Loading...
Full Packet 06252024CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 25, 2024 at 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Minutes a. Approve Minutes from the May 28, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting 4.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 of the property located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and including the unaddressed vacant parcels west of the addressed site – (Tabled from April 30, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting) b.CASE No. 2024-10 Preliminary and Final Plat Application of Steve Norton (Norton Realty) for a Preliminary and Final Plat of a 4-lot residential subdivision to be known as Springman Addition of the property located at 1170 Dodd Road, and including the adjacent property addressed as 8 Beebe Avenue c.CASE No. 2024-11 Conditional Use Permit Application of Cushman Wakefield on behalf of MSP SLP Apartments LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a fence greater than 6’ in height at the property located at 1270 Northland Drive d.CASE No. 2024-12 Variance Application of Bolton and Menk Inc. on behalf of St. Thomas Academy for Variances to City Code Section 12-1D-3 regarding Accessory Structures to allow the construction of a new batting cage and spectator area as part of proposed new improvements to the existing baseball field on the property located at 949 Mendota Heights Road 5.New and Unfinished Business 6.Updates/Staff Comments Page 1 of 186 7. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aid. However, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. Page 2 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2024 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 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 (arrived at 7:08 p.m.), Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 30, 2024 Minutes COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 30, 2024. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2024-08 PAUL KATZ, “FRITZ ADDITION” – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant is requesting approval to subdivide a vacant parcel lying west of their 1855 Hunter Lane property. The subdivision is presented as a Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the parcel to split into two outlots for the purpose of conveyance, and later consolidation, to the property to the south (1867 Hunter Lane). This subdivision requires a Preliminary and Final Plat because the subject property is an unplatted parcel with a metes and bounds legal description. The proposed plat is titled FRITZ ADDITION and will result in two non-buildable outlots within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA), which are fully within the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ). 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). Page 3 of 186 3a. May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Chair Field arrived. Commissioner Johnson asked if the conditions should specify “with 100-foot frontage” or whether that would be redundant. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that would be included in the defined road frontage but noted that additional clarification could be added if desired. Commissioner Corbett commented that the presentation stated that this would not change building rights, but noted that it could in terms of the size of the secondary garage that could be built. He asked if any rights would be gained by having the additional lot size. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the application is only for the lot split and a lot consolidation would occur through another plat. She noted that this case could not meet the criteria to complete that consolidation administratively. She stated that the overall lot size, after combination, could add some flexibility because of the lot size. She reviewed the secondary garage requirements and size allowances based on lot size. Commissioner Corbett commented that even with the combination that could occur from two lots, it would appear the secondary garage size allowance would remain the same and no additional rights would be gained. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Paul Katz, applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions that may arise. Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, commented that he is confused how these would be non-buildable but at the same time the second condition states that they could be added to lots. He was concerned as they had always been told that the bluff was non-buildable. Commissioner Petschel commented that the bluff sections would not be buildable no matter which lot they are attached to. He commented that at some point these outlots would be attached to another parcel, per his understanding. Commissioner Corbett explained that the outlots would need to be attached to another lot in order for any of that property to be buildable. Commissioner Petschel provided additional clarification that the area of the lots marked in grey could not be built upon. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Page 4 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that while the land itself within the bluff area is not buildable, the parcels that front on Hunter Lane are buildable lots and therefore if combined with a buildable lot, it would be considered buildable, but nothing could be built within those BIZ areas. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Katz commented that he will not partake in the discussion or voting because of a conflict of interest. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF PAUL KATZ FOR THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF FRITZ ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE NEWLY CREATED PARCELS, IDENTIFIED AND DESCRIBED AS “OUTLOT A” AND “OUTLOT B” ON THE ATTACHED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT DRAWINGS SHALL EACH BE COMBINED WITH AN ADJOINING PARCEL WHICH MAINTAINS ACCESS ON A CITY-APPROVED STREET OR PUBLIC ROADWAY. 2. THE NEWLY CREATED PARCELS, IDENTIFIED AND DESCRIBED AS “OUTLOT A” AND “OUTLOT B” ARE NOT BUILDABLE IN THEIR CURRENT FORM, AND MUST BE COMBINED WITH AN ADJOINING PARCEL IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF A BUILDABLE LOT. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson asked if the “100 foot of frontage” should be included in the condition. Commissioner Petschel commented that the outlots are not buildable and therefore cannot make up a flag lot. He stated that combining this with another lot would not impact whether the lot would be a flag lot. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that lot A is just shy of 100 feet of frontage, by less than one foot, and therefore including that language could complicate things in the future. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Katz) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2024 meeting. New/Unfinished Business Page 5 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9 A) DISCUSSION – URBAN FOREST PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Natural Resources Commission has provided a draft of the proposed Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance. The Commission is asked to discuss the proposed ordinance and provide comments. Commissioner Corbett recognized that there is a process for permitting but asked how there will be a balance of education and enforcement, noting the number of after the fact permits the City reviews. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there will be a big engagement push as the ordinance is rolled out. She stated that the City will be reaching out to known vendors and contractors proactively to update them on the new ordinance as well as reaching out to residents through multiple platforms as well. She stated that tree removal permits are not uncommon in the metro, or Dakota County. Commissioner Stone asked if a permit would be required to plant a tree going forward. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden clarified it was only the removal that would require a permit and a planting plan would be required if the removal trigger occurs. She also provided details on diseased tree removal. Commissioner Petschel referenced the enforced alteration permit section noting that 33 percent is completely arbitrary. He asked if the City is comfortable with that percentage. Commissioner Johnson commented that a number of cities use one third. Commissioner Petschel commented that he watched the meeting, and it was originally 50 percent, then reduced to 33 percent and the statement was made that there was no reasoning behind that other than asking for as much as they could. Commissioner Johnson stated that the 50 percent was from an ecologist. Commissioner Petschel commented that is still not a scientific number/reasoning. He used the scenario that there is a lot with two trees and removal of one tree would trigger the permit. Commissioner Udell used the example of a property with four trees, where one could be removed without a permit while the neighbor could have 20 trees and removal several without triggering the permit. Commissioner Petschel commented that is a concern. He stated that he would remove lot splits entirely from this as he does not believe a preliminary or final plat could be denied for anything other than zoning requirements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that is correct and noted that the requirement would be for the information to be submitted when the lot split is required. Page 6 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9 Commissioner Petschel asked why that would be required. He stated that if a Wetlands Permit is required, that is not required at the time of lot split and wondered why this would be different. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that Wetlands Permits have been required recently with the platting. Commissioner Petschel commented that he does not think this is appropriate to be included with a lot split. He referenced section c, addressing the review process, and stated that there should probably be a time limit for the review process listed. He noted that the appeals time also seem to be too narrow and could limit the City process. He noted that this ordinance does not include criteria for approval or denial and there is not a single element of merit within the ordinance for which to base a decision. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that are they saying the permit can be denied, or that it simply would trigger the replacement plan. Commissioner Petschel commented that he would not want to see this used to limit lot splits, density, or property rights. He stated that he is unsure why there would be an appeal process if the permit cannot be denied. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps the appeal process is related to the number of trees required for replanting. Commissioner Petschel commented that the escrow language is vague and should be clarified. He also believed an exemption would be required for solar access, or access to the sky. He referenced the replacement formula and did not understand the specimen trees saved. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that specimen should be significant. Commissioner Petschel commented with errors he was having with the formula. Commissioner Udell stated that he had the same issue with the formula. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the City Council did also discuss the lot split trigger. She stated that generally that would be associated with a lot split with a development plan as that would include tree removal. She stated that the condition could be that the permit would be required as it moves forward. She stated that a member of the Council did express concern that could be redundant and therefore that comment will carry forward. She referenced section d which has measures listed that could be added to a forest management plan. Commissioner Petschel commented that he came at this from the approach that this is a permit that can or cannot be approved, and perhaps that was the wrong approach. He stated that perhaps the better eye for review would be how onerous that this could be on a property owner. Page 7 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that this would apply more towards large development and not a property owner removing a tree from their yard as that would be very burdensome for staff. Commissioner Petschel used the example of the orchard project and stated that perhaps the City would have tried to use this to limit lot sizes, which would not stand up in court. Commissioner Johnson commented that the intention is to prevent clear cutting rather than limiting lot size. Commissioner Petschel referenced specific language that would relate to lot size and development layout. He noted that language would state that the City can change a plan, without any criteria. Commissioner Johnson stated that this is based on ecological information and the science behind tree preservation. Commissioner Petschel used the example of a property with a virgin forest with heritage trees equally spaced, which would then impact the ability to create a development that meets all zoning standards. He commented that this would potentially build an ordinance that could support the most common argument for neighbors in a lot split, where they do not want the trees (or greenspace) to be developed. He commented that the City does not have the right to prevent people from building on a site just because there are heritage trees. He stated that the City needs to be careful that this ordinance would not overstep. Chair Field commented that in theory this could also create a situation where the City loses in court and the applicant can do whatever they want. He commented that this may be built on science, but that science is not part of the code and is ultimately subjective. Commissioner Johnson commented that other standards are based on science, such as roof height. Commissioner Petschel clarified that he does not argue that this should exist, but he does not want to give the City the ability to curate development based on the trees that exist on a site. Chair Field agreed with Commission Petschel that while this may be based on some science, that science could be different today than it was yesterday. He stated that this is more opinion based and is where the City would lose a lawsuit. Commissioner Katz asked if the City Attorney has reviewed this ordinance draft. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she does have comments from the City Attorney that she can review, and she can forward these additional concerns. Commissioner Petschel commented that even if this were legally allowed, it would be bad policy for the City. Page 8 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Katz recognized that there are concerns that have been expressed that should be reviewed by the City Attorney. He stated that he also agrees that something of this nature is needed but this does not appear to be the right version. Chair Field agreed that this has not been drilled down to the level of detail that it would be cohesive and enforceable. Natural Resources Commission Chair Heidi Swank appreciated the feedback received tonight from the Commission. She stated that it is the City’s right and place to determine what can be built where. She echoed the comment that this began at 50 percent, which came from the City’s Natural Resources Plan, and was based on science. She argued that science is an important base for a policy. She stated that her Commission exists to protect the natural resources and therefore they believe 33 percent is a good spot and the City Council did not express concern. She commented that just like speed limits these are arbitrary numbers. Commissioner Petschel and Chair Field commented that speed limits are not arbitrary numbers. Commissioner Swank commented that perhaps that was the wrong example and used setbacks. Commissioner Petschel stated that the code clearly states what setbacks are. He stated that the comment has been made by staff that this is a permit that cannot be denied. Commissioner Swank disagreed with that statement. She commented that in this ordinance she could see that if a forest management plan did not meet the standards, the permit would not need to be approved. She stated that if would be difficult to have exact standards because lots and tree counts can be very different, therefore the applicant could work with staff to find a reasonable solution. Commissioner Petschel commented that would work great when there is a compliant applicant. He stated that the moment that someone is told no, that person will sue, noting that the City has been sued at least five or six times in his time on the Commission. He stated that in those cases, the City will only win when there are very tight and specific rules. He stated that if a black box with give and take is created, and an agreement is not reached, that applicant will go to court and the City cannot defend its position. Commissioner Swank commented that she would have to disagree as these interactions occur all the time. She stated that there needs to be a way to tailor these to work. Commissioner Petschel asked the degree Commissioner Swank believes the City can act as a glorified HOA. Commissioner Swank commented that is not what she is saying at all. Commissioner Petschel commented that this would get the City into the process of curating someone’s development process. Page 9 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9 Commissioner Swank commented that this would be the same give and take that occurs when considering a variance. Commissioner Petschel commented that is not as there are standards by which to consider a variance request and that is not an arbitrary conversation. Chair Field asked if the League of Cities has been consulted, as perhaps that could bring another perspective. Commissioner Petschel commented that there are a lot of things above the legality and defensibility that would be bad City policy. He stated that there are a lot of things done in the interest of the environment that can still be horrible things. He stated that this would need to be evenly applicable. Commissioner Udell referenced the 33 percent, and noted that while a number does need to be selected, there also needs to be some way to bend that towards a raw count. He commented that someone with a huge forest could do a lot more damage than a person with a handful of trees. Commissioner Swank commented that is what their formula attempts to do. Chair Field commented that the Commission will be interested in the findings on those issues expressed tonight. He stated that everyone agrees with the importance of protecting the environment but there must be objective and enforceable standards. B) DISCUSSION – ZONING CODE UPDATE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on the process to update the zoning code and highlighted the next steps. She asked if the Commission would be open to holding a special meeting to hold the public hearing for the zoning update, potentially in mid-July. Chair Field stated that if there were no planning cases scheduled for July, the July meeting could make sense to hold that public hearing. He suggested that decision be postponed to the June meeting. Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps something is put out to the public noting a potential meeting in July, which could then be updated once the date is known. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that the last mention was in the Heights Highlights which mentioned a potential public hearing in spring. Commissioner Petschel asked if Section 12 could be passed without the completion of the environmental title. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that title will need to be adopted. She stated that not every single ordinance will be pointed to and will be addressed through future code amendment. Page 10 of 186 May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9 Chair Field confirmed the consensus of the Commission to postpone the decision on the date to the June meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on Council actions related to recently considered planning cases. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted the upcoming Scott Patrick Memorial 5k on June 1st. Adjournment COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:23 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 11 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 1 of 14 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:June 25, 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:July 22, 2024 (Extension granted through written waiver; Any further extension to require written consent of the applicant) INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a 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 Planning Case was reviewed by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission at their March 26, 2024 regular meeting. The background report associated with the meeting is on file with the City and can be Page 12 of 186 4a. Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 2 of 14 located on the City’s website under the Agendas and Minutes archive (link: https://mendotaheightsmn.gov/agendacenter). Prior to the meeting, but following the publication of the agenda packet for the March meeting, the applicant requested a continuance of the application to the next available Planning Commission meeting on April 30 in order to allow additional time to review the application details with City Staff and provide revisions to the plans and application materials. The tabled Public Hearing was acknowledged at the April 30 meeting, and an additional request to table the application was granted to continue the application’s review to no later than the July Planning Commission meeting, with staff to re-publish notices for the future hearing in accordance with City procedures. The minutes from both the March 26 and the April 30 Planning Commission meeting are included as an attachment to this report. Following additional discussion with staff and the applicant team, the applicant has provided revised application materials and has requested the City review the subject application at the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The prepared and updated application materials are described in the analysis section of this report and included as an attachment. This item is being presented under a fully noticed public hearing process, with notices published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject parcels. Written public comments have been received for this item 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. BACKGROUND The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels (see aerial image – right). 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. Page 13 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 3 of 14 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 15,522 s.f. (.36 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 186-ft extension northward into the proposed subdivision. In the applicant’s revised plans (dated June 12, 2024), the right-of-way extension concludes in a new cul-de-sac as opposed to the previously drawn stub and dead-end right-of-way. 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. 4). Page 14 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 4 of 14 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 9.77 acres, 3.52 acres and 2.53 acres respectively. Page 15 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 5 of 14 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 186-feet, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. The Applicant indicates that they do not plan to develop a full roadway extension in the dedicated right- of-way at this time, 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. The proposed lots 1 and 3 would gain the appropriate frontage on a city approved street through their frontage and access onto the undeveloped right-of-way within the cul-de- sac. 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 cul-de-sac is consistent with the City Subdivision and Zoning Code provisions for frontage and lot width, and for street dedication within plats. The applicant is requesting that the construction of the cul-de-sac be deferred until such time that a future re-subdivision of the proposed Lot 1 occurs. This topic 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 Page 16 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 6 of 14 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 at the north end of the cul-de-sec roadway. The plans illustrate that the applicant will extend this watermain line approximately 180-ft into the proposed Ridgewood Drive right-of-way extension to a new fire hydrant, and from this extension, new 2-inch residential water service lines would lead off from the main, with new stubs at each front property line for each of the two new lots remaining for future development. The plans also show a 9-inch sanitary sewer line underneath Ridgewood Drive which is currently stubbed approximately 11-ft north of the existing cul-de-sac. The sanitary sewer line improvements include an extension from the manhole north of the existing cul-de-sac to a new manhole in the center of the proposed cul-de-sac which aligns with the northern property line of the proposed Lot 3. From this sanitary sewer service extension, two 6” sewer service lines are proposed to be provided to the two new lots remaining for future development. 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. 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 Subdivision Title notes that the City shall review the subdivision proposal and design with respect to the limitations presented by wet soils, and that the approval of the subdivision will require an engineering analysis of the delineated areas, and that a permit is required to alter ditches, streams, and associated drainage path. 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 the 364 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 The proposed driveway leading back to the Lot 1 site would begin at the north end of Ridgewood Drive, and would cross over a future culvert (as indicated in the Exempt wetland impact area). This driveway would then continue northward and curve slightly and between the two larger wetlands situated south Page 17 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 7 of 14 of the buildable area for a home. Exclusive of the existing approval for wetland impacts exemption on the subject site, no additional part of the wetlands may be impacted unless it is part of an approved construction project, which may or may not come after plat approvals on the property. The applicant has indicated that the intent is to defer the construction of the cul-de-sac until such a time that future re-subdivision of the proposed Lot 1 occurs in order to limit the impact on the wetlands and maintain the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has also indicated that the proposed Lot 1 is planned to remain under its current ownership following approval of the subdivision, and held until the applicant/owner is able to construct a new single-family home on the property in the future. As the Wetland Delineation and Notice of Decision is only valid for 5 years, the proposed driveway and culvert improvements which were previously granted an exemption through state wetlands permitting processes will need to be resubmitted for approval following their expiration and prior to any City permits for authorization of construction. 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. If no work has been conducted prior to the expiration of the Wetland Delineation and Notice of Decision, an updated Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption would need to be filed in accordance with state statute. 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- Page 18 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 8 of 14 de-sac. The plat was presented with the Ridgewood Drive roadway that exists today, and also included a small “nub” extension of 60-ft in width at the top of the road right-of-way 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 have likely come off the end of Ridgewood Drive and run northward into these properties. The Subdivision ordinance does require in Section 11-3-3: Streets and Alleys, that a tentative plan of a proposed future street system should be provided when reviewing a new Plat. Specifically, the general requirements provide guidelines for a proposed future street system, and alignment and availability of utilities. The approved 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. However, it was noted within the City Council minutes of the review of that Plat application that access and utility extensions were only available to Outlot A from Ridgewood Drive. Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: (A) 3. 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 expectation within the City’s review of a subdivision on larger than normal lots or parcels, is that the applicant/developer is responsible for arranging lots and parcels in such a way that would permit future and smaller subdivision of lots, as well as leaving space “open” for a future potential street, and potential future utility connections. This applies to making those connections only on the subject site, and does not specifically address neighboring land owners. The City must evaluate the ability for the new parcels to be subdivided again in the future, and evaluate if the infrastructure planned will be able to accommodate that potential future split. The applicant has provided within their Letter of Intent an alternative option which was considered for the subject site which may provide for the creation of Page 19 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 9 of 14 additional lots. The applicant has indicated that this availability of land and future resubdivision is not in line with how they intend for the property to be developed in the long term, but that it is a possibility based on the available square footage within the proposed Lot 1. Staff agrees that the arrangement of the proposed lots within the subdivision and the overall acreage of the proposed Lot 1 (9.77 acres) has the potential to be resubdivided in accordance with the above standard. The applicant’s preliminary drawings also illustrate the proposed building pad in such a location which would not prohibit additional home pads if that was the future wish of the owner following any lot split applications. 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. 186-ft in length, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. This extension is proposed as right-of-way only; and no physical street is proposed to be built in this extension, just private driveways and public utility improvements. The applicant is requesting that the City Council defer the construction of the right-of-way and extended cul-de-sac until such a time that the proposed Lot 1 is re- subdivided, in addition to deferring the timing of the public utility improvements. 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. 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 Page 20 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 10 of 14 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 construct the extension of right-of- way and newly dedicated cul-de-sac bulb at this time, but only request to plat out the right-of-way extension in order to provide the appropriate 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 186-ft of right-of-way to the roadway, with a deferred construction of a developed public street being requested by the applicant. The applicant has indicated that 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 applicant is requesting that the installation of the public utility improvements and the construction of the street and cul-de-sac extension be deferred until the appropriate time. For the utility improvements, the applicant is illustrating a plan to extend the service lines within the dedicated right- of-way, to be installed prior to or concurrently with any building permit for construction of a single family home. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that if there is a requirement to extend sanitary sewer service to the existing home on the proposed Lot 2, that the connection be deferred within the development agreement to the date which a building permit is requested for the proposed Lot 1. The applicant also requests that the City not require the construction of the cul-de-sac in the immediate future with any Final Plat approvals, but instead to defer such improvements until such a time that future resubdivision of the proposed Lot 1 occurs. This deferral is requested in order to maintain the neighborhood character and not expand beyond the current level of wetland impacts as proposed on the current plans and the previously approved Notice of Decision detailed in the Wetland Impacts section of this report. The Final Plat will be subject to a Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City, which would outline the timing and details of the installation of required improvements associated with the development. The subdivision ordinance requires that no application for building permits be filed for the private construction associated with this plat until all improvements required have been made or arranged for within the Development Agreement. A condition has been included in the recommendation section of this report that a Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. This includes the improvements to the street and cul-de- sac, as well as the required utility connections and extensions as outlined in the Utility and Grading Plan section of this report. While the City currently performs street and utility distribution improvements, they do reserve the right to request that developers make all necessary improvements at any time. The City should consider if the deferral of constructing the street improvements to a future development proposal or lot split is appropriate. The applicant has provided the dedicated right-of-way to the City within this Plat to accommodate a minimum of 125’ of lot width on a City-approved street and the proposed lots within the Plat of McMillan Page 21 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 11 of 14 Estates exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 30,000 sq.ft. The lot configuration of Lot 1 of the proposed plat can lend itself to future resubdivision and construction of the cul-de-sac extension, provided the utility connections set aside with the Plat of McMillan Estates in this application are installed in accordance with City Code requirements and upon approval of a development agreement for the public improvements. The applicant’s revised plans have illustrated an intent to comply with the City’s Subdivision Code by providing adequate extension of utilities into the dedicated right-of-way, and by arranging the lots and dedicated right-of-way in such a manner that adequate lot width or frontage could be obtained in the event of a future resubdivision of the overlarge lot. Staff and the applicant did discuss the potential for a more intense subdivision of land with a projection of a city street northward through the property to provide an opening for future street connections as referenced in the Somerset Area within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan - however the applicant has indicated that the subdivision as proposed meets their development needs at this time. The applicant has stated that the intent of the current development proposal and the deferral of the construction of the cul-de-sac extension would meet neighborhood goals of reducing wetlands impacts, as well as comply with the existing wetland impacts which were evaluated in 2021 with the approved Wetland Delineation. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed Plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates, based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend denial 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 extend the application review schedule. There is not adequate time remaining in the statutory review schedule for an additional Planning Commission meeting on this item. Further extension of the review timeline must be consented to by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval 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 Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. A wetlands permit must be submitted for review and obtained prior to any proposed/new single family development is allowed on each new lot. Page 22 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 12 of 14 2. The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-1A Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 3. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any new construction work. 4. The parcels known as Lots 1 and 3, Block 1, McMillan Estates, created under this Plat, must have their access granted under an executed License Agreement with the city; and also must submit to the City a Shared Driveway Agreement between the residential properties utilizing this undeveloped ROW for their own driveways and access at the time of building permit. 5. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 6. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 7. All wetland impacts shall be in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, including Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 2: Wetlands Systems ordinance. 8. In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (3 lots – 1 existing dwelling = 2 x $4,000/unit, or $8,000) is to be collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. 9. Any new or existing sanitary or water service lines will have to be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to issuance of any building permit. 10. 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 for each new home and new impervious surface. 