSHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETSSISU LAND SURVEYINGKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, owners of the following described property: Outlot A in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And Outlot B in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And the North Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MCMILLAN ESTATES, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways and drainage and utility easements as created herewith. In witness whereof said Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this day of , 20 . Spencer McMillan Breanna McMillan STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 551010I Curtiss Kallio do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Curtiss Kallio, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 26909 STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Curtiss Kallio. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA This plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES was approved and accepted by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By Mayor Clerk COUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA We do hereby certify that on the day of , the Board of Commissioners of Dakota County, Minnesota approved this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2 and pursuant to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. Attest Chair, County Board County Treasurer - Auditor DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . , Amy A. Koethe, Director Department of Property Taxation and Records REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES, was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for public record on this day of , 20 at o’clock M., and was duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number . , Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of Titles OFFICIAL PLAT193a4.
203a5.
213a6.
22
23
243a7.
682580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanSEE SHEET 5LEGENDTREE INVENTORY NOTE25
782580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanSEE SHEET 5LEGENDTREE INVENTORY NOTE26
882580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanTREE NOTESTag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status1 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 81 6 Black Cherry Save 336 17 Black Cherry Mostly Dead Save 416 13.5 BuckthornSave 1750 10 Black CherrySave 1837 12 Red OakSave2 6 Quaking AspenRemove 82 7 Black CherrySave 337 13 Box ElderSave 417 9 BuckthornRemove 1751 8 Quaking AspenSave 1838 7 Black CherrySave3 7 Black CherryRemove 83 8 Box Elder poor Save 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White AshRemove 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1839 6 Red OakSave4 6 Quaking AspenRemove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Save 339 10 BuckthornSave 419 23.5 White AshRemove 1753 8 Quaking AspenSave 1840 7 Black CherrySave5 6 Green AshRemove 85 10 Black CherryRemove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White AshSave 1754 7 Quaking AspenSave 1841 7 Red OakSave6 6 Quaking AspenRemove 86 7 Box ElderRemove 341 17 CottonwoodSave 421 18 Green AshSave 1755 6 Green AshRemove 1842 6 Red OakSave7 7 Quaking AspenRemove 87 7 Black CherryRemove 342 16 White AshSave 422 12 Green AshSave 1756 7 Green AshRemove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save8 8 Quaking AspenRemove 88 6 Bur OakRemove 343 6.5 White AshRemove 423 8.5 Green AshSave 1757 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save9 6 Quaking AspenRemove 89 8 Black CherryRemove 344 12 White AshRemove 424 13 White AshRemove 1758 9 Quaking AspenSave 1845 7 Red OakSave10 7 Quaking AspenSave 90 15 Red OakSave 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Remove 425 7 BuckthornRemove 1759 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1846 10 BasswoodSave11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 91 12 Red OakRemove 346 13 American ElmRemove 426 6Swamp White OakRemove 1760 6 Quaking AspenSave 1847 10 Red OakSave12 8 Black Cherry poor Save 92 8 Black CherryRemove 347 8 White AshSave 427 16 White AshRemove 1761 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1848 11 Red OakSave13 7 Green Ash poor Save 93 6 American ElmRemove 348 6 White AshSave 428 9 White AshRemove 1762 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1849 6 Quaking AspenSave14 7 Black CherrySave 94 9 Black CherryRemove 349 10 Box ElderRemove 429 17 White AshRemove 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking AspenSave15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black CherryRemove 350 9 Box ElderRemove 430 6 BuckthornRemove 1764 8 Green AshRemove 1851 7 Quaking AspenSave16 12 Black CherrySave 96 9 Quaking AspenRemove 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Remove 431 16 White AshRemove 1765 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1852 8 Quaking AspenSave17 6 Green AshSave 97 8 Quaking AspenRemove 352 9.5 Box ElderRemove 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking AspenSave18 10 Black CherrySave 98 9 Quaking AspenRemove 353 12 Box ElderRemove 433 23 Green AshSave 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1854 6 Quaking AspenSave19 6 Apple Save 99 7 Quaking AspenRemove 354 10 Box ElderRemove 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1768 10 Quaking AspenSave 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove20 6 Apple Save 100 7 Black CherryRemove 355 10 White AshRemove 435 14 CottonwoodRemove 1769 8 Quaking AspenSave 1856 7 Quaking AspenRemove21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green AshRemove 436 18.5 Box ElderRemove 1770 11 Quaking AspenSave 1857 7 Red OakSave22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black CherrySave 357 14 Black OakRemove 437 13 Box ElderSave 1771 10 Quaking AspenSave 1858 7 Red OakSave23 9 Box ElderSave 103 8 Amur MapleSave 358 20.5 White AshRemove 438 10 White AshSave 1772 8 Quaking AspenSave 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black CherrySave 104 8 Black CherrySave 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Remove 439 11 Black CherryRemove 1773 9 Quaking AspenSave 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red OakSave 360 8 White AshRemove 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Remove26 8 Black CherrySave 106 10 American ElmSave 361 8 White AshRemove 441 16 Box ElderSave 1775 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1862 8 Quaking AspenRemove27 6 Green AshSave 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White AshRemove 442 14 White AshSave 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1863 