11. A Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location/Aerial Map 2. Narrative Letter 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Final Plat Page 23 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 13 of 14 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. Excerpt from the Minutes of the March 26, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting 12. Excerpt from the Minutes of the April 30, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting 13. Public Comments Received (as of the submittal of this report) Page 24 of 186 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 14 of 14 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates 1707 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with and supported by a number of goals and policy statements in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1A One Family Residential District. 4. A Wetlands Permit for future construction on each lot will require and ensure compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. Page 25 of 186 G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.6666 6666666666 666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERIDGEW OOD DR MARIE AVE W Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Location Aerial Map 1707 Delaware Ave/McMillan Estates Date: 3/21/2024 City of Mendota Heights0 340 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 26 of 186 1 June 18th, 2024 Dear City of Mendota Heights, I am writing to inform you of our intent with this preliminary and final plat submission. My wife and I would like to re-plat the 3 parcels shown below. Current Parcels: Parcel Numbers Lot 1: 27-02400-78-010 Lot 2: 27-31100-00-020 Lot 3: 27-31100-00-010 Background: The Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac butts up to current Lots 2 and 3 (Outlots B and A respectively). The cul- de-sac was dedicated in a plat in 1969 and included a 60 ft wide “nub” extension with frontage to both Outlots. Outlots A and B were approved by the City as part of the Grappendorf First Addition in 1985. Having approved the two Outlots, the city should approve a new subdivision which provides access and utilities for these Outlots. The code disallows a dead-end road extension and the existing 60 ft “nub” does not satisfy the 125 ft lot frontage requirement so the only means of access for these two Outlets is by an extension of Ridgewood Drive in the form of a new cul-de-sac dedication. However, for practical purposes, this cul-de-sac should not be built at this time. Page 27 of 186 2 Proposed Plat: We would like to replat the 3 parcels into 3 new lots. Proposed Lot 1 results in a 9.77 acre buildable lot, shown below. We plan to build a house on Lot 1 in roughly 10-15 years when our kids are older. The drawing below shows a rough estimate of where the house would go. Proposed Lot 2, highlighted below, is a 3.52 acre lot with a single family home that is already constructed. Page 28 of 186 3 Proposed Lot 3 is shown in the drawing below. It is a 2.53 acre buildable lot. Dakota County Right of Way Dedication With this replatting, we are subject to Dakota County’s Contiguous Plat Ordinance. This ordinance requires us to dedicate a 60 ft of half right of way along Delaware Avenue. This proposal makes this dedication. Extended Cul-de-sac The current length of the Ridgewood cul-de-sac is roughly 650 ft. We are proposing to extend the cul- de-sac another 186 ft, so the total length becomes 836 ft. We could have made the extension shorter than 186 ft but chose to extend it to minimize the interference with wetlands. Section 11-3-3 of the zoning code states “Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500’)”. However, the cul-de-sac already exceeds 500 ft today, and was approved without any requirement for a variance. In addition, the specific language in the code is “shall normally not”. This language is not explicit in prohibiting cul-de-sacs over 500 ft. In litigation resulting from a request for a 950 ft cul-de-sac in the Orchard Heights plat in 2017, the court determined that this language does not mandate a 500 ft limit for cul-de-sacs. There are already 19 cul-de-sacs in Mendota Heights that exceed 500 feet, some of which exceed 1,000 ft. For all these reasons, the previous staff report for this property did not recommend requiring a variance application, so we are not requesting a variance for the longer cul-de-sac. Page 29 of 186 4 In the development agreement, we are requesting that the city not require the construction of the cul- de-sac in the immediate future. We do not think it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to construct the cul-de-sac at this time, since only two additional homes will be serviced by the extended cul-de-sac. The construction of the cul-de-sac should be deferred until such a time that future resubdivision of proposed Lot 1 occurs. This way, we limit the impact on the wetlands and maintain the character of the neighborhood. Of course, with the cul-de-sac right of way dedication in the plat, the city could choose in the future to construct the cul-de-sac and assess the cost to the benefitted lots. Through Road, Multiple Lot Alternative An alternative option we considered was extending the road or cul-de-sac all the way to the northern property line since staff had expressed some interest in providing access and utility service to the adjoining parcels. This would potentially allow us to create 7 or more lots. However, there are a number of issues with this option. a. It does not align with how we want to use the land. We are not interested in doing a full development and packing as many lots in as possible. We prefer to have a large back lot (Lot 1) where we can build a future home for our family. That is our long-term plan. b. It would dramatically change the character of the neighborhood if there were 7+ buildable lots and Ridgewood Drive was converted to a potential through street serving more lots to the north. I believe neighbors would prefer 2 buildable lots instead of 7, or more. c. The cul-de-sac would exceed 1,300 ft. d. We will consider this plan more seriously if the city declines to defer construction of the cul-de-sac. At that point, we would consider selling this land to a developer. Page 30 of 186 5 Utilities There is an existing 6-inch watermain under Ridgewood Drive that is stubbed to the end of the existing cul-de-sac, including the “nub” that connects to the subject property. We plan to extend this watermain to a new fire hydrant. From this extension, two new 2-inch residential water service lines will be installed to Proposed Lots 1 and 3. There is a 9-inch sanitary sewer line underneath Ridgewood Drive that was stubbed approximately 11 ft north of the existing cul-de-sac. We plan to extend this sanitary sewer line into our property and seal with an additional manhole. Two new 6-inch sanitary sewer service lines will run parallel to the water service lines to new stub points for future development access for proposed Lots 1 and 3. Ryan Ruzek said that we may be required to connect sewer service to the current 1707 Delaware house. We are asking as part of the development agreement that this not be required. If it is required, can we delay the install until we pull a building permit for Proposed Lot 1? Conclusion We have considered multiple options for subdividing. We believe our proposal reflects the option that is best for Mendota Heights, the neighborhood, the environment, Dakota County, and our long-term vision for the land. It also meets the zoning requirements of Mendota Heights. We believe the construction of the cul-de-sac should be deferred until future resubdivision of proposed Lot 1 occurs. We would be displacing far more wetlands by building the new cul-de-sac and there would be no additional function or benefit to a new cul-de-sac. Private driveways can safely service proposed Lots 1 and 3. Therefore the cul-de-sac extension should not be built until traffic requirements or the number of lots make it a necessity. In summary, this proposal does the following: 1. Dedicates a 60 ft of half right-of-way along Delaware Avenue to Dakota County. 2. Mitigates wetland impact by providing access from a minimal extension off Ridgewood Drive. 3. Mitigates wetland impact by dedicating the cul-de-sac but not requiring construction until future resubdivision occurs. 4. Adds utility services to proposed Lots 1 and 3 5. Achieves 125’ ft of frontage for all subject Lots. 6. Maintains the look and feel of the neighborhood. The new cul-de-sac dedication would be used for private driveways servicing two homes. This would not add a noticeable amount of traffic. It would not change the feel of the neighborhood. 7. Satisfies all zoning requirements of Mendota Heights. Thank you for your consideration, Page 31 of 186 6 Spencer McMillan Page 32 of 186 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 IMPROVEMENTSLEGENDTREE PRESERVATIONPage 33 of 186 SITE2460149MARIEAVE.8DODDRD.WENTWORTHAVE.DELAWAREAVE.WACHTLERAVE.123BLOCK1MCMILLAN 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 PLATPage 34 of 186 Page 35 of 186 Page 36 of 186 Page 37 of 186 Page 38 of 186 Page 39 of 186 682580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanSEESHEET5LEGENDTREE INVENTORY NOTEPage 40 of 186 782580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanSEESHEET5LEGENDTREE INVENTORY NOTEPage 41 of 186 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 Buckthorn Save 1750 10 Black Cherry Save 1837 12 Red OakSave2 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 82 7 Black Cherry Save 337 13 Box Elder Save 417 9 Buckthorn Remove 1751 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1838 7 Black Cherry Save3 7 Black Cherry Remove 83 8 Box Elder poor Save 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White Ash Remove 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1839 6 Red Oak Save4 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Save 339 10 Buckthorn Save 419 23.5 White Ash Remove 1753 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1840 7 Black Cherry Save5 6 Green Ash Remove 85 10 Black Cherry Remove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White Ash Save 1754 7 Quaking Aspen Save 1841 7 Red Oak Save6 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 86 7 Box Elder Remove 341 17 Cottonwood Save 421 18 Green Ash Save 1755 6 Green Ash Remove 1842 6 Red Oak Save7 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 87 7 Black Cherry Remove 342 16 White Ash Save 422 12 Green Ash Save 1756 7 Green Ash Remove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save8 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 88 6 Bur Oak Remove 343 6.5 White Ash Remove 423 8.5 Green Ash Save 1757 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save9 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 89 8 Black Cherry Remove 344 12 White Ash Remove 424 13 White Ash Remove 1758 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1845 7 Red Oak Save10 7 Quaking Aspen Save 90 15 Red Oak Save 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Remove 425 7 Buckthorn Remove 1759 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1846 10 BasswoodSave11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 91 12 Red Oak Remove 346 13 American Elm Remove 426 6Swamp White Oak Remove 1760 6 Quaking Aspen Save 1847 10 Red Oak Save12 8 Black Cherry poor Save 92 8 Black Cherry Remove 347 8 White Ash Save 427 16 White Ash Remove 1761 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1848 11 Red Oak Save13 7 Green Ash poor Save 93 6 American Elm Remove 348 6 White Ash Save 428 9 White Ash Remove 1762 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1849 6 Quaking Aspen Save14 7 Black Cherry Save 94 9 Black Cherry Remove 349 10 Box Elder Remove 429 17 White Ash Remove 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking AspenSave15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black Cherry Remove 350 9 Box Elder Remove 430 6 Buckthorn Remove 1764 8 Green Ash Remove 1851 7 Quaking Aspen Save16 12 Black Cherry Save 96 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Remove 431 16 White Ash Remove 1765 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1852 8 Quaking Aspen Save17 6 Green Ash Save 97 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 352 9.5 Box Elder Remove 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking Aspen Save18 10 Black Cherry Save 98 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 353 12 Box Elder Remove 433 23 Green Ash Save 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1854 6 Quaking Aspen Save19 6 Apple Save 99 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 354 10 Box Elder Remove 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1768 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove20 6 Apple Save 100 7 Black Cherry Remove 355 10 White Ash Remove 435 14 Cottonwood Remove 1769 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1856 7 Quaking Aspen Remove21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green Ash Remove 436 18.5 Box Elder Remove 1770 11 Quaking Aspen Save 1857 7 Red Oak Save22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black Cherry Save 357 14 Black Oak Remove 437 13 Box Elder Save 1771 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1858 7 Red Oak Save23 9 Box Elder Save 103 8 Amur Maple Save 358 20.5 White Ash Remove 438 10 White Ash Save 1772 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black Cherry Save 104 8 Black Cherry Save 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Remove 439 11 Black Cherry Remove 1773 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red Oak Save 360 8 White Ash Remove 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Remove26 8 Black Cherry Save 106 10 American Elm Save 361 8 White Ash Remove 441 16 Box Elder Save 1775 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1862 8 Quaking Aspen Remove27 6 Green Ash Save 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White Ash Remove 442 14 White Ash Save 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1863 6 Quaking Aspen Remove28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 Cottonwood Save 363 9 White Ash Remove 443 8 Buckthorn Save 1777 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1864 6 Quaking Aspen Remove29 7 Black Cherry Save 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American Elm Remove 444 18 White Ash Save 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking Aspen Remove30 8 Box Elder Save 110 8 Quaking Aspen Save 365 12 White Ash Remove 445 16.5 Hophornbeam Save 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1866 7 Quaking AspenRemove31 7 Black Cherry Save 111 9 Red Oak Save 366 8 White Ash Remove 446 9 Green Ash Save 1780 15 Quaking Aspen Remove 1867 6 Quaking Aspen Remove32 8 Black Cherry Save 112 13 Red Oak Save 367 11 White Ash Remove 1701 21 Cottonwood Remove 1781 6 Green Ash Remove 1868 6 Quaking Aspen Remove33 12 Black Cherry Save 113 12 Red Oak Save 368 10 White Ash Remove 1702 7 Black Cherry Save 1782 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 1869 8 Quaking Aspen Remove34 6 Apple Save 114 6 Bur Oak Save 369 6 White Ash Remove 1703 13 Green Ash Save 1783 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1870 10 Red Oak Remove35 8 Black Cherry Save 115 8 American Elm Save 370 10 White Ash Remove 1704 7 Green Ash Remove 1784 10 Black Walnut Remove 1871 6 Red Oak Remove36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green Ash Remove 1705 7 Green Ash Remove 1786 8 Box Elder Remove 1872 7 Red Oak Remove37 6 Black Cherry Save 117 19 Red Oak Save 372 9.5 White Ash Remove 1706 12 Box Elder Remove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking Aspen Remove38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 Cottonwood Save 373 15 White Ash Remove 1707 19 Cottonwood Remove 1788 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1874 6 Black Cherrypoor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green Ash Save 374 15 Green Ash Remove 1708 7 Cottonwood Save 1789 10 Box Elder Remove 1875 25 Cottonwood Remove40 8 Black Cherry Save 120 7 Green Ash Save 375 10.5 White Ash Save 1709 6 Cottonwood Save 1790 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black Cherry Save 121 6 Green Ash Save 376 12 White Ash Save 1710 7 American Elm Save 1791 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American Elm Remove 377 8.5 White Ash Save 1711 30 Cottonwood Save 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1878 6 Quaking Aspen Remove43 10 (25') Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green Ash Save 378 8.5 White Ash Remove 1712 35 Cottonwood Save 1793 11 Green Ash Save 1879 7 Quaking Aspen Remove44 8 Black Cherry Save 124 12 Red Oak Save 379 15.5 Green Ash Remove 1713 6 Box Elder Save 1794 11 Black Walnut Save 1880 7 Quaking Aspen Remove45 6 Bur Oak Save 125 11 Red Oak Save 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box Elder Save 1795 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1881 7 Quaking Aspen Remove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur Oak Remove 381 11.5 Green Ash Save 1715 18 Cottonwood Save 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking Aspen Remove47 6 Green Ash Save 302 16 Cottonwood Remove 382 14.5 Green Ash Save 1716 12 Box Elder Save 1797 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1883 9 Quaking Aspen Remove48 6 Green Ash Save 303 20.5 White Ash Remove 383 16 White Ash Save 1717 10 Siberian Elm Save 1798 12 Red Oak Remove 1884 6 Quaking Aspen Remove49 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 Aspen Remove 1885 6 Quaking Aspen Remove50 7 Green Ash Save 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box Elder Remove 1800 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1886 7 Quaking Aspen Remove51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green Ash Save 386 17.5 White Ash Save 1720 6 Black Cherry Remove 1807 10 American Elm poor Remove 1887 7 Quaking Aspen Remove52 6 Bur Oak Save 307 17.5 Green Ash Save 387 10 White Ash Save 1721 7 Black Cherry Save 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Remove 1888 12 Red Oak Remove53 6 Black Cherry Save 308 6 Black Cherry Save 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black Cherry Save 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 1889 13 Black Cherry Remove54 6 Bur Oak Save 309 10 American Elm Save 389 7 White Ash Save 1723 13 Box Elder Save 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1890 6 Red Oak Remove55 6 Green Ash Save 310 42 Cottonwood Save 390 13.5 White Ash Save 1724 7 Black Cherry Save 1811 12 Quaking Aspen Remove 1891 12 Red Oak Remove56 6 Black Cherry Save 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White Ash Save 1725 9 Black Cherry Save 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1892 7 Red Oak Remove57 14 Red Oak Save 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Save 392 18 White Ash Save 1726 8 Box Elder Save 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1893 8 Quaking AspenRemove58 15 Red Oak Save 313 6 White Ash Save 393 22.5 White Ash Remove 1727 7 Black Cherry Save 1814 28 Red Oak Save 1894 7 Quaking Aspen Remove59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White Ash Save 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1728 6 Black Cherry Save 1815 24 Red Oak Save 1895 7 Quaking Aspen Remove60 7 Black Willow Save 315 22 Cottonwood Save 395 10 White Ash Remove 1729 9 Box Elder poor Save 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking Aspen Remove61 8 Green Ash Save 316 7 Black Cherry Save 396 25 White Ash Save 1730 8 Box Elder Save 1817 6 Red Oak Save 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove62 10 Green Ash Save 317 14.5 Siberian Elm Save 397 12 Green Ash Remove 1731 10 Box Elder Remove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking Aspen Remove63 6 Green Ash Save 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White Ash Remove 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American Elm Remove64 10 Green Ash Save 319 7 Box Elder Save 399 16.5 White Ash Remove 1733 10 Black Cherry Save 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking Aspen Remove65 8 Green Ash Save 320 9 Quaking Aspen Save 400 21 White Ash Remove 1734 8 Box Elder poor Save 1821 12 Red Oak Save66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black Cherry Save 401 6.5 Buckthorn Remove 1735 12 Black Cherry Save 1822 11 Red Oak Save67 10 Green Ash Save 322 14.5 Box Elder Save 402 7.5 Buckthorn Remove 1736 6 Box Elder Save 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green Ash Save 323 10 Box Elder Save 403 7 White Ash Remove 1737 14 Black Cherry Save 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green Ash Save 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White Ash Remove 1738 8 Box Elder Save 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red Oak Save 325 9 Box Elder Save 405 8.5 White Ash Remove 1739 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1826 7 Black Cherry Save71 7 Bur Oak Save 326 8 Box Elder Save 406 10 Box Elder Remove 1740 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1827 6 Black Cherry Save72 9 Bur Oak Save 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box Elder Remove 1741 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1828 9 Black Cherry Save73 7 Apple Save 328 8 Buckthorn Save 408 14 Green Ash Remove 1742 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 Apple Save 329 54 Cottonwood Save 409 15 White Ash Remove 1743 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1830 8 Apple Save75 6 Green Ash Save 330 15 Box Elder Save 410 8.5 Box Elder Remove 1744 6 Box Elder Save 1831 8 Black Cherry Save76 7 Green Ash Save 331 8 Box Elder Save 411 7 Amur Cork Tree Save 1745 12 American Elm Save 1832 7 Black Cherry Save77 6 Black Cherry Save 332 9 Box Elder Save 412 12 Box Elder Save 1746 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1833 8 Black Cherry Save78 8 American Elm Save 333 13 Box Elder Save 413 9 American Elm Save 1747 9 Black Cherry Save 1834 7 Black Cherry Save79 9 Black Cherry Save 334 9 Box Elder Save 414 8.5 Black Cherry Save 1748 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1835 10 Black Cherry Save80 12 Black Cherry Save 335 63.5 Cottonwood Save 415 9 Black Cherry Save 1749 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1836 12 Red Oak poor SavePage 42 of 186 Page 43 of 186 Page 44 of 186 Page 45 of 186 Page 46 of 186 Page 47 of 186 Page 48 of 186 Page 49 of 186 Page 50 of 186 Page 51 of 186 Page 52 of 186 Page 53 of 186 Page 54 of 186 Page 55 of 186 Page 56 of 186 Page 57 of 186 Page 58 of 186 Page 59 of 186 Page 60 of 186 Page 61 of 186 Page 62 of 186 Page 63 of 186 Page 64 of 186 Page 65 of 186 Page 66 of 186 Page 67 of 186 Page 68 of 186 Page 69 of 186 Page 70 of 186 Page 71 of 186 Page 72 of 186 Page 73 of 186 Page 74 of 186 Page 75 of 186 Page 76 of 186 Page 77 of 186 Page 78 of 186 Page 79 of 186 Page 80 of 186 Page 81 of 186 Page 82 of 186 Page 83 of 186 Page 84 of 186 Page 85 of 186 Page 86 of 186 Mark Sullivan 670 Hidden Creek Trail, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651-263-1771 Page 87 of 186 Page 88 of 186 Page 89 of 186 Page 90 of 186 Page 91 of 186 Page 92 of 186 Page 93 of 186 Page 94 of 186 Page 95 of 186 Page 96 of 186 Page 97 of 186 Page 98 of 186 Page 99 of 186 Page 100 of 186 Page 101 of 186 Page 102 of 186 Page 103 of 186 Page 104 of 186 Page 105 of 186 Page 106 of 186 Page 107 of 186 Page 108 of 186 A) PLANNING CASE 2024-01 SPENCER MCMILLAN, 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that after the agenda was published, the applicant reached out to staff and requested to table the item to the next regular meeting to provide more time for them to work with staff on this request. She stated that she would still give the overview presentation and would ask the Commission to open the public hearing as it was noticed for tonight. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Spencer McMillan 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 proposed plat is titled McMillan Estates, and the subdivision would divide and redistribute would divide and redistribute the existing land within the three parcels into three new lots of record. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. Written comments have been received and are included in the packet. As of the submittal of the staff report, there were five instances of public comment, and three more comments were received prior to the meeting. 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 denial of the application based on the findings-of-fact for denial as noted in the staff report. She stated that as noted earlier, the applicant has requested that the request be tabled to allow more time to work with staff and staff supports that request. Commissioner Petschel asked if staff believes that a private drive would be treated differently that a road. He noted that a road that dead ends would not be allowed and asked if that would be acceptable for a private drive. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that in this application she is applying the regulation to a private street. She explained that the applicant would propose a private driveway to the new home site, but not a private street. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Spencer McMillan, applicant, thanked staff noting that Community Development Manager Sarah Madden and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek have been great to work with. He commented that the presentation was very thorough. He stated that based on the findings of staff he has requested to table the item in order to continue to work with staff to address the issues that were identified and present a solution that would work for all parties. Page 109 of 186 Commissioner Katz asked if the applicant believes that one month would be enough time to update the plans. Mr. McMillan believed that he would be able to do so. John Weikert, 1737 Delaware Avenue, provided some historical context to his property and the subject property. He believed that most of the neighbors are opposed to lot three and a home in that location. He stated that if a home were not placed on lot three, or if that lot were eliminated from the future review, he believed that most of the neighbors would no longer object to the request. Sean Fahnhorst noted several environmental and transportation concerns that he has with the proposed request including the length of the cul-de-sac as proposed and variance that would be required, as well as concerns with the wetlands and drainage issues. He commented that the neighbors were notified of this just eight days ago and would have appreciated additional time. Chair Field noted that the case was properly noticed. Paul Pontinen, 1760 Ridgewood Drive, stated that he and his wife have lived on their property since the 1970s. He referenced the proposed driveway, which was discussed earlier, and noted that his home is about 40 feet from that proposed drive. He commented that there are many mature trees that run along the property line, and they have concern that the proposed driveway would remove a number of the mature trees and could damage the root systems of the trees on his property as well. He asked that the drive be moved further from his property. Jonathan Deering, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, stated that he has concerns with the building of the driveway or potential road as well as concerns with water management, wildlife management, and ecological impact. He stated that north of the cul-de-sac is a stream as well as a wetland that crosses the property. He commented that his property is the lowest lying property in the area and had concerns with potential flooding of his property. He noted that the previous wetland delineation was completed in one of the worst drought conditions and asked if that could be redone under wetter conditions. He commented that the natural beauty and wetlands add value to the area and understands why the home would be desired for lot two. He noted all the wildlife that make this area their home and development will potentially displace those animals. He asked that the Commission consider that when hearing any potential variance requests that may come. Commissioner Katz referenced the comments that have been made related to the drainage and asked if Mr. Deering also has wet conditions on his property. Mr. Deering confirmed that he does have a wet area on his property as well, although it has been dry this past year. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Page 110 of 186 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL 30TH, DIRECTING STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE PROPOSAL. Further discussion: Chair Field noted that he is a neighbor to the west, as his property abuts the western boundary of the subject property but does not believe that he has a conflict of interest. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Page 111 of 186 A) PLANNING CASE 2024-01 SPENCER MCMILLAN, 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (TABLED FROM MARCH 26, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that at the regular Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing was opened and held to consider a request for a Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as McMillan Estates, containing three residential parcels and dedication of public right-of-way. The subdivision request is for the existing property at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels generally located at the north end of the Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, all of which are owned by the applicant. The applicant requested that the item be tabled to allow additional time to work with staff and the final version of the revised application is not yet complete. The applicant has requested a further continuance, or tabling, of the application to allow additional revision and review time. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM TO NO LATER THAN THE JULY MEETING. Further discussion: The Commission asked questions to ensure that staff would monitor the issue to ensure the review timeline did not expire and to ensure that members of the public would be properly noticed prior to the next consideration. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that she would do all of the above. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 112 of 186 From:PATRICK WICKER To:Sarah Madden Subject:Notice of Public Hearing - Planning Case No. 2024-01 Date:Sunday, March 24, 2024 6:18:59 PM Attachments:1 - Planning Case No 2021-19 Notice letter.pdf 2 - Planning Case No 2021-19 Sullivan Acres map.pdf Sarah, We received the Notice of Public Hearing - Planning Case No. 2024-01 letter on Monday, March 18, 2024. We have discussed the notice as listed for Planning Case No. 2024-01 (1707 Delaware Ave). We disagree to allow the subdivision of Parcel IDs: 27-02400-78-010, 27-31100-00-020, and 27-31100-00-010 (represented as a combined group of 16.63 acres) into three (3) single-family lots. Our decision is based upon the fact that this Planning Case is remarkable similar to Planning Case No. 2021-19, from November of 2021, wherein the previous owners of the property located at 1707 Delaware Ave requested to create a new subdivision of the same parcels of land into two (2) single-family lots, with a variance to extend the cul-de-sac of Ridgewood Drive to allow access to a new single family lot located in the west half of Parcel 27-02400-78-010. [see attachment 1 for Planning Case 2021- 19 Notice letter] We opposed Planning Case No. 2021-19 based on the creation of a public road that served essentially as a private driveway, as well as this road crossing through wetlands and building a house in between noted wetlands. [see attachment 2 for Planning Case 2021-19 Sullivan Acres map] Because Planning Case No. 2024-01 does not include a map, we have no indication of how the proposed parcel subdivision is to be completed, where any houses would be built, nor how road access for the proposed new single-family lots would function. While the wetlands detailed in attachment 2 are not currently being monitored by WHEP (MN Wetlands Health Program), we should not ignore their impact on our environment. According to the Natural Resources Management Plan (2002), Mendota Heights was identified as "a critical piece in the regional natural resources fabric" as it is "an essential link in the [Northern Dakota County Greenway] corridor." While this plan is two decades old, the premise of a "well-managed natural landscape [being] beautiful and healthful for both people and wildlife" still is applicable, and even more needed today. Furthermore, Mendota Heights has been steered towards creating a sense of city life in the middle of wilderness. To quote the city's own website "[t]he City is known for its natural beauty [.]" The building of "McMillan Estates", especially with no provided plan for preservation of the wetlands contained in these parcels, will affect current wildlife, including deer, coyotes, turkeys, etc., by decreasing their natural habitat in an area that prides itself on its natural beauty, especially with that "natural beauty" being a main driver of interest in our community. Natural beauty is hard to claim when all possible land is subdivided and developed, driving away wildlife, and destroying native habitats. Sincerely, Patrick and Jennie Wicker Page 113 of 186 Page 114 of 186 Page 115 of 186 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 Page 116 of 186 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 Page 117 of 186 From:Jennifer Lutz To:Sarah Madden Cc:Litton Field; Sally Lorberbaum; Patrick Corbett; Andrew Katz; Brian Petschel; Stephanie Levine; Cindy Johnson; John Mazzitello; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; Lisa Gray; Timothy Aune Subject:McMillan Estates Application materials Date:Sunday, March 24, 2024 12:13:00 PM Hello - My name is Jennifer Lutz. My husband, Lon, and I own the property at 548 Foxwood Lane. It has come to our attention that there is discussion of a development known as Sullivan Acres, which would extend Ridgewood Drive. While we understand this development does not involve Foxwood Lane, we are aware that it has been suggested by a neighbor that the City should "take a comprehensive view of potential development from Ridgewood 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." I agree that this issue of development of the "super block" should be addressed and settled once and for all in order to avoid revisiting the topic anew every few years. I would like to remind the City that we, on Foxwood Lane, have been through this before. We argued in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council from 2012-2018 regarding a similar development proposed by Mike and Michelle Bader involving their former Delaware property and their parcel on Foxwood Lane. That proposal involved converting the private road, Foxwood Lane, into a public road, which would have negatively affected our home at 548 Foxwood Lane, as well as the homes at 554 Foxwood Lane and at 540 Wentworth Ave. At the time the City agreed then that any conversion of Foxwood Lane into a public road would have to be approved by the residents of Foxwood Lane. While we have no opinion about any development that will extend or connect to Ridgewood Drive, we vehemently oppose any plans that involve an extension of a public throughway to or conversion of Foxwood Lane. We request to be notified, as an interested party, of any and all proceedings going forward that would affect Foxwood Lane now or in the future. Thank you for your consideration, Jennifer and Lon Lutz Page 118 of 186 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 1:13ௗPM 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 Page 119 of 186 Website | Connect smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov Pronouns: she/her Page 120 of 186 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 because the resulting lots do not have the minimum 100 feet of frontage on a public roadway that is required by city ordinance, and which is reinforced by Planning Commission precedent. • 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 absolute in declaring that 100 feet of frontage on a public roadway is the minimum required for a buildable lot. Neither of the proposed lots in the petitioner’s application have the required public roadway frontage required by ordinance and precedent and therefore should be declined. 