6 Quaking AspenRemove28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 CottonwoodSave 363 9 White AshRemove 443 8 BuckthornSave 1777 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1864 6 Quaking AspenRemove29 7 Black CherrySave 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American ElmRemove 444 18 White AshSave 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking AspenRemove30 8 Box ElderSave 110 8 Quaking AspenSave 365 12 White AshRemove 445 16.5 HophornbeamSave 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1866 7 Quaking AspenRemove31 7 Black CherrySave 111 9 Red OakSave 366 8 White AshRemove 446 9 Green AshSave 1780 15 Quaking AspenRemove 1867 6 Quaking AspenRemove32 8 Black CherrySave 112 13 Red OakSave 367 11 White AshRemove 1701 21 CottonwoodRemove 1781 6 Green AshRemove 1868 6 Quaking AspenRemove33 12 Black CherrySave 113 12 Red OakSave 368 10 White AshRemove 1702 7 Black CherrySave 1782 6 Quaking AspenRemove 1869 8 Quaking AspenRemove34 6 Apple Save 114 6 Bur OakSave 369 6 White AshRemove 1703 13 Green AshSave 1783 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1870 10 Red OakRemove35 8 Black CherrySave 115 8 American ElmSave 370 10 White AshRemove 1704 7 Green AshRemove 1784 10 Black WalnutRemove 1871 6 Red OakRemove36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green AshRemove 1705 7 Green AshRemove 1786 8 Box ElderRemove 1872 7 Red OakRemove37 6 Black CherrySave 117 19 Red OakSave 372 9.5 White AshRemove 1706 12 Box ElderRemove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking AspenRemove38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 CottonwoodSave 373 15 White AshRemove 1707 19 CottonwoodRemove 1788 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1874 6 Black Cherrypoor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green AshSave 374 15 Green AshRemove 1708 7 CottonwoodSave 1789 10 Box ElderRemove 1875 25 CottonwoodRemove40 8 Black CherrySave 120 7 Green AshSave 375 10.5 White AshSave 1709 6 CottonwoodSave 1790 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black CherrySave 121 6 Green AshSave 376 12 White AshSave 1710 7 American ElmSave 1791 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American ElmRemove 377 8.5 White AshSave 1711 30 CottonwoodSave 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1878 6 Quaking AspenRemove43 10 (25') Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green AshSave 378 8.5 White AshRemove 1712 35 CottonwoodSave 1793 11 Green AshSave 1879 7 Quaking AspenRemove44 8 Black CherrySave 124 12 Red OakSave 379 15.5 Green AshRemove 1713 6 Box ElderSave 1794 11 Black WalnutSave 1880 7 Quaking AspenRemove45 6 Bur OakSave 125 11 Red OakSave 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box ElderSave 1795 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1881 7 Quaking AspenRemove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur OakRemove 381 11.5 Green AshSave 1715 18 CottonwoodSave 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking AspenRemove47 6 Green AshSave 302 16 CottonwoodRemove 382 14.5 Green AshSave 1716 12 Box ElderSave 1797 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1883 9 Quaking AspenRemove48 6 Green AshSave 303 20.5 White AshRemove 383 16 White AshSave 1717 10 Siberian ElmSave 1798 12 Red OakRemove 1884 6 Quaking AspenRemove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Remove 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking AspenRemove 1885 6 Quaking AspenRemove50 7 Green AshSave 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box ElderRemove 1800 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1886 7 Quaking AspenRemove51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green AshSave 386 17.5 White AshSave 1720 6 Black CherryRemove 1807 10 American Elm poor Remove 1887 7 Quaking AspenRemove52 6 Bur OakSave 307 17.5 Green AshSave 387 10 White AshSave 1721 7 Black CherrySave 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Remove 1888 12 Red OakRemove53 6 Black CherrySave 308 6 Black CherrySave 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black CherrySave 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 1889 13 Black CherryRemove54 6 Bur OakSave 309 10 American ElmSave 389 7 White AshSave 1723 13 Box ElderSave 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1890 6 Red OakRemove55 6 Green AshSave 310 42 CottonwoodSave 390 13.5 White AshSave 1724 7 Black CherrySave 1811 12 Quaking AspenRemove 1891 12 Red OakRemove56 6 Black CherrySave 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White AshSave 1725 9 Black CherrySave 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1892 7 Red OakRemove57 14 Red OakSave 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Save 392 18 White AshSave 1726 8 Box ElderSave 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1893 8 Quaking AspenRemove58 15 Red OakSave 313 6 White AshSave 393 22.5 White AshRemove 1727 7 Black CherrySave 1814 28 Red OakSave 1894 7 Quaking AspenRemove59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White AshSave 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1728 6 Black CherrySave 1815 24 Red OakSave 1895 7 Quaking AspenRemove60 7 Black WillowSave 315 22 CottonwoodSave 395 10 White AshRemove 1729 9 Box Elder poor Save 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking AspenRemove61 8 Green AshSave 316 7 Black CherrySave 396 25 White AshSave 1730 8 Box ElderSave 1817 6 Red OakSave 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove62 10 Green AshSave 317 14.5 Siberian ElmSave 397 12 Green AshRemove 1731 10 Box ElderRemove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking AspenRemove63 6 Green AshSave 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White AshRemove 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American ElmRemove64 10 Green AshSave 319 7 Box ElderSave 399 16.5 White AshRemove 1733 10 Black CherrySave 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking AspenRemove65 8 Green AshSave 320 9 Quaking AspenSave 400 21 White AshRemove 1734 8 Box Elder poor Save 1821 12 Red OakSave66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black CherrySave 401 6.5 BuckthornRemove 1735 12 Black CherrySave 1822 11 Red OakSave67 10 Green AshSave 322 14.5 Box ElderSave 402 7.5 BuckthornRemove 1736 6 Box ElderSave 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green AshSave 323 10 Box ElderSave 403 7 White AshRemove 1737 14 Black CherrySave 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green AshSave 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White AshRemove 1738 8 Box ElderSave 