2. The plat applicant cannot rely on variances not yet requested in order to secure commission approval for pending applications, per the precedent established in the Foxwood 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 align with its Comprehensive Plan. Granting the request of petitioner to re-platting the existing Outlots to developable land as outlined in the petitioner’s letter of intent is direct contraction of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in several ways including, but not limited to the following: • Contradiction with Environmental Protection: The protected wetland area is crucial for maintaining the city's green and natural environment. Allowing development in such an ecologically sensitive area risks damaging or destroying the natural habitat, which goes against the goal of protecting and managing natural areas for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species. • Disruption of Neighborhood Characteristics: High-end residential development with large lots in a protected wetland area will disrupt the distinct neighborhood characteristics envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Such development will not align with the existing built environment and will diminish the attractiveness, character and value of the neighboring community. Page 121 of 186 • Conflict with Housing Diversity Goals: The comprehensive plan recognizes the need for a range of housing choices, including workforce housing and life-cycle opportunities. However, very expensive high-end residential development with large lots 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 lots ranging from 5 to in excess of 10 acres in a protected wetland area does not align with the goal of encouraging environmentally sustainable residential development practices. Such large lots lead to inefficient land use, increased energy consumption for transportation, and disruption of natural drainage patterns, which can all contribute to environmental degradation. • Conflict with Density Goals: The comprehensive plan aims for an overall average density of 5 units per acre for new growth. Allowing very expensive high-end residential development with single home lots in excess of 10 acres would likely result in significantly lower density than what is planned, leading to inefficient land use and potentially sprawl, which contradicts the goal of planning for growth at appropriate densities. • Conflict with Stormwater Management Policies and Goals: Taking steps to allow development in designated wetland areas will exacerbate stormwater management issues by disrupting natural drainage patterns and increasing runoff. This contradicts the emphasis on improving stormwater management and protecting and restoring the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources as stated in the comprehensive 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 9:58ௗAM 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 Page 122 of 186 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 to the Planning Commission are required to be sent to anyone within 100 feet of the property in question. While I imagine re-platting of land for development in a designated wetland almost certainly requires variance approval of some sort, I didn’t receive the notice until yesterday, just 8 days 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 it online. Page 123 of 186 As you can likely tell, I’m confused. This is something that has the potential for significant impacts to 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 meeting but I haven’t been given the time necessary to plan my availability for the meeting nor the information necessary to provide informed comments. Can you help me with these things? Given what I believe is the desire to provide notice a minimum of 10 days in advance of such meetings, can you please move the date of the meeting to give those that 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 Estates is - 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 process that exists, and I hope you agree. I appreciate your consideration, as well as notice of your decision and any related guidance. Thanks – John Torinus Page 124 of 186 From:Michael Bader To:Sarah Madden Subject:Planning Commission - McMillian Lot Split Date:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:19:30 AM Attachments:Bader_ Mendota Heights Planning Commission Letter_3.25.24.docx Hi Sarah: I saw over the weekend in your agenda that the McMillain Lot Split is on the planning commission meeting for tonight. I am writing on behalf of my mother, Michelle Bader, who owns 8.33 acres between Foxwood Ln and Jim and Michele Kolar's property. As is outlined in the attached letter, we firmly believe that the city needs to take a broad view of development within the superblock, while keeping the character as is is appropriately defined by the Future Land Use Designations in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Without proper planning and access, the City is limiting any future development. This is not only a negative for the city, but also harmful to property owners. Please ensure that my mother, and I are also contacted on any future submittals within the super block. My father had been working on this issue for over 25 years, but unfortunately passed away a few years ago, so I am trying to get up to speed on the issues. We have no immediate plans to develop, but would like to have that ability to do so in the future. I will be attending the meeting tonight and look forward to discussing this matter further with you in the future. Best Regards, -- Mike Bader P: 312-502-8193 1297 Knollwood Ln Mendota Heights, MN Page 125 of 186 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. Page 126 of 186 From:Sean Fahnhorst To:Litton Field; Jason Stone; Cindy Johnson; Andrew Katz; Brian Petschel; Brian Udell; Patrick Corbett; Sarah Madden; Cheryl Jacobson; Kelly Torkelson; Ryan Ruzek; Krista Spreiter; Lucas Ritchie; Stephanie Levine; Sally Lorberbaum; John Mazzitello; Jay Miller; Joel Paper Subject:Public Comment on Planning Case 2024-01: McMillan Estates Date:Saturday, June 15, 2024 10:45:23 PM Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff, I am writing to provide public comment on planning case number 2024-01: consideration of the McMillan Estates proposal. Apologies for the broad distribution of this email. Because of the tight turnaround between the planning commission and city council meetings, and some references below to previous communications with staff, I wanted to be as inclusive as possible. 1. This proposal requires extending Ridgewood Drive over land currently occupied by a natural flowing creek, which was not shown on any of the proposal’s maps. This would significantly disrupt drainage in the surrounding area. Title 11, Chapter 3 of city code requires that where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, this type of development should conform substantially with the lines of the watercourse to provide adequate stormwater drainage of the area. Further, Chapter 3 specifies that no existing ditch, stream, drain, pond, or drainage canal shall be rerouted or filled without written permission from the city council. This linked video from May shows the creek, which is more than 10 feet wide and flowing from east to west less than 100 feet from the north end of the circle. https://photos.app.goo.gl/UrTjbhwpQk7TPnoy9 This video was not taken during a particularly rainy period; there is substantially more water there today. This watercourse was in part why the lot wasn't developed with the surrounding neighborhood in the 1970s. This area provides essential natural drainage for the entire neighborhood. Disrupting it would cause damage to the surrounding lots and ecosystems. 2. City staff have not evaluated the proposal’s compatibility with the Living Streets Policy passed by the city council in March. That policy commits the city to following the Living Streets framework on all transportation projects. Living Streets applies here because, regardless of whether the Ridgewood Drive roadway or right-of-way is extended, all transportation projects including city and private development with construction impacting the public way shall promote the goals of a Living Street during all phases of planning, design, and construction. Living Streets details several relevant guidelines to consider: • City staff should engage with the community and stakeholders throughout the planning, design, and construction of all streets, to ensure that the needs and concerns of all users are considered and addressed. The city would benefit from engaging the residents of Ridgewood Drive about the proposal. Several neighbors have lived in their homes since the neighborhood’s inception in the 1970s and have a wealth of knowledge about the area. Others have young families and plan to live in the neighborhood for many more years. • City staff must identify opportunities to feasibly improve quality of life Page 127 of 186 aspects by reducing environmental impacts or improving sustainability. City staff must consider what reductions for environmental impacts or sustainable improvements are proposed to be included within the project corridor. The road extension would pave a densely forested area, which currently provides valuable urban canopy, erosion control, and wildlife habitat. Additionally, the tree inventory for this proposal identifies more than 120 trees for removal without any planned remediation. • Living Street design includes 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. Ridgewood Drive lacks sidewalks or dedicated space for children and other walkers and bikers. Currently, this isn’t a major issue because of the low traffic volume on the circle. However, additional car and construction traffic would make the area more dangerous without other transportation upgrades. • City staff must identify 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. The north end of Ridgewood Drive is a natural bowl that collects stormwater runoff from the surrounding neighborhood. Climatologists predict more frequent and wet storms in the coming years, and it would be prudent to ensure this wetland does not lose any of its ability to collect and filter stormwater. Without a natural place to collect, this water is likely to damage nearby homes, yards, and streets, and could necessitate costly new stormwater systems. The McMillan Estates proposal is very ambitious and preliminary. The neighborhood would greatly benefit from a more robust and objective analysis of the plan’s effect on the surrounding environment and transportation network. Adoption of the Living Streets Policy was a significant step forward for the city and provides a transparent framework for considering changes to transportation infrastructure. Completion of the Living Streets Worksheet for this proposal would provide key information to the public, city staff, planning commissioners, and city council members. Please include this email and video in the public record for the proposal. Thank you, Sean Fahnhorst 1767 Ridgewood Drive (952) 393-3707 Page 128 of 186 Page 129 of 186 JamesPKolar 1695DelawareAvenue  MendotaHeights,MN,55118 (612)408Ͳ6852/jamespkolar@gmail.com   March21,2024  MendotaHeightsPlanningCommission 1101VictoriaCurve MendotaHeights,MN55118 c/SarahMadden,CommunityDevelopmentManager smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov  Re:ProposedNewSubdivisionknownasMcMillanEstates DearMendotaHeightsPlanningCommissionMembers:  MywifeMicheleKolarandIarethepropertyownersat1695DelawareAvenuewhichis immediatelynorthoftheproposedsubdivision.ThisleƩeristoprovidewriƩencommentsand toincorporatepriorwriƩencommentstothealmostidenƟcalSullivanAcresin2021asour commentsforconsideraƟon.TheMcMillanEstatesSubdivisionisessenƟallythesameas SullivanAcressubmiƩedin2021,albeitwithlessdetailregardingdwellingplacementand footprintofstructuresthanSullivanAcresprovided.Thus,ourcommentsareessenƟallysimilar asprovidedintheleƩerdatedNovember18,2021,fromWilliamCGriĸthofLarkinHoīman (copyaƩached).PleaseincorporatethisleƩerandtheaƩachmentinyourconsideraƟon.  Insummary,wearenotopposedtotheproposal,however,werespecƞullyaskforsuĸcient Ɵmetoconsiderourpropertyandthelastremaining10ͲacrelotalongthisstretchofDelaware, suĸcienttoallowthefutureaccess,necessaryuƟlityeasementsfromRidgewood,andaccess for developmentofthewesterlysideof1695DelawareAvenueintooneormorehighly desirablelotsforfuturehomes. Page 130 of 186 AstheMcMillan’sstate,suchlotsinMcMillanEstateswouldgeneratesigniĮcanttaxrevenuefor  MendotaHeightsandourpropertyoncedevelopedwouldbesimilarinnature,evenifonlyone singlelotwasdeveloped.LandlockingourpropertyunintenƟonallyorwithoutconsideraƟon couldprecludeanyfutureopportunityfordevelopmentandsigniĮcanttaxrevenue. IcurrentlyplantoaƩendtheMeeƟngonMarch26thandwillprovidecomments,howeverat thisƟmeIrespecƞullyrequestthatanydecisionbedeferredsuĸcienttoallowmetheƟmeto assessourpropertyandcomebacktothecommissionwithaproposalthatcouldbeconsidered comprehensivelywiththeMcMillan’s.  Sincerely,  JamesPKolar Page 131 of 186 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. Page 132 of 186 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 Page 133 of 186 Michael Bader Jr. (312) 502.8193 Michaelbader1@gmail.com On Behalf of: Michelle K. Bader 1218 Sibley Memorial Hwy Mendota MN, 55118 March 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 ƩŶ͗^ĂƌĂŚDĂĚĚĞŶ͕Community Development Manager smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov ZĞ͗Preliminary and Final Plat of WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚEĞǁ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶŬŶŽǁŶĂƐDĐDŝůůŝĂŶƐƚĂƚĞƐ Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission Members: I am wƌŝƟŶŐŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨŵLJmother, Michelle K. Bader, and late father, Michael Bader Sr. Michelle Bader owns two parcels, totaling 8.33 acres, located immediately north of Jim and Michele Kolar’s property, ĂŶĚƚǁŽƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐŶŽƌƚŚŽĨDĐDŝůůŝĂŶ’s. As background, my parents purchased the property along with a home at 1673 Delaware Ave in 1998, ĂŶĚƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚĂŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůŽƚŽŶ&ŽdžǁŽŽĚLane in 2003. In 2018, the Bader’s sold the residence at 1673 Delaware on 4.22 acres, and retained a total of 8.33 acres, (5.82 acres behind 1673 Delaware and ƚŚĞϮ͘ϱϭĂĐƌĞ&ŽdžǁŽŽĚ>Žƚ). My late ĨĂƚŚĞƌƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƉůĂŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂŶĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶĂŶ ĂƩĞŵƉƚƚŽƐƵďĚŝǀŝĚĞĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂĨĞǁůŽƚƐ, on number of occasions in the late 1990s, and early 2000s, ĂŶĚĂƐƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJĂƐϮϬϭϮ͘ůůƉůĂŶƐǁĞƌĞƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ&ƵƚƵƌĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞĞƐŝŐŶĂƟŽŶƐ as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for this superblock, requiring a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. It is my belief that at one point, the City even had plans to connect Ridgeview Drive and &ŽdžǁŽŽĚ>ĂŶĞ͘ Overall, we are not opposed to a lot split on the McMillian Property, but request that the Planning Commission, City ^ƚĂī and City Council take a comprehensive view of the superblock͘^ƉĞĐŝĮĐĂůůLJ͕ addressing ĨƵƚƵƌĞĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚƵƟůŝƚLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĨŽƌ ƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶZŝĚŐĞǀŝĞǁƌŝǀĞĂŶĚ&ŽdžǁŽŽĚ>ĂŶĞ͘ dŚĞƐĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĂƌĞƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞůĂƐƚƵŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƉĂƌĐĞůƐŝŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ ƚƌĞŵĞŶĚŽƵƐĨƵƚƵƌĞďĞŶĞĮƚƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJonce developed. It is my hope that one day, I can build a home for my young family on one of my mother’s lots, and my sisteƌĂŶĚŚĞƌŚƵƐďĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĂůƐŽĞdžƉƌĞƐƐĞĚĂ similar interest. Page 134 of 186 /ƌĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJƚĂŬĞĂŵŽƌĞŚŽůŝƐƟĐǀŝĞǁŽĨƐƵďĚŝǀŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƐƵƉĞƌďůŽĐŬ͕ĂŶĚŶŽƚůŝŵŝƚ ŽƌƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚĂĐĐĞƐƐĂŶĚƵƟůŝƚLJĐŽŶŶĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘ We advocate fŽƌƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂƐŝƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůLJĚĞĮŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞ&ƵƚƵƌĞ >ĂŶĚhƐĞĞƐŝŐŶĂƟŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϰϬŽŵƉƌĞŚĞŶƐŝǀĞWůĂŶ͕ďƵƚǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂŶĚĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJŝƐůŝŵŝƟŶŐĂŶLJĨƵƚƵƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚŽŶůLJĂŶĞŐĂƟǀĞ ĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͕ďƵƚĂůƐŽŶĞŐĂƟǀĞůLJ ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͘ Sincerely, Michael Bader Jr. 312.502.8193 Michaelbader1@gmail.com 1297 Knollwood Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 And Michelle K. Bader 1218 Sibley Memorial Hwy Mendota, MN 55118 Page 135 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 1 of 8 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:June 25, 2024 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager SUBJECT:Planning Case 2024-10 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT of SPRINGMAN ADDITION APPLICANT:Steve Norton (Norton Realty) PROPERTY ADDRESS:1170 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential / LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:July 27, 2024 (60-Day Review Period) INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the property located at 1170 Dodd Road to create a four-lot residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision will create three new residential lots, while the fourth lot is an existing parcel addressed as 8 Beebe Avenue which is included in the Plat application in order to preserve 38-ft of the 1170 Dodd Road site as part of their property. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. As of the submittal of this report, one instance of public comment was received, which is included as an attachment to this report. Any additional comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and made part of the public record. BACKGROUND This 1170 Dodd Road site was formerly identified as the Hella Mears Estate properties, which originally consisted of three separate legal parcels, and included some dedicated but un-used road right-of-way segments (Somerset Road and Burr Oak Avenue) that ran through or near the subject property. The right-of-way was dedicated as part of the Somerset View plat, which was established in 1936. These Page 136 of 186 4b. Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 2 of 8 right-of-way segments in this residential block were recently vacated by the City, and sections of the vacated right-of-way were added or adjoined to the neighboring property owners. The resulting parcel was a tract of land approximately 4.3 acres in area. The second parcel affiliated with this subdivision is 8 Beebe Avenue. Both existing parcels in the subdivision request are owned in common by Henry and Mary Holec, the sellers in this subdivision request. The subject site was party to a Lot Line Adjustment application in February 2023, which split 26,169- sq.ft. of the existing vacant parcel, and combined it with the adjoining parcel (8 Beebe Avenue). The vacant residential property is under purchase agreement with the intent to subdivide the property into three new residential lots, with frontage on Dodd Road. A portion of the lot will also be split off from the 1170 Dodd parcel and combined with the adjacent 8 Beebe parcel through this plat, making this request a four-lot subdivision in total. The proposed Plat is titled Springman Addition. The existing vacant residential parcel is 3.7 acres in size and contains 338’ of frontage on Dodd Road. Also included within the subdivision is the adjacent 8 Beebe Avenue parcel which is 1.39 acres in size (see aerial map – right). The applicant’s proposal is to divide the vacant lot into three new residential lots, each with 100-ft of frontage on Dodd Road. The remaining 38-ft of frontage is proposed to be split and combined with the 8 Beebe Avenue lot. The applicant has indicated that the sellers desire to retain ownership on the 38-ft wide parcel so that they can continue to access the back portion of their property for gardening purposes, as well as maintain the existing easement for a driveway which provides access to 1160 Dodd Road to the north. 