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red OakSave 325 9 Box ElderSave 405 8.5 White AshRemove 1739 8 Quaking AspenSave 1826 7 Black CherrySave71 7 Bur OakSave 326 8 Box ElderSave 406 10 Box ElderRemove 1740 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1827 6 Black CherrySave72 9 Bur OakSave 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box ElderRemove 1741 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1828 9 Black CherrySave73 7 Apple Save 328 8 BuckthornSave 408 14 Green AshRemove 1742 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 Apple Save 329 54 CottonwoodSave 409 15 White AshRemove 1743 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1830 8 Apple Save75 6 Green AshSave 330 15 Box ElderSave 410 8.5 Box ElderRemove 1744 6 Box ElderSave 1831 8 Black CherrySave76 7 Green AshSave 331 8 Box ElderSave 411 7 Amur Cork TreeSave 1745 12 American ElmSave 1832 7 Black CherrySave77 6 Black CherrySave 332 9 Box ElderSave 412 12 Box ElderSave 1746 8 Quaking AspenSave 1833 8 Black CherrySave78 8 American ElmSave 333 13 Box ElderSave 413 9 American ElmSave 1747 9 Black CherrySave 1834 7 Black CherrySave79 9 Black CherrySave 334 9 Box ElderSave 414 8.5 Black CherrySave 1748 9 Quaking AspenSave 1835 10 Black CherrySave80 12 Black CherrySave 335 63.5 CottonwoodSave 415 9 Black CherrySave 1749 10 Quaking AspenSave 1836 12 Red Oak poor Save27
Dakota County Surveyor’s Office
Western Service Center 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 5512 4
952.891 -7087 Fax 952.891 -7127 www.co.dakota.mn.us
February 20, 2024
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: MCMILLAN ESTATES
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on February 14, 2024, to consider the preliminary plat of the
above referenced plat. The plat is adjacent to CSAH 63 (Delaware Ave.) and is therefore subject to the
Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance.
The proposed plat includes three parcels (one existing residential lot and two new residential lots).
Access to the two new lots will be via Ridgewood Drive, a city street. The future right -of way needs are
60 feet of half right of way for a 3-lane or 2-lane median roadway. The proposed plat should dedicate 60
feet of half right of way along CSAH 63 (Delaware Ave). Restricted access should be shown along all of
CSAH 63 except for one 40-foot access opening on the north for the existing driveway (proposed Lo t 1).
A quit claim deed to Dakota County for restricted access is required with the recording of the plat
mylars.
The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary and final plat, provided that the described conditions
are met, and will recommend approval to the County Board of Commissioners on March 12, 2024.
Traffic volumes on CSAH 63 are 6,700 ADT and are anticipated to be 6,400 ADT by the year 2040. These
traffic volumes indicate that current Minnesota noise standards for residential units could be exceeded
for the proposed plat. Residential developments along County h ighways commonly result in noise
complaints. In order for noise levels from the highway to meet acceptable levels for adjacent residential
units, substantial building setbacks, buffer areas, and other noise mitigation elements should be
incorporated into this development.
No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County
Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County
Recorder’s Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of
proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. Nothing herein is intended to
restrict or limit Dakota County’s rights with regards to Dakota County rights of way or property. The Plat
Commission highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss the
permitting process which reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements,
including, but not limited to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths,
medians, etc.
28
3a8.
Please contact TJ Bentley regarding permitting questions at (952) 891 -7115 or Todd Tollefson regarding
Plat Commission or Plat Ordinance questions at (952) 891 -7070.
Sincerely,
Todd B. Tollefson
Secretary, Plat Commission
c:
29
303a9.
31
32 3a10.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Mark Sullivan
670 Hidden Creek Trail, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-263-1771
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
From:Dana Johnston
To:Sarah Madden
Subject:McMillan Estates Proposal
Date:Wednesday, March 20, 2024 6:31:55 PM
Dear Sarah,
I am writing you in regards to the proposed subdivision of the 1707 Delaware Ave
property, specifically lot 3. We live at 1769 Delaware Ave and are very concerned
about this development. Because a majority of Lot 3 is wetland, the only buildable
portion of this lot is the high point in the southeast corner. This is basically right in our
backyard, and would certainly not be secluded as Mr. McMillan described.
Our Delaware Ave property, as well as those of our neighbors, was purchased in
large part because of the privacy, view, and natural setting these homes enjoy. In our
opinion, to allow an extremely large home in this location is not in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood and would also adversely affect our property values. It
is our hope that the concerns of the many long time Delaware Ave and Ridgewood
Drive residents would be strongly considered over the addition of one, single family
home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Will and Dana Johnston
1769 Delaware Ave
96 3a11.
From:Dana Johnston
To:Sarah Madden
Subject:McMillan Estates Proposal
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:46:57 AM
Hi Sarah,
I am writing again in regards to the proposed subdivision of 1707 Delaware Ave by
Mr. McMillan, specifically Lot 3.
I am assuming that a variance will be needed in order for the Ridgewood Drive
extension/changes to comply with Mendota Heights City Code. If so, I would like to
share my understanding of the Mendota Heights Zoning Code and of obtaining a
variance to it as it relates to the proposal. Please let me know if I'm misinterpreting
anything.
I have read that the zoning code requires that any new lot created by a subdivision
process must have at least 125' of frontage on a public roadway. This would mean
that Ridgewood Drive would have to be extended beyond the current nub end (for
Lots 1 and 3) resulting in Ridgewood Drive being longer than 500 feet, which would
require a variance.
It is also my understanding that a variance should be approved "only" if it generally
improves the condition of the neighborhood and all of its residents (clearly not the
case in this instance).
In addition, under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, I read that the City Council may
only grant variances where there are "practical difficulties." Part 3 of the code's
determinant tests state "the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood" (though it most certainly would) and that "economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Obviously, the entire Lot 3
purpose is wholly for economic purposes. The Lot 3 portion of this proposal is simply
about selling off some of their land for development and profit. And, not surprisingly,
the building site on Lot 3 is far enough south that its development will not affect the
McMillan's privacy, view or enjoyment of their current home, or future home on Lot 1.
It most certainly would affect ours and that of our immediate neighbors.
I hope I'm interpreting these codes correctly. It is our sincere hope that a variance,
which would lead to the development of Lot 3, not be granted.
Thank you for your help and consideration.
Sincerely,
Will and Dana Johnston
1769 Delaware Ave
97
From:Jim Kolar
To:Sarah Madden
Cc:Griffith, William C.; Michele Kolar
Subject:Re: McMillan Estates application
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:30:23 PM
Attachments:Planning Commission 3-26-2024.docx
Kolar - Letter to Mendota Heights Planning Commission.pdf
Sarah,
Thank you for sending this. It is very helpful especially being out of town. I plan on attending the
Planning Commission meeting next Tuesday and would like to provide verbal comments if possible.
I am also attaching a letter and a copy of the letter from larkin Hoffman which reiterates the
comments provided in 2021 on essentially the same proposal. I am asking that you incorporate both
into the file timely for review by the Commission Members prior to the meeting, as requested in my
attached letter, obviously with the implied substitution of McMillan Estates for Sullivan Acres and
the McMillans substituted for Obers when considering. My attorney Bill Griffith is away on spring
break and I was unable to get an updated draft at this time, and on such short notice.
Thank you in advance,
Jim
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 1:13 PM Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote:
Hi James – I’ve received your voicemail inquiring about an upcoming public hearing on the
Preliminary and Final Plat application for McMillan Estates.
My staff report is not finalized yet and is planned to be published on the City’s website on Friday,
so I can’t provide a written report to you at this time. However the applicant’s plans have been
attached to this e-mail.
If you have specific questions, I can work to answer them ahead of the meeting, and if you would
like to provide public comment you can do so by e-mailing me here or sending something to City
Hall, dropping it off in person, attending the meeting to speak, etc.
If I receive any written public comments about the proposal by end-of-day on Thursday I will be
able to include them in the packet for our Commissioners. All public comment will become part of
the public record and provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their
consideration.
Again, please let me know if you have any questions!
Sarah
Sarah Madden
Community Development Manager
City of Mendota Heights
D: 651-255-1142
98
Website | Connect
smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Pronouns: she/her
99
James P Kolar
1695 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN, 55118
(612)408‐6852 / jamespkolar@gmail.com
March 21, 2024
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
c/ Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager
smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Re: Proposed New Subdivision known as McMillan Estates
Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission Members:
My wife Michele Kolar and I are the property owners at 1695 Delaware Avenue which is
immediately north of the proposed subdivision. This leƩer is to provide wriƩen comments and
to incorporate prior wriƩen comments to the almost idenƟcal Sullivan Acres in 2021 as our
comments for consideraƟon. The McMillan Estates Subdivision is essenƟally the same as
Sullivan Acres submiƩed in 2021, albeit with less detail regarding dwelling placement and
footprint of structures than Sullivan Acres provided. Thus, our comments are essenƟally similar
as provided in the leƩer dated November 18, 2021, from William C Griffith of Larkin Hoffman
(copy aƩached). Please incorporate this leƩer and the aƩachment in your consideraƟon.
In summary, we are not opposed to the proposal, however, we respecƞully ask for sufficient
Ɵme to consider our property and the last remaining 10‐acre lot along this stretch of Delaware,
sufficient to allow the future access, necessary uƟlity easements from Ridgewood, and access
for development of the westerly side of 1695 Delaware Avenue into one or more highly
desirable lots for future homes.
100
As the McMillan’s state, such lots in McMillan Estates would generate significant tax revenue for
Mendota Heights and our property once developed would be similar in nature, even if only one
single lot was developed. Landlocking our property unintenƟonally or without consideraƟon
could preclude any future opportunity for development and significant tax revenue.
I currently plan to aƩend the MeeƟng on March 26th and will provide comments, however at
this Ɵme I respecƞully request that any decision be deferred sufficient to allow me the Ɵme to
assess our property and come back to the commission with a proposal that could be considered
comprehensively with the McMillan’s.
Sincerely,
James P Kolar
101
November 18, 2021
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Via U.S. Mail and Email
Litton Field, Jr. Litton.fieldjr@northriskpartners.com
Sally Lorberbaum lorber@infionline.net
Patrick Corbett pbcorbett@gmail.com
Cindy Johnson Cindy.freshspaces@gmail.com
Andrew Katz Katz.andrew@comcast.net
Brian Petschel brian.petschel@gmail.com
Michael Toth Michael.toth8@gmail.com
Re: Proposed New Subdivision Known as Sullivan Acres
Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission Members:
We represent Jim and Michele Kolar, the property owners of 1695 Delaware Avenue, which is
immediately north of the proposed subdivision. This letter is written to provide comments
regarding the proposed subdivision known as “Sullivan Acres”.
Discussion
The Kolars are generally supportive of the proposal to subdivide the Ober property into three
residential lots. The Kolar property is currently 10.5 acres and will be the last remaining
property to be subdivided within this “superblock”. If this subdivision is approved, the
undeveloped portion of the Kolar property will be situated in the middle of the block.