1160 Dodd Road is not included within this subdivision, however the driveway easement that provides access to that existing single-family home has always been located on the subject site, as it also provided access to the former Mears home on the subject site, which has since been demolished. The intention of the sellers is to maintain access with this inclusion of the additional 38-ft of the 1170 Dodd Road property, and no new or separate single-family development can occur or would be allowed on this parcel without the required street frontage. ANALYSIS 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.” Page 137 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 3 of 8 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-1 District, all new lots must have a minimum of 15,000-sf. of lot area and 100-ft of frontage, or lot width, along a City-approved street. All proposed lots within the subdivision significantly exceed the size minimum requirement with ranging between .89 acres - 1.82 acres in size. The three new single- family residential properties which are proposed will have frontage on Dodd Road, each with 100-ft of frontage. The remaining parcel will continue to maintain 155-ft of frontage on Beebe. The proposed Preliminary Plat and Site Plan provided by the applicant illustrate outlines of potential building areas on Lots 1-3. In reviewing these outlined layouts, setbacks to front, side, and rear lot lines can be met based on the preliminary designs which are shown. A condition has been added that the preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-1 Zone standards and will need to be approved under separate building permits for each lot. Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: (A) 3. 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 15,000 sq.ft., however the existing lot shape and availability of access does impact the site plan design of the proposed subdivision. The subject site previously had unconstructed but dedicated right-of-way for a street to access the center of the 1170 Dodd Road parcel. The current property owner initiated a request to vacate the right-of-way in 2022, which was granted by the City Council. After providing the required 100’ of lot width along Dodd Road, the resulting shape of the lots is the thin, rectangular design that is seen on the provided Plat and site plans. The proposed lots within the subdivision are much deeper than a standard lot within the City, and there is not access available to the rear of the site without dedication and construction of a new street to serve a new subdivision in this area. The large, deep lots also result in an overall density within the subdivision which is less than the recommended range for the LR – Low Density Residential land use category. This lot has been evaluated for potential subdivision layouts in the past, with access to the rear Page 138 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 4 of 8 of the property a question of concern. The City has approved the vacation of the former right-of-way and was supportive of the reduced access to this parcel. The Planning Commission should consider the arrangement of lots within this subdivision as they evaluate the proposal. Utilities and Grading The Preliminary Plat shows the existing sanitary sewer and water which exists within Dodd Road, but does not include the route of the individual service lines for the proposed parcels. Any new or existing sanitary or water service lines will have to be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to issuance of any building permit. A final utility plan will be submitted to the City with the development plan and building permit for each of the new residential parcels. 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. These easements will be provided through an official dedication under the recorded Final Plat. The applicant is concurrently requesting a vacation of the internal drainage and utility easements which are existing from the previous subdivision. This request will be evaluated by the City Council at their July 2 meeting, provided a recommendation moves forward from the Planning Commission on this item. The home 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. Potential future removal of trees is not explicitly illustrated on the preliminary site plan, however the placement of the preliminary pads does indicate that there is a potential for removals associated with the construction activities for the development. Final tree impacts will 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 by the City. MNDot Review Because this property fronts on a MnDoT road system (Dodd Road), the City has routed the provided plans to MnDoT for their review. As of the submittal of this report, the City has not received comments back from MnDoT regarding the access of the proposed three lots onto Dodd Road. Staff will provide a verbal update at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff has also included a condition in the Recommendation section of this report that the Developer/Applicant conform to the requirements of MnDoT for coordinating access to the proposed Lots 1-3. Comprehensive Plan The subject parcels are guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Plan includes the following general description for said uses in this land use category: LR – Low Density Residential (2.0 - 2.9 DU/Acre) This land use is the most prevalent land use category in the city and generally allows development of single-family principal and accessory uses. This designation corresponds to the R-1 zoning district, which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and minimum lot width of 100 feet. Page 139 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 5 of 8 The overall site consists of 5.09 acres, and the overall density calculation for the three new residential properties plus the existing residential unit calculates to a density of 0.79 units/acre, which is under the maximum outlined within the land use category, but is also less than the recommended minimum density for the LR – Low Density Residential land use category. However, the subject property is currently a combination of multiple platted lots of record within the Somerset View Plat. When this resubdivision of Springman Addition is evaluated with the entirety of the original Plat for this neighborhood included, the approximate density of the total Somerset View subdivision is 2.14 units per acre. The following goals and policies statements from the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan may be used, considered or lend support to the approval of this land use request: LAND USE GOAL 2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. Policies 1. Subdivision and zoning standards will require high quality site and building design in all new developments. 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. HOUSING GOAL 2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Policies 3. Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and distinct neighborhood characteristics in the community. Staff Comment: The proposed subdivision creates additional housing units on a uniquely large parcel within the City, and is limited to access points within the deeper, internal portions of the lot. The proposed lots are estimated to provide a high value product to the City’s housing stock, and is of a development pattern which is favored by the nearby community. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed Plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Springman Addition, based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Springman Addition, based on revised findings-of-fact and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; or Page 140 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 6 of 8 3. Table the request and request additional information from the applicant or staff; Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Steve Norton for the Preliminary and Final Plat of a four-lot residential subdivision to be known as Springman Addition, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 2. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any new construction work. 3. The parcels known as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Springman Addition, created under this Plat, must provide evidence that the access to Dodd Road has been granted by MnDoT at the time of building permit. 4. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 5. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (4 lots – 1 existing dwelling = 3 x $4,000/unit, or $12,000) is to be collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. 7. Any new or existing sanitary or water service lines will have to be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to issuance of any building permit. 8. 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 for each new home and new impervious surface. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location/Aerial Map 2. Narrative Letter/Letter of Intent 3. Certificate of Survey – Sheets 1+2 Page 141 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 7 of 8 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Final Plat – Sheets 1+2 6. Preliminary Site Plan 7. Vacation Exhibit – Sheets 1+2 8. Public Comments Page 142 of 186 Planning Case 2024-10 (Springman Addition/1170 Dodd Road – Steve Norton) Page 8 of 8 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary and Final Plat of Springman Addition 1170 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with and supported by a number of goals and policy statements in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. Page 143 of 186  !%!!" !  $#(% # ! #( ##" 3323#! $!% # #"* 7733:     $     ## %    (#"*#%(3392*#!# $!"!#!# ! !#(## 3392 / 49,93372,2:,2840  !48*4246+ ! !#("5+9!"")*# ##"#%# #$! !"+ ! !#("55:- !# + $! # ! "" #!#". 322- &. ##&% &#"("*"&" 5:- ###&!#( #"!" ####! # ! !#(:%$ /49,93372,26,2830+5:- !&&#"!"##$# ""# !##! ! !#( !! $! ""*"&"##'"#"####"3382  / 49,93372,2:,2530+ "#* #% !# #%1 !# #(+ /0 873,48;,4226         ! !  Authentisign ID: 10E1B482-011D-EF11-86D2-000D3A8F026D Page 144 of 186 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666!!""! ! ³ "! "* " ³³³" ³ ³ "* ³³³ " "" " "*"" " " " ! ! "!" " !" " " " !!"! " ! ³ ! " " " " " " * " ! " " " " " " " * " " " * " """ ! ³""³ "66666 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666DODD RDME A R S A V E DELAWARE AVEDORS E T R D B E E B E A V E I V Y H I L L D R SPRIN G S T A S H L E Y L N SOMERSET RDNORMA LN C H I P P EW A A V E IVY FALLS AVEMAPLE PARK DRHINGHAM CIR This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the purpose of direct commercial benefit or gain. By Location Aerial Map 1170 Dodd Road Date: 6/19/2024 City of Mendota Heights0250 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 145 of 186 Page 146 of 186 Page 147 of 186 Page 148 of 186 Page 149 of 186 Page 150 of 186 Page 151 of 186 Page 152 of 186 Page 153 of 186 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:June 25, 2024 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager SUBJECT:Planning Case 2024-11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT:Cushman & Wakefield (on behalf of MSP SLP Apartments, LLC) PROPERTY ADDRESS:1270 Northland Drive ZONING/GUIDED:I – Industrial/I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE:July 27, 2024 INTRODUCTION The owner of the Mendota Office Center (6 total buildings within the office development) is intending to construct an outdoor sport court amenity for the use of the employees/tenants of the office center. The owner is proposing a 10’ tall chain link fence to enclose this amenity, which requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the I-Industrial zoning district. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report. BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the south side of Northland Drive and north of Interstate 494 (see aerial – right). The site contains two access points off of Northland Drive to the north, and is connected internally through the parking access aisles to three of the other buildings within the Mendota Office Center. The subject site and the surrounding properties to the north, west, and east are zoned and guided for Industrial development. The proposed sport court amenity is intended to serve exclusively the tenants of the office center, and will not be open to the general public. The use of a 10’ high fence to enclose the sport court is permitted by CUP under Section Page 154 of 186 4c. Planning Case 2024-11 (1270 Northland Drive – Cushman & Wakefield) Page 2 of 5 12-1D2-6 of the City Code, which would allow fences within Business and Industrial zones to exceed 6’ in height. The new use of a portion of the site for a tenant amenity space is not considered a Commercial Recreation use, and instead staff is interpreting the proposal as an extension of the Professional Office use, similar to any indoor gym or outdoor break area amenities that a corporate campus would offer its tenants. It is noted in the drafted Findings of Fact and proposed Conditions of Approval that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit for the height of the fence does not grant approval to a new commercial recreation business. Any future changes in use or site modifications would be subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance at that time that such an application is received by the City. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The total area of construction is 5,762 square feet in size in the southwest corner of the subject property, and will impact 15 surface parking stalls. The property owner is planning to install two outdoor sport courts for pickleball, which will be separated by a segment of 4-ft tall fencing and fully enclosed by 10-ft tall fencing. The fenced in area will measure 32-ft wide and 120-ft long. The proposed fence materials are a black-coated chain link (see image – below), with black vinyl coated chain link fabric fencing installed on the 4-ft tall segment which separates the two sport courts. The west boundary of the fence and court area will be located 20-ft from the side property line, shared with an office/industrial site, and the southern boundary of the court area is proposed to be 80-ft setback from the south property line at I-494 at its closest point. The fenced area will include one 3- ft wide locked access gate on the east side of the sport court, and be accessible only to tenants of the office complex. There are no proposed changes to the existing parking lot lighting or the existing perimeter landscaping surrounding the parking lot area. The applicant has indicated that the existing bituminous surface will be resurfaced to obscure the existing parking striping, and paint the new pickleball play surface on this pavement. Because the new sport court will be installed on top of the existing bituminous pavement, there will be no increase in the amount of impervious surface on the property. The proposal requires a reduction of 15 total surface parking spaces on the subject site. The City Code requires 1 off street parking space for each 200 square feet of net usable area. The site contains 117,027 square feet of building area, and the original plans for the building indicate that 84,260 square feet of the building is leasable space. With this formula, 422 parking spaces would be required for this office building, which is well under the 520 parking spaces that currently exist on site. The remaining parking can continue to serve the subject site’s office use adequately. In addition to the parking available on the subject site, this office center was developed with shared access in mind with the properties to the east. There are not anticipated issues with the reduction of available parking by 15 spaces. ANALYSIS Page 155 of 186 Planning Case 2024-11 (1270 Northland Drive – Cushman & Wakefield) Page 3 of 5 Per Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 1 Zoning Regulations, Sect. 12-1D2-6: Fences, any fences over 6-ft in height in Business and Industrial Districts require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a) Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. a-c) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: Staff believes the use will not have any negative impacts or effect upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants (of the multi-tenant office building complex) or surrounding land uses; nor will the use be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Moreover, the use will provide an amenity for employees of the tenants within the Mendota Office Center. The impacted area of the fenced pickleball amenity is small in scale, relative to the size of the subject property and parking facilities. The reduction of 15 parking spaces leaves adequate parking available for the primary office use. While the Conditional Use Permit review is required for the fence height, the fence itself is needed to secure the private amenity for the tenants of the office complex. The associated noise generated by the pickleball courts will not be disruptive to any residential neighborhoods, as the subject site is within a largely industrial and commercial area, and the proposed fence and sport court area is located behind the office building and adjacent to the Interstate-494 corridor. d) The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: The subject property is guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides the following goal statement: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. 1.The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2.Transitions between adjoining land uses will be required for adjacent residential uses, and will be encouraged between compatible land uses (e.g. transition between a general manufacturing and retail use will be encouraged). 3.Amenities within the industrial and commercial districts will be encouraged to promote a more vibrant and attractive place for workers. Page 156 of 186 Planning Case 2024-11 (1270 Northland Drive – Cushman & Wakefield) Page 4 of 5 Staff believes the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages investment within the industrial areas. The proposed fence allows a private amenity to be provided for tenants within the office complex, which is an attractive asset for the building owner, and for current businesses and employees at the subject site. This fence height is permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the I-Industrial zoning district, and amenity-rich commercial and industrial spaces are a common component of professional business environments. This improvement is compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District and provides commercial reinvestment in an existing industrial site. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit for 1270 Northland Drive based on certain findings-of- fact, along with specific conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit for 1270 Northland Drive based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3.Table the request and request more information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60-days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit to Cushman & Wakefield and for the property located at 1270 Northland Drive, which would allow the construction of a 10- ft tall chain link fence, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Permit grants approval to allow the construction of a 10-ft tall fence to enclose a private sport court. The proposed sport court amenity is an incidental accessory use to the principal professional business use of the property. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not grant approval for any commercial recreation business operations. 