As background, in 2012 Michael Bader proposed a four-lot subdivision north of the Kolar
property with access off Foxwood Lane. At that time, the Kolars asked the City to take a
comprehensive view of the potential development of property from Ridgeview Drive to
Foxwood Lane to ensure that these parcels have the same opportunity to develop consistent with
the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances.
Similarly, in reviewing this application for Sullivan Acres, we ask City staff, and members of the
Planning Commission and City Council to take a comprehensive view of the potential
development of adjoining property. Approval of Sullivan Acres without this type of analysis
will create obstacles to good planning both in terms of infrastructure and access. For instance,
approval of Sullivan Acres has the potential of leaving the back half of the Kolar property
landlocked without good access. This leaves my clients in the position of developing a reactive
plan for subdivision rather than a plan, shepherded by the City, that considers the needs of all
adjoining property.
102
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
November 18, 2021
Page 2
Given that my clients just received notice of the proposed subdivision, we request a continuance
of the hearing to allow the Kolars the opportunity to address access and utility connections that
would permit subdivision of their property in the future. A comprehensive approach to planning
for these large lots should address required easements for access, and connections to sewer,
water, electric, natural gas, and cable given the proposed extension of Ridgewood Drive from the
south.
We understand that plans for buildings and improvements on the property are preliminary and
must come back through the hearing process, particularly since that the attached and detached
garages are oversized and don’t meet the strict requirements of Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning
Code. It’s our understanding that these plans would require approval of a conditional use permit
and perhaps additional variances.
Still, we would like to provide our clients’ comments on building plans now to allow their
concerns to be addressed as plans are finalized. The size and footprint of the proposed buildings
are oversized and present concerns around the impact of stormwater drainage on the Kolar
property to the north, particularly from the sport court and detached garage. In addition, our
clients would like to see a larger buffer area between their property line and the detached garage
and sport court give the likelihood for significant lighting and noise associated with these uses.
Conclusion
In closing, the City has one chance to get the development of the superblock right. Each
property owner should have a similar opportunity to subdivide and develop their lots and no
subdivision should foreclose future access or utility connections for the next subdivision. We
ask the Planning Commission to take the time necessary to carefully plan for development of the
area, and not just one property.
Thank you for taking our clients’ comments and concerns into account. We look forward to
working with the Kolars’ neighbors and the City on a plan for the area that serves all parties.
Sincerely,
William C. Griffith, for
Larkin Hoffman
Direct Dial: 952-896-3290
Direct Fax: 952-842-1729
Email: wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com
cc: James and Michele Kolar
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
4862-4895-2836, v. 2
103
From:John Torinus
To:Sarah Madden
Subject:Re: Question re: Hearing on McMillan Estates
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:48:08 PM
Hello again Sarah,
I would very much like to attend the upcoming meeting about McMillan Estates but unfortunately I'm
traveling and won't be able to attend. In lieu of my attendance, I'd like to formally submit the
following comments for consideration by the commission:
The petitioner's request to re-plat existing Outlots previously deemed countless times by the Council
as "protected" and "unbuildable" should be denied for the following reasons:
1.The proposed changes from Outlot to Developable lot should be declined becausethe resulting lots do not have the minimum 100 feet of frontage on a public roadwaythat is required by city ordinance, and which is reinforced by Planning Commissionprecedent.
·Please see the Planning Commission decision regarding PLANNING CASE #2019-03 JULIE WEISBECKER, 1840 HUNTER LANE LOT ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE.See page 8 @ https://public.mendota-heights.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216972&dbid=0&repo=MendotaHeights&cr=1
·The above referenced precedent from the Planning Commission clearly states that
“any new developable lot MUST have 100 feet of frontage on a public roadway”.
·The reference at the bottom of page 8 of the above referenced decision is absolutein declaring that 100 feet of frontage on a public roadway is the minimum required for abuildable lot.
Neither of the proposed lots in the petitioner’s application have the required public roadwayfrontage required by ordinance and precedent and therefore should be declined.
2.The plat applicant cannot rely on variances not yet requested in order to securecommission approval for pending applications, per the precedent established in theFoxwood Estates opinion shared here: https://public.mendota-
heights.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=209703&page=20&dbid=0&repo=MendotaHeights&cr=1 .
·Per the above-referenced ordinance and precedent, "the applicant’s plat – however
designed – needs to stand on its own”. More specifically:
o Any plat application cannot rely on variances or permits not yet granted.
o The proposed plat needs to stand alone on its own merits.
The petitioner’s request to replat land relies on variances and permits not yet requested,something not allowed by ordinance or commission precedent, and therefore should be
declined.
3.By state law, any action by the Planning Commission and City Council must alignwith its Comprehensive Plan. Granting the request of petitioner to re-platting theexisting Outlots to developable land as outlined in the petitioner’s letter of intent isdirect contraction of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in several ways including, butnot limited to the following:
·Contradiction with Environmental Protection: The protected wetland area iscrucial for maintaining the city's green and natural environment. Allowing developmentin such an ecologically sensitive area risks damaging or destroying the natural habitat,which goes against the goal of protecting and managing natural areas for highecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species.
·Disruption of Neighborhood Characteristics: High-end residential developmentwith large lots in a protected wetland area will disrupt the distinct neighborhoodcharacteristics envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Such development will not alignwith the existing built environment and will diminish the attractiveness, character andvalue of the neighboring community.
104
·Conflict with Housing Diversity Goals: The comprehensive plan recognizes the
need for a range of housing choices, including workforce housing and life-cycleopportunities. However, very expensive high-end residential development with largelots caters only to a niche market and fails to address the diverse housing needs of the
community.
·Failure to Encourage Sustainable Practices: Developing single home lotsranging from 5 to in excess of 10 acres in a protected wetland area does not align withthe goal of encouraging environmentally sustainable residential development practices.Such large lots lead to inefficient land use, increased energy consumption fortransportation, and disruption of natural drainage patterns, which can all contribute toenvironmental degradation.
·Conflict with Density Goals: The comprehensive plan aims for an overall averagedensity of 5 units per acre for new growth. Allowing very expensive high-end residentialdevelopment with single home lots in excess of 10 acres would likely result insignificantly lower density than what is planned, leading to inefficient land use andpotentially sprawl, which contradicts the goal of planning for growth at appropriatedensities.
·Conflict with Stormwater Management Policies and Goals: Taking steps toallow development in designated wetland areas will exacerbate stormwatermanagement issues by disrupting natural drainage patterns and increasing runoff. This
contradicts the emphasis on improving stormwater management and protecting andrestoring the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources as stated in thecomprehensive plan.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments given my inability to attend the meeting in person.
If you have any questions about the feedback I've provided, please let me know and I'll respond
accordingly.
Thanks -
John Torinus
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:58 AM Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote:
Hi John, thanks for your e-mail!
The application is for a Preliminary and Final Plat, which is a subdivision request for the division
of land parcels into lots of record. The proposed lots become part of a formal map of a subdivision.
There are no Variances requested as part of this application. Under the City’s current ordinance
within Title 12 Zoning, Chapter 2: Wetlands Systems, any future development within 100 feet of
the high water mark of a wetland/water resource does undergo a City review process. If there is
future development on the properties within the proposed parcels of this Plat, the development will
be subject to the prescribed review processes in that ordinance, and any other ordinances applicable
to development at the time the request is received.
This application for the Plat will remain scheduled for the March 26th Planning Commission
meeting, as the public hearing has been duly noted according to the hearing requirements. The
hearing notice was published in the City’s official newspaper (Pioneer Press) at least ten days prior
to the hearing – the notice ran on March 15th; and notices were mailed to property owners within
350’ of the boundaries of the property on Thursday, March 14th, also consistent with the
requirement for mailed notices at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
The notice contains a brief overview of the proposal – but I can absolutely provide more detail for
you as requested. The staff report on this item is still being finalized, and the City publishes its full
agenda packets on the Friday before each public meeting. As such, I cannot send along a written
105
report regarding the proposal at this time. I can however attach the plans and supporting documents
that were submitted as part of this Plat application. They include the Plat (subdivision) plans, site
plans, and the applicant’s narrative letter/letter of intent.
You are welcome to submit a public comment for the record – as mentioned in the notice, they can
be sent in to me via e-mail, sent to City Hall by mail, or provided verbally at the public hearing. If
you have any questions about the attached materials, please let me know.
Thank you,
Sarah
Website | Connect
Sarah Madden
Community Development Manager
City of Mendota Heights
D: 651-255-1142
smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Pronouns: she/her
From: John Torinus <jtorinus@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 9:33 AM
To: Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov>
Subject: Question re: Hearing on McMillan Estates
Good morning Sarah,
I'm writing today regarding receipt of a notice by the Planning Commission to consider a"preliminary and final" plat application from McMillan Estates.
I believe I received this notice because according to the city code, notices of any variance request tothe Planning Commission are required to be sent to anyone within 100 feet of the property inquestion. While I imagine re-platting of land for development in a designated wetland almostcertainly requires variance approval of some sort, I didn’t receive the notice until yesterday, just 8days before the planned meeting. I believe the notice should also include the property description,the proposed plat map, variances, etc. (?) but I received no such information and cannot find itonline.
106
As you can likely tell, I’m confused. This is something that has the potential for significant impactsto our quality of life, the character of the neighborhood and surrounding wetland, property values,etc. I absolutely want the chance to either be heard or to provide comments ahead of the meetingbut I haven’t been given the time necessary to plan my availability for the meeting nor theinformation necessary to provide informed comments.
Can you help me with these things? Given what I believe is the desire to provide notice a minimumof 10 days in advance of such meetings, can you please move the date of the meeting to give thosethat might be impacted by this proposal time to plan their attendance at the meeting? Additionally,can you provide further details about what is being requested - essentially what "McMillan Estatesis - so that anyone that cannot attend can provide any desired feedback ahead of the meeting?
These remedies would seem to be readily accessible and in keeping with the spirit of the processthat exists, and I hope you agree. I appreciate your consideration, as well as notice of your decisionand any related guidance.
Thanks –
John Torinus
107
From:Paul Pontinen
To:Sarah Madden
Cc:Linda Pontinen
Subject:Fwd: McMillan Estates Poposal
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2024 1:32:11 PM
>
> Hi Sarah,
>
> My wife and I are deeply concerned about the McMillan Estates proposal and its impact on our forested
neighborhood. We live at 1760 Ridgewood Drive and share a long property line with the estates. We are especially
concerned about the proposed driveway running east from Ridgewood drive that appears to actually touch our
property line. That would be devastating to our property as numerous mature trees grow along and on both sides of
that line. Many trees would be cut down while others on our property would eventually die because their root
systems are disturbed.
>
> Isn’t there an ordinance prohibiting structures or roads from being built too close to a property line? We ask that a
driveway be built from Delaware Avenue instead. If this is not possible, then we ask that this driveway be built as
far north as possible and even be curved to avoid large trees. We also hope any future development preserves as
much of the pristine nature of this forest as possible.
108
Planning Staff Report
DATE: March 26, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Living Streets Policy
BACKGROUND
In March of 2021, City Council previously directed staff to join the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program;
a voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program that provides framework to help cities achieve
their economic, environmental, and quality-of-life goals based upon 29 best practices. As part of this best
practice framework, cities are encouraged, but not mandated, by Minnesota State Statute 174.75, to adopt
a Complete Streets Policy. Complete streets is defined as the “planning, scoping, design, implementation,
operation, and maintenance of roads in order to reasonably address the safety and accessibility needs of
users of all ages and abilities. Complete streets considers the needs of motorists, pedestrians, transit users
and vehicles, bicyclists, and commercial and emergency vehicles moving along and across roads,
intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs
vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.” Living streets include all elements and considerations of
complete streets with an additional emphasis on environmental impacts and quality of life aspects. The
proposed policy (attached) is intended to provide guidance for the planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of all streets within Mendota Heights.
REQUESTED ACTION
The Commission is asked to discuss the proposed Living Streets Policy and offer any feedback.
109 4a0.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
LIVING STREETS POLICY
March 6, 2024
I.INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights shall commit to the “Living Streets” framework in
accordance with the provisions set forth in this policy on all future transportation projects. Living
Streets refers to street design that provides for multiple modes of transportation as well as
reduces environmental impacts and improves quality of life aspects.
II.PURPOSE
The Living Streets Policy will guide the planning, design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of all streets within the city. The policy shall apply to all new construction and
reconstruction of streets, as well as to all retrofit projects and rehabilitation projects.
III.POLICY
All transportation projects including city, county, state, and private development with
construction impacting the public way shall promote the goals of a Living Street design during
all phases of planning, design, and construction. The goals of a Living Street design include
enabling safe, convenient, and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities,
regardless of their mode of transportation, with an additional emphasis on quality of life aspects.
IV. PROCEDURE
The following framework provides steps and guidance as to how the Living Streets
Policy will be implemented and effective within the City of Mendota Heights.
A.City s taff of the Engineering Department are required to review all public and private
transportation projects, including those identified within the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP), impacting public right-of-way for implementation of the following
guidelines. The project manager for a given project shall submit to City staff the
Living Streets Worksheet for review, attached as Appendix A. Following review, if
the project does not meet the intentions of the Living Streets Policy, City staff shall
provide recommended changes. No deviations or exceptions to the worksheet or plans
will be made without written request and approval of the Public Works Director once
the worksheet has been reviewed and the plans have been approved for construction.
Guidelines:
1. Consideration must be made for all users in the planning, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of all streets, including but not limited to, pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, motorists, and persons with disabilities.
110 4a1.
2.Projects shall strive to create a connected network of streets and trails that
provides safe and convenient travel options for all users and destinations.
3.Prioritize the safety of all users, with a focus on reducing the number of fatalities
and serious injuries resulting from traffic crashes, and include traffic calming
improvements where feasible.
4. Encourage the use of sustainable modes of transportation, such as walking,
biking, and transit, by providing safe and convenient infrastructure for these
modes unless one more of the following conditions are met for an exception:
a.Constructing such facilities would no longer be cost effective toward the
benefit of the improvement, in which case alternative design options shall
be considered for feasibility, exceeds budget costs, or negatively impacts
an adjacent property valuation.
b. Specific corridors may exclude certain transportation modes, such as
interstate freeways, and may not require accommodation for specific
users. However, exclusion of certain users on particular corridors should
not exempt projects from accommodating other permitted users and
alternative options for excluded users shall be considered.
c.Facilities have already been programmed for in a future improvement
project similar in scope and location.
d.Severe limitations are imposed by topography and/or natural resources
such that improvements are no longer equitable to construct or maintain.
5. Ensure that all streets are designed and operated to be accessible to persons with
disabilities, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
other applicable laws and regulations.
6. Engage with the community and stakeholders throughout the planning, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of all streets, to ensure that the needs
and concerns of all users are considered and addressed.
7. Identify any opportunities to feasibly improve quality of life aspects by reducing
environmental impacts or improving sustainability such as, but not limited to:
a.Reducing a project’s impervious surface footprint to include additional
greenspace, screening, or shading.
b.Improving the quality of stormwater runoff and maximizing infiltration by
use of rain gardens, sump manholes, or other approved best management
practices for pre-treatment.
c.Promoting a sustainable future; consider including infrastructure such as
Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and giving thought to ridesharing
and transit opportunities. Review for additional opportunities to include
sustainable infrastructure and efficiencies within site specific context.
8.Deliver benefits to all users equitably with an additional focus on a corridor’s
most vulnerable and underserved users.
9. Provide economic benefits by lowering initial costs, reducing long-term
maintenance and reconstruction costs, and increasing property value.
111
B.Living Streets shall be designed to be cognizant of the immediate, and surrounding,
environment. Careful consideration shall be made not to exclude the needs for any
traveler’s mode of choice or safety and shall be designed for in accordance with the
most recent city, county, state, and federal design standards and guidelines.
C.All proposed transportation projects within the City of Mendota Heights shall be
reviewed to implement the goals of a Living Street by City staff of the Engineering
Department. Living Streets shall be implemented such that improvements are cost
effective, meets a community’s ideals, and includes consideration for all users. Living
Streets are intended to be comparable or less in cost to new construction or
reconstruction. The Living Streets Policy does not restrict, advise to, or include any
revisions to the City’s Street Assessment Policy in effect at the time of a project.
D.City staff shall document and report projects and improvements as they are completed
to GreenStep Cities as recommended. The Public Works Department can provide
annual Living Streets updates at City Council’s request.
V. RESPONSIBILITY
The Living Streets Policy shall be administered and implemented by virtue of the City’s
Engineering Department, within the Public Works Department. All transportation projects shall
be reviewed in accordance with the guidelines of Appendix A: Living Streets Worksheet. Project
Managers are responsible for including all provisions and improvements during construction
identified within the Living Streets Policy and Worksheet.
112
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 1
APPENDIX A:
LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET
The Living Streets Worksheet is envisioned to be used as a guide when reviewing any proposed
transportation projects. All transportation projects including public and private development with
construction impacting the public way shall promote the goals of a Living Street design during
all phases of planning, design, and construction. The goals of a Living Street design include
enabling safe, convenient, and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities,
regardless of their mode of transportation, with an additional emphasis on quality of life aspects.
The purpose of this worksheet is to verify any proposed transportation project meets the goals
promoted by the Living Streets Policy and guide implementation of the policy.
All proposed projects shall be designed in accordance with the most recent local, county, state,
and federal standards and guidelines. Supporting reference material should be used when
completing the worksheet including, but not limited to, any local, county, state, or federal
Comprehensive, Transportation, and/or Master Plans.
The Living Streets Worksheet is available in an electronic format as requested.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name
Project Location (Roadway Name,
Start, & End Point; Include Map
Attachment)
Roadway Classification
Roadway Jurisdiction
Project Manager
113 4a2.
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 2
SITE CONTEXT
1) Describe the existing site conditions or area of study. Include information regarding
general land use, traits of the community such as new development or historic corridor,
and adjacent planned development.
2) What are the existing on-street and off-street multimodal accommodations within the
project corridor? Include all modes within the project vicinity (i.e. trails, sidewalks,
transit routes, bicycle lanes, etc.) or how far the nearest facility is.
3) Describe the proposed on-street and off-street multimodal accommodations. Identify
any proposed connections to adjacent facilities.
4) Attach, or sketch, both the existing and proposed cross section for the project corridor.
Include multiple sections if site conditions vary and identify all pertinent elements and
dimensions.
114
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 3
5) Describe the existing stormwater runoff management and drainage patterns within the
project corridor. Identify any impaired water bodies within, or adjacent to, the site as
identified by the state and any existing pre-treatment devices or methods used for
improving rate control, infiltration, or stormwater quality.
6) Are there any existing quality of life benefits within the project limits (i.e. trees offering
shade along a boulevard, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, etc)?
7) Do any adopted local, county, state, or federal plans call for any multimodal
improvements to any facilities within the project corridor? If yes, list applicable plan(s)
and improvement(s).
8) Does the project include any multimodal, stormwater, or sustainability improvements as
called for by any local, county, state, or federal policies? If yes, list applicable policy(s)
and improvement(s).
115
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 4
TRANSPORTATION BASIS
9) Fill out the table below to describe the corridor’s volume distribution for available
information.
Description Existing Volume Projected Volume (10-year)
Average Daily Traffic
Passenger Car Volume
Heavy Vehicle Volume
Pedestrian Count
Bicycle Count
10) Describe the existing and anticipated future trip generators for all users. Include
amenities or districts contributing to all users within project limits.
11) Identify any known crash data or conflict points within the project corridor. Include any
information available pertaining to location, frequency, duration of period covered, and
trends between modes. Additional stakeholder and community input may be required to
obtain information needed.
116
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 5
12) What are the existing vehicle speed conditions? Identify the posted speed limit for the
proposed roadway(s) and intersecting streets. Provide any known speed data or location
specific speeding issues within the project limits.
13) List any intersections within the project limits between multiple functional roadway
classifications.
14) Identify if there are any other classifications within the project corridor such as an
emergency vehicle route, transit route, or any other designated route.
15) Does existing pedestrian infrastructure within the project limits comply with current
local, county, state, and federal guidelines?
117
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 6
PROJECT GOALS
16) Identify any known existing or anticipated design deficiencies within the project corridor
related to multimodal facilities, stormwater management, or sustainability.
17) Develop and describe the goals for the proposed corridor as they relate to the goals of a
Living Street.
18) What multimodal facility improvements are proposed to be included within the project
corridor? This may include additional trail network, traffic calming efforts, pavement
marking changes, etc. Describe all improvements, locations, and decision-making
process.
118
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 7
19) Describe all considerations made for additional, or alternative, multimodal facilities that
are not proposed to be included within the project corridor. Include information as to
why each improvement was not included.
20) What stormwater runoff improvements are proposed to be included within the project
corridor? This may include raingardens, sump manholes, or other pre-treatment devices
or methods. Describe all improvements, locations, and decision-making process.
21) What reductions for environmental impacts or sustainable improvements are proposed to
be included within the project corridor? This may include reducing the impervious
surface footprint within a project or including an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station
within the corridor. Describe all improvements, locations, and decision-making process.
119
APPENDIX A: LIVING STREETS WORKSHEET 8
22) Describe all considerations made for additional, or alternative, environmental impact
reductions or stormwater and sustainable improvements that are not proposed to be
included within the project corridor. Include information as to why each improvement
was not included.
23) Identify cost savings, benefits, and considerations. What improvements will provide cost
savings for long term maintenance or reconstruction?
IMPLEMENTATION
24) Who are the key personnel related to the project and what are their responsibilities?
Identify the project manager, stakeholders, etc. Include any additional project
information related to construction such as maintaining access for all users and project
schedule.
25) Describe the required maintenance routines for all improvements identified within the
worksheet. Include information regarding what the maintenance efforts include, how
often maintenance will be required, and responsible party(s) for all improvements.
120