2. A commercial recreation business use is not permitted on the subject property without the prior approval of the City and in accordance with the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Applicant/Owner must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to a Fence Permit and a Building Permit. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location/Aerial Map 2. Letter of Intent 3. ALTA Title Survey 4. Proposed Pickleball Amenity Cover Sheet 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Enlarged Site Plan 7. Fence Details Page 157 of 186 Planning Case 2024-11 (1270 Northland Drive – Cushman & Wakefield) Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for 1270 Northland Drive Planning Case No. 2024-11 1. The construction of a fence greater than 6-ft in height is allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the I-Industrial zoning district. 2. The existing professional business use is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the I-Industrial district. 3. The proposed private sport court amenity is an incidental accessory use to the principal professional business use of the property and the approval of this Conditional Use Permit does not grant approval for any commercial recreation business operations. 4. The proposed improvements will not impact the availability of parking for the existing multi-tenant professional business/office building and there will not be negative impacts to traffic flow on the surrounding road network. 5. The proposed fence and associated improvements will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. Page 158 of 186 May 24, 2024 Letter of Intent for Conditional Use Permit Application Location: Mendota Office Center 1270 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights MN 55120 Project Narrative: The owner of the Mendota Office Center (6 total buildings) is proposing to build two pickleball courts which will be an amenity solely for the use of the Mendota Office Center tenants. These pickleball courts will be in the southwest corner of the existing parking lot where I-494 borders the south of the property and the neighboring industrial building to the West. The pickleball court coating will be applied directly onto the existing asphalt surface and will have no impact on the parking lot drainage or grade. All existing landscaping and trees will remain intact as well as the parking lot lighting. The pickleball courts will cause a minor reduction in parking spots as shown in the site plan but there is an abundant amount of remaining parking spots adjacent to and surrounding the property as well as clear lanes for vehicular traffic. We intend to install 10 foot tall black vinyl coated chain link fencing around the perimeter of the pickleball courts as well as a gate with a keypad lock restricting access only to the tenants of this property. The 10 foot tall fence is what is typical for any residential tennis courts. We are applying for this conditional use permit for approval of the desired 10 foot tall fencing in lieu of the standard 6 foot tall fencing We feel this tenant amenity will not only help retain current tenants and businesses but also attract new businesses to lease office space with an amenity rich property in the city of Mendota Heights. Thank you for your consideration, Cushman & Wakefield Agents of MSP SLP Apartments, LLC n the city of Mendota He Page 159 of 186 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666 6 6 6666666666666 666 6 6 66666666 6666666666666666666666 6666 666666666666666666666666!!!!!!³! " " """ " " "" " " "³"³" ! ³ ³ ! ³³ ³ *!! ³ "" " " " " "" "" " ! " "! " " " " * " *! **³³ ³³" " * ³³!* !* "³³³ !!* * ³³ ³" ! " ³ ³* ****³ ³ ³ ³ *" ! "³ ****³³ ! ³ ³ ³ ³ ³³³ ³³³ ³ ! !6666666666666666FM FM FM FM FM FM F M 66NORTHLAND DR INTERSTATE 494 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD ENTERPRISE DREXECUTIVE DRINTE RSTATE 494 EB RAMP PILOT KNOB RD RAMP INTERSTATE 35E RAMPINTERSTATE 494 This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the purpose of direct commercial benefit or gain. By Location Aerial Map 1270 Northland Drive Date: 6/19/2024 City of Mendota Heights0 310 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 160 of 186 NORTHLAND DRIVE(A Public R/W)INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 494(A Public R/W)(Width Varies)Existing BuildingExisting BuildingPID:274830004100Address: 1295 Northland DriveOwner: MSP SLP Apartments LLCPID:274830004090Address: 1285 Northland DriveOwner: MSP SLP Apartments LLCPID:274830004080Address: UnassignedOwner: MSP SLP Apartments LLCPID:274830004071Address: 1255 Northland DriveOwner: American Registry of Radiologic TechPID:274844801010Address: 1312 Northland DriveOwner: Mendota Heights Industrial LLCPID:274844601010Address: 1270 Northland DrivePID:274844501040Address: 1250 Northland DriveOwner: MSP SLP Apartments LLCN89°51'59"E 486.23S00°08'01"E 656.57S89°21'21"W 400.93N82°32'06"W 87.78N00°00'58"E 648.54Found 1/2 Inch Iron PipeW/ Cap No. 16456Found 1/2 Inch Iron PipeW/ Cap No. 8612Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 Inch Iron PipeW/ Cap No. 15480[16] Drainage & Utility Easement perMENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER &MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2ND ADDITION[17] NSP Co. Pipeline EasementPer Doc. No. 678657Found 1/2 Inch Iron PipeW/ Illegible CapExisting 3 Story Brick BuildingWith Underground GarageFoundation Area = 31,217 Sq. Ft. +/-Existing BuildingExisting BuildingGen.StepsStepsStepsGarageAccess89.9134.70.85.638.25.80.890.890.0130.836.05.738.15.935.8174.9PondSignSignAccessAccessVentVentTrash Enclosure18104111421463838441355822164118159109222222221535226SignRip-RapRip-RapRip-RapBituminousParking LotBituminousParking LotBituminousParking LotBituminousParking LotBituminousParking Lot12" RCP12" RCP18" RCP18" R C P 12" PVC18" RCP15" RCP15"RCP15"RCP15"RCP12" RCP18" RCP18"RCP30" RCP30" RCP24" RCP15" RCP18" RCP15" RCP12" PVC18"RCP8" DI (Per Rec.)8" DI (Per Rec.)8" DI(Per Rec.)6" DI(Per Rec.)8" DI (Per Rec.)12" DI (Per Rec.)12" DI (Per Rec.)12" PVC12" PVCWat. Serv.(Per Rec.)Gas Line (Approx. Per Rec.)Chain Link FenceVICINITY MAPMendota Office Center1270 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota 551201000 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 200, Wayzata, MN 55391Mohagen Hansen ArchitecturePROJECTPROJECT NO.: 24280COPYRIGHT 2024 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cREVISION SUMMARYDATE DESCRIPTIONV1.0ALTA/NSPS LANDTITLE SURVEY............N44565RORY L. SYNSTELIENLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY,PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ANDTHAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.5-24-2024NCLIENTcivilsitegroup.comQA/QCFIELD CREWDRAWN BYREVIEWED BYUPDATED BYDH/CK/HS/BS/TK/VKCJRS.OVERHEAD UTILITIESGASMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERFIBER/COMM. LINEELECTRIC LINE (RECORD)WATERMAINELECTRIC LINEGASMAIN (RECORD)CHAINLINK FENCE LINELinetype & Symbol Legend CONCRETE SURFACEPAVER SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEGRAVEL/LANDSCAPE SURFACEIRON FENCE LINEGUARDRAILWATERMAIN (RECORD)SANITARY SEWER (RECORD)STORM SEWER (RECORD)FIBER/COMM. LINE (RECORD)TELEPHONE LINE (RECORD)TELEPHONE LINESIGNSANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLECABLE TV BOXTELEPHONE MANHOLEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE BOXTRAFFIC SIGNALGAS METERELECTRICAL METERWATER MANHOLEWATER VALVEAIR CONDITIONERBOLLARDCATCH BASINELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS VALVEFLAG POLEHANDICAP SYMBOLFOUND IRON MONUMENTHYDRANTCAST IRON MONUMENTSET OR TO BE SET IRON MONUMENTFLARED END SECTIONPOWER POLEUTILITY MANHOLEGUY WIRECONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREEROOF DRAINSEWER CLEAN OUTFIRE CONNECTIONWELLUTILITY VAULTPOST INDICATOR VALVEGAS MANHOLEHAND HOLEFIBER/COMM. MANHOLEMAIL BOXFUEL TANKELECTRICAL OUTLETSB SOIL BORINGLIGHT POLEACCESS RESTRICTIONWOODEN FENCE LINEDESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDLot 1, Block 1, Mendota Technology Center 2nd Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota.Please note that the herein referenced title commitment contains other parcels not included in this survey. The subject property isreferenced as Parcel 2 in said title commitment.GENERAL SURVEY NOTES1. Bearings are based on the Dakota County Coordinate System (1986 Adjustment).2. Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is top nut of the fire hydrant located approximately 90 feetnortheasterly of the southeast corner of the subject property. Elevation = 901.34.3. We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from thefollowing sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and otherappropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities for this site. However, lackingexcavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additionalor more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonalconditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property.ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY NOTES(numbered per Table A)1. Monuments placed and/or found at all major corners of the boundary of the surveyed property as shown hereon.2. Site Address: 1270 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 551203. This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood InsuranceRate Map, Community Panel No. 27037C0081E, effective date of December 2, 2011.4. The Gross land area is 320,330 +/- square feet or 7.354 +/- acres.7. (a) Exterior dimensions of buildings at ground level as shown hereon.(b)(1) Square footage of exterior footprint of buildings at ground level as shown hereon.8. Substantial features observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork as shown hereon. Please note that seasonal conditionsmay inhibit our ability to visibly observed all site features located on the subject property.9. The number of striped parking stalls on this site are as follows: 496 Regular + 13 Handicap = 509 Total Parking Stalls.13. The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtained from the DakotaCounty Interactive Property Map.SURVEY REPORT1. This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commercial Partners Title,LLC as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, File No. 40292, dated May 26, 2015.We note the following with regards to Schedule B II Exceptions of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a. Item no.'s 1-15, 20-22 are not survey related or relevant to this parcel.b. The following are numbered per the referenced Title Commitment:[16]. Easement for utilities and drainage as shown on the recorded plats of Mendota Heights Industrial Park, MendotaTechnology Center, Mendota Technology Center 2nd Addition and Mendota Technology Center 3rd Addition. Wehave shown hereon the drainage and utility easements as shown on Mendota Technology Center andMendota Technology Center 2nd Addition along the northerly portion of the subject property.[17]. Pipeline Easement dated October 25, 1984, filed February 13, 1985, as Document No. 678657.(Parcels 1, 2, 4, and 5)Pipeline easement is shown hereon along the southerly 50 feet of the subject property.18. Pipeline Easement filed October 30, 1941, in Book 49, Page 333. As affected by Modification and Amendment ofEasement Grant dated December 28, 1959, filed as Document No. 280103. (Parcels 1, 2, 4, and 5)We have not been provided with said documents. Unable to depict hereon.19. Rights of Access taken in Final Certificate filed February 14, 1985, as Document No. 678733. (Parcels 1, 2, 4, and 5)We have not been provided with said documents. Unable to depict hereon.ALTA CERTIFICATIONTo: Mendota Heights Industrial LLC:This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum StandardDetail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2,3, 4, 6(a), 7(a), 7(b)(1), 8, 9, and 13 of Table A thereof.The fieldwork was completed on 5-23-2024.Dated this 24th day of May, 2024.________________________________________________________Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565rory@civilsitegroup.com80204002040SCALE IN FEETPage 161 of 186 EDEKdK&&/EdZWZKWK^W/<>>>DE/dzDEKd,/',d^͕DEϬϱͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϰWZKWK^W/<>>>DE/dzKE/d/KE>h^WZD/dWW>/d/KEϱͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϰDEKdK&&/EdZϭϮϳϬEKZd,>EZ/sDEKd,/',d^͕DEϱϱϭϮϬWZ>/͗ϮϳͲϰϴϰϰϲͲϬϭͲϬϭϬϳ͘ϯϱZ^͕ϯϮϬ͕ϯϮϵ^&&/E/^,^Y&d͗ϭϭϳ͕ϬϮϳ^&͕K&&/EKh/>/E'DK/&/d/KE^KE/E'͗//Eh^dZ/>WZKWK^WZK:d͗ZDKsWWZKy/DdϭϱWZ</E'^W^/E^Khd,t^dKZEZK&>KdE;ϮͿW/<>>>KhZd^t/d,ϭϬ&d,/',,/E>/E<&E/E't/d,^hZ'd^^͘d,/^WZKWK^DE/dzt/>>h^zdEEd^KE>z͘WZK:ddD͗h/>/E'KtEZ͗h^,DEt<&/>D/d,^Dh>^KE͕WZK:dDE'ZϵϱϮͲϴϵϯͲϴϴϮϴŵŝƚĐŚĞůů͘ƐĂŵƵĞůƐŽŶΛĐƵƐŚǁĂŬĞ͘ĐŽŵZ,/dd͗DK,'E,E^EZ,/ddhZͮ/EdZ/KZ^Z/^:K,E^KE͕WZK:dDE'ZϵϱϮͲϰϮϲͲϳϰϭϮĐũŽŚŶƐŽŶΛŵŽŚĂŐĞŶŚĂŶƐĞŶ͘ĐŽŵZW>EWZKWK^W/<>>>KhZd>Kd/KEPage 162 of 186 ϮϬΖͲϬΗϯϮΖͲϬΗϭϮϬΖͲϬΗϴϬΖͲϬΗ>/D/d^K&KE^dZhd/KEWZKWK^W/<>>>KhZd^;ϮͿdKd>ZK&KE^dZhd/KE͗ϱ͕ϳϲϮ^Y&dEDEKdK&&/EdZWZKWK^W/<>>>DE/dzDEKd,/',d^͕DEϬϱͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϰ^/dW>E^>͗ϭΗсϴϬΖϴϬΖϭϲϬΖϰϬΖϬPage 163 of 186 *DV/LQH $SSUR[3HU5HF *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 *8 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& 7& “%LWXPLQRXV3DUNLQJ/RW%/2&.3,13,1&5$%2$.2$.99KhZdηϭKhZdηϮϮϬΖͲϬΗϯϮΖͲϬΗϭϮϬΖͲϬΗ>/D/d^K&KE^dZhd/KE>K<^^'dϭϬΖͲϬΗ,/',,/E>/E<&EͲ><ϰΖͲϬΗ,/',,/E>/E<&EͲ><y/^d/E'WZ</E'WK>>/',d>Kd/KEEDEKdK&&/EdZWZKWK^W/<>>>DE/dzDEKd,/',d^͕DEϬϱͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϰE>Z'^/dW>E WZ</E'Wd,/'ZD^>͗ϭΗсϯϬΖϯϬΖ ϲϬΖϭϱΖϬWZKWK^W/<>>>KhZd>Kd/KEPage 164 of 186 EDEKdK&&/EdZWZKWK^W/<>>>DE/dzDEKd,/',d^͕DEϬϱͬϮϴͬϮϬϮϰ&Ed/>^EWZK:dEKd^&Ed/>͗WZKs/EtϭϬΖͲϬΗ><s/Ez>Kd,/E>/E<&Z/&E/E't/d,;ϭͿϯΖt/^/E'>'dWE>͘'dWE>dK^hZt/d,Ζ>K<zh^Ͳ ^hDK'>Ϯ^hZ&DKhEd'd>K<t/d,>K^Z͘&EWK^d^^d/EKE͘&KKd/E'^z&E^hWW>/ZWZKs/ϰΖͲϬΗ><s/Ez>Kd,/E>/E<&Z/&E/E'dtEKhZd^͘WZKWK^&EWZK:dEKd^͗y/^d/E'/dhD/EKh^^hZ&dKZD/Ed,ZKh',KhdZK&WZKWK^KhZd^͖Z^hZ&y/^d/E'/dhD/EKh^^hZ&dKK^hZy/^d/E'WZ</E'^dZ/WW/E'͘W/EdEtW/<>>>W>z^hZ&KEy/^d/E'/dhD/EKh^^hZ&WZKWK^;ϮͿW/<>>>KhZd^͘Page 165 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 1 of 14 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:June 25, 2024 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2024-12 VARIANCE APPLICANT:Bolton and Menk (on behalf of St. Thomas Academy) PROPERTY ADDRESS:949 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One-Family Residential/P/S-Public/Semi-Public ACTION DEADLINE:July 27, 2024 (60-Day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Bolton & Menk, acting on behalf of Saint Thomas Academy (STA) is requesting certain variance approvals in order to construct new baseball field improvements at STA’s campus, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road. The variances would allow a new covered batting cage structure and new covered spectator seating structure to exceed the maximum number, height, and overall size standards for structures within the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to property owners within 350 feet from the property. As of the submittal of this report, the city has not received any public comments related to this item. BACKGROUND The school campus property consists of eight separate parcels, totaling 88.5 +/- acres (according to Dakota County/GIS records). The campus is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is considered a permitted use under said district. The Convent of the Visitation sits directly to the east across Lake Drive, and Rogers Lake to the north provides ample buffers to nearby residential areas. I-494 lies to the south, with Patterson Dental offices to the immediate west of the campus and baseball field. Major and indirect access and traffic to the campus comes from Dodd Road to the east Page 166 of 186 4d. Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 2 of 14 and Highway 55 to the west; with direct access and local traffic from Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive to the south and east sides of the campus, respectively. In 1994, the city approved a conditional use permit (CUP) and variances for the press box and stadium bleacher structure improvements at the football field facility, which also included four (4) new light towers. The CUP/variance allowed the press box (atop the bleachers section) not to exceed 16-feet in height, and the four light towers not to exceed 70-feet in overall height. Later that same year STA received approval of another CUP to construct a main entrance ticket booth and concessions building, a small ticket booth along MH Road, and a screening structure for outdoor facilities. There also appears to be two additional accessory structures located on the south side of the football field. In 2020, the City approved a Variance request for improvements to the press box and bleacher structures on the west side of the baseball field, as well as a height Variance for new exterior lighting poles. These improvements were never completed. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The existing baseball field sits near the southwest corner of the main campus site, and is located between Patterson Dental to the west, Mendota Heights Road to the south, and STA Cadets Football Field to the east (see image- below). The baseball facility contains temporary bleachers set-up along the north and west sides of the back- stop/fencing, with player dug-outs on each end, and Page 167 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 3 of 14 a large batting cage area next to the field. The existing batting cage area is proposed to be removed as part of this request. The proposed improvements include the addition of a new covered batting cage facility and a spectator pavilion north of the existing Varsity Baseball Field. Both new structures are proposed as “shade structures” and will be comprised of steel I-beams with metal roofs, but without walls. The proposed work also includes the relocation of the north bull pen, and the inclusion of stairs to connect the baseball field to the (upper) batting cage area. (see image – right) The applicant is proposing to replace and build a new covered batting cage area, which will measure 24’4” tall and be 3,093 square feet in size. The new batting cage area will be setback 35’ from the west property line. The second structure proposed is a multi-purpose covered structure, with space below for spectator seating and pavilion/plaza area. The structure will be 21’7” tall and measure at 1,562 square feet in size. The proposed structure for the spectator area will be setback 42.39-ft from the west property line. ANALYSIS City Code requires structures in the R-1 One Family District must not exceed 25-ft. in measured height. Accessory structures however, are limited to a height of 15-ft., and must be setback at least 5-ft. or -10-ft. from property lines, and are limited to certain numbers and size(s), depending on the area of the property. For parcels 4+ acres, a property can have up to three (3) accessory structures not to exceed 425-sq. ft. of total structure area, and no single structure can exceed 225- sf. in size. The proposed structures are both designed as a shade structure, or covered canopy. They contain a roof but do not contain any walls. In the case of the proposed batting cage, the structure will be enclosed by a fence. The City’s definition of Structure includes “Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground, or attached to something having a location on the ground. This shall include signs and fences”. The two improvements noted in this request can both be considered structures, though they may not be an accessory building in built form with which to easily apply the City Code for height and size requirements. The proposed batting cage structure is noted as an 38’8” W x 80’ L (3,093 sq.ft) shade structure, with a peak height of 24’4”. The covered batting cage is proposed to be setback 35-ft from the west property line and will be situated north of the existing batting cage area and field, with an installation of new stairs to access this area up the slope behind the baseball field. The canopy Page 168 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 5 of 14 over the spectator pavilion and plaza is noted as 24’5” W x 64’ L (1,562 sq.ft). with a peak height of 21’7”. The spectator pavilion is proposed to be 42.39-ft in distance from the west property line, and the structure would extend over a portion of seating and bleacher area, as well as an open plaza area for flexible space. The overall number, size, and height of these structures requires a variance from the strict application of City Code, however the proposed setbacks of the structures from their nearest point to the west property line is consistent with the allowable setbacks for accessory structures within the ordinance and consistent with the built form and prior approvals on the site. There is also a proposed new bull pen area north of the spectator seating which is shown on the plan. This improvement is not proposed to be covered by a shade structure, and has not been included into the applicant’s request. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted in the application letter-narrative from AJA, dated April 2, 2020 (included in the attachments and noted below in italic text). 1. Are there any practical difficulties that support the granting of the Variance? Applicant’s Response: The property, specifically the varsity baseball field, has supported St. Thomas Academy’s baseball needs for decades. The proposed covered batting cage and spectator Page 169 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 6 of 14 pavilion improvements will maintain the general character and use of the facility and will provide the school the ability to continue to use the facility safely and consistent with other on- campus uses as well as other neighboring schools. The proposed improvements are not based on economic considerations. Staff’s Response: The use of the property as a private (parochial) school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a school, even with the proposed field improvements can be viewed as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in other planning application requests made with other local school sites, the City of Mendota Heights has approved similar variances for bleacher and spectator seating structures, due to the general acceptance that a school site such as STA (and others) function more like an institutional/campus use, rather than a typical “single-family residential” use in this R-1 District. The underlying zoning of R-1 is not organized in such a way as to address specific development standards for its institutional uses which can be a barrier to schools and similar uses who intent to make improvements to their facilities. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The natural topography, specifically north of the baseball field, provides for limited space for spectator views, hence the need and desire for the spectator pavilion. These unique circumstances were not created by the School. Staff’s Response: The plight of the landowner (STA) and restrictions on certain structure heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Due to the long-term location of the school at this site, its limited effect on the surrounding uses, and its overall function as an institutional use in a residential zoning district, gives added weight to creating or supporting this practical difficulty argument on the unique situation of the property. Site and development standards reserved for typical single–family uses do not compare or should necessarily apply to such larger, school [institutional] uses. Staff believes there are circumstances unique to the subject property that lend support to granting this variance. In addition to the uniqueness of the property’s zoning use characteristics, the applicant has noted that the specific request to enhance the seating area north of the existing baseball field comes from the natural topography of the area where this field is located. The provided Grading Plan and Existing Conditions Survey illustrate a change in grade north of the existing baseball facility. There is a change in grade which immediately begins at the northeast corner of the existing dugout. This slope lends support to the suggestion that a non-structured seating area would provide limited space for visitors and spectators at the baseball field. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: St. Thomas Academy proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances and the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. If granted, the proposed Page 170 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 7 of 14 variances will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. Staff’s Response: STA’s desire to reconstruct and make these field improvements for the overall use and enjoyment of its student athletes and spectators appears very reasonable. The new batting cage area, as well as the updates to the spectator seating will be nice improvements to the existing high school baseball field facilities, and the fact these improvements are still within or near the height limits already established by the school’s football field facility today, makes the requested variance for heights justifiable and even reasonable in this case. The proposed size of the two covered structures is also not comparable to the size of an accessory building or outbuilding on the property, as the proposal is for an outdoor amenity which meets the definition of a structure, but does not contain walls to enclose the proposed improvements. The variances requested in this case should therefore be considered a reasonable request and an appropriate means to allowing the continued and successful use of this property The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community. There is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. Staff believes the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered by the granting of this variance. 4. Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicants have indicated “the proposed improvements are not based on economic consideration.” When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations into account alone should not be the sole reason for either denying – or approving a variance. In this particular case, STA is simply providing an added benefit for the use and enjoyment of its student athletes, parents, spectators, and visitors to the field; and these improvements are likely to be an expensive project. These improvements are not meant serve as a means of generating added revenue from the baseball program, but a desire to increase its function and provide an asset to the students that participate in the baseball program or would attend a baseball game. The Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and reasonable justifications for requesting this variance. b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that the requested improvement plans for the subject property as requested by the Applicant, are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of school [or institutional] uses in the R-1 One Family Residential District. Page 171 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 8 of 14 The subject property is designated P/S-Public/Semi-Public in the current 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below which may lend support in the granting of this Variance: 2040 Land Use Plan Goal #2, Policy 2: The City will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. 2040 Land Use Plan Goal #2, Policy 5: Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow. The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for supporting school improvements and development in the community. The requested variance appears to meet these goals and policy statements established under the comprehensive plans for the community; and will provide an opportunity for substantial investment to the existing school use, and will enhance the overall use and enjoyment by the school and its student athletes. The proposed improvements should pose no threat or any adverse effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. These new field improvements and requested variance can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Variance request, based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on revised findings-of-fact and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; or 3. Table the request and request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN Statue. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Variances, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1.The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for all new structures identified herein, including any fence permits for the other associated improvements. Page 172 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 9 of 14 2.Any public addressing/speaker system used on this baseball field must be centered or focused directly on to the baseball field or the bleacher/spectator stands. No speakers or noise shall be directed towards the neighboring businesses or residential uses to the north and east of the school. 3.The Applicant shall not deviate from the site plan under this application review; nor increase any accessory structure numbers, area (footprint), or height without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any special application review process. 4.Any and all grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5.Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variances are approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for construction of the proposed improvements within one-year from said approval date. If after one year no work has commenced, the approval shall expire. The Applicant may request an additional extension (to be determined by the City Council) if needed within one year of expiration. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Letter of Intent 3. Variance Response Form 4. C1.00 Existing Conditions Site Plan 5. C2.00 Site Finishing Plan 6. C3.00 Grading Plan 7. C4.00 Preliminary Details 8. Exhibit 1 – Covered Batting Cage 9. Exhibit 2 – Spectator Pavilion/Plaza 10. Structure Renderings Page 173 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 0 of 14 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance for 949 Mendota Heights Road Planning Case No. 2024-12 1.The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-1, as it relates to allowing additional over-sized accessory structures with an increased peak height in the R-1 One Family Residential District. 2.The City Code’s accessory structure standards for residential districts causes a practical difficulty for a school use in this district, due to the overall size, scale and historical nature of the school at the subject location. 3.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use functions more like an institutional use rather than a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of these variances. 4.The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that similar athletic field improvements and related accessory structures can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. 5.The scale and scope of the variances needed to approve the number, sizes and heights of the proposed accessory structures, including the new spectator pavilion and batting cage area are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented herein. Z 6.The Applicant has proven a reasonable justification and demonstrated a practical difficulty in this case for granting of these variances presented herein. 7.The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variances on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has Page 174 of 186 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA) Page 14 of 14 determined this Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. 8.Approval of the Variances noted herein are for Saint Thomas Academy (949 Mendota heights Road) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. Page 175 of 186    May 28, 2024 Sarah Madden Community Development Manager City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 email: smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov Re: LETTER OF INTENT – Planning Application (Variance) St. Thomas Academy Baseball Field Improvements 949 Mendota Heights Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Ms. Madden, We are pleased to provide the enclosed information related to the Baseball Field Improvements proposed at St. Thomas Academy. We are submitting the Planning Application today in hopes of appearing in front of the June 25 th Planning Commission. The work proposed at St. Thomas Academy, specifically related to the VARIANCES requested, includes adding a covered batting cage facility and a spectator pavilion north of the existing Varsity Baseball Field. Each shade structure will be comprised of steel I-beams with metal roofs (no walls). Proposed work also includes relocation of the north bull pen, and stairs to connect the baseball field to the (upper) batting cage area. The use and general character of the property will not change. We have included plans with this cover letter and application to illustrate and detail the height and character of the proposed batting cage and a spectator pavilion. We provide the following related to the variances required for the covered batting cage facility and spectator pavilion. x The property, and more specifically the varsity baseball field, has supported St. Thomas Academy’s baseball needs for decades- the proposed improvements will maintain the general character and use of the facility. x The covered batting cage facility and spectator pavilion will provide the school the ability to continue to use the facility safely and consistent with other on-campus uses as well as other neighboring schools. x These unique circumstances were not created by the School. Page 176 of 186 ǣ̴̳̳ʹͶͳ͵ͶͻͶ͵ͲͲͲ̳ͷ̴‡”‹–•̳ͷ̴‹–›̳ƒ•‡„ƒŽŽƒ”‹ƒ…‡‘˜‡”‡––‡”–‘‹–›̴ͷǦʹͺǦʹͲʹͶǤ†‘…š  x The proposed improvements are not based on economic considerations. x St. Thomas Academy proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances and comprehensive plan. x The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the property or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. x If granted, the proposed variances will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. St. Thomas Academy intends to construct the improvements later this Summer, 2024. Construction would begin in late-July and be complete by late-October. We trust the above and enclosed information is clear and comprehensive and satisfies your needs. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Jay R. Pomeroy Principal Landscape Architect Cc: Ann McQuillan – St. Thomas Academy Paul Aplikowski- Wold Architects & Engineers Katelyn Chambers - Wold Architects & Engineers Attachments: Planning Application, signed Variance Application Checklist & Response Form Two Plan Sets (22”x34”, folded) of Proposed Improvements Rendered sketches illustrating covered batting cage facility and spectator pavilion Page 177 of 186 66 66 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6666666 666 66666666666666666666 66 66 666666 666 6 66 666666666666" "!!" "³³³ "*³" " " ""! """" ""³* "" !" * """ " " ³ ³ ³ ³ ³³³ ³ ! ! ** ! ! " ³³³³ ³ * " "" * " ³* ** ** "³ ³³ " " " " * * " " " " " """ " " ! * "*" ! !! ! ³ ³"!!*"³³ ³³" *666666 666 FM FM FM FM6666666666LAKE DRMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD INT E R S T A T E 3 5 E N B R A M P INT E R S T A T E 3 5 E S B R A M P This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the purpose of direct commercial benefit or gain. By Location Aerial Map 949 Mendota Heights Road Date: 6/19/2024 City of Mendota Heights0 340 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 178 of 186 Page 179 of 186 X X X The property, specifically the varsity baseball field, has supported St. Thomas Academy’s baseball needs for decades. The proposed covered batting cage and spectator pavilion improvements will maintain the general character and use of the facility and will provide the school the ability to continue to use the facility safely and consistent with other on-campus uses as well as other neighboring schools. The proposed improvements are not based on economic considerations. The natural topography, specifically north of the baseball field, provides for limited space for spectator views, hence the need and desire for the spectator pavilion. These unique circumstances were not created by the School. St. Thomas Academy proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City’s ordinances and the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. If granted, the proposed variances will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties. 882.4882.9882.8882.4882.1882.7882.6881.9882.2882.7883.0882.9883.2883.2883.4883.3883.4883.6883.8883.4883.2883.2882.9882.1881.0882.3882.7883.1883.0883.5883.5883.4883.5883.5883.6883.5883.3883.1883.0882.7882.2881.6882.1882.5883.0883.1883.2883.4883.3883.2883.1883.2883.0883.1883.3883.3883.1882.9882.4881.9881.7881.8882.4883.2883.2883.2883.0882.9882.9883.0882.7882.7883.0882.9883.2883.1882.9881.9881.5881.8882.6882.8882.8882.6882.6882.6882.4882.2882.1882.2882.0889.3889.0892.1893.9894.5894.9895.2895.4895.8895.8895.2895.1894.6889.1891.1894.5894.7894.9895.6896.0895.7895.3894.9894.7894.1893.9891.1894.9895.1895.7895.9895.5894.9894.7894.5894.0893.2888.3887.8891.0892.2893.1894.0894.5894.9895.3895.5895.7895.3895.0894.9894.8894.3893.8892.8889.8887.3883.5883.6887.5891.0892.9893.9894.4894.5894.5894.0893.7894.0891.1887.5885.5883.2883.0883.0884.5885.5886.5888.1888.9882.1882.1882.9883.0883.0883.0883.0882.9882.9882.9883.0883.1883.1883.1883.1883.0883.1883.2883.1883.1882.9882.9883.4882.9883.0883.0882.9882.2882.7883.0883.1883.2882.9882.4882.4883.3883.5883.4883.9884.0883.6888.2885.8890.8891.0886.6886.6891.3891.7886.8886.8891.3886.8883.3881.9881.6881.9882.0882.1881.6881.6882.2882.2882.3882.3882.3882.7895.0894.5894.1892.2892.3893.0894.1894.3894.6894.8884.0883.8883.6882.0881.6881.2880.6880.2879.7879.3878.9878.4878.0877.4877.0876.6876.1875.6875.1874.7874.3873.9873.6875.7879.1878.9878.9878.9878.2877.8878.2879.1879.8878.8878.5877.4876.1879.4879.7879.6878.6880.3880.4880.5880.5880.6880.8881.1881.7881.9882.0880.6880.3880.5880.1879.8879.3879.6880.7880.9883.9882.8882.6882.8882.8882.7881.5881.4882.1882.1881.9881.8881.9882.1881.9881.7881.8882.1882.3882.1882.0881.6881.7881.8882.7881.2880.3880.4880.0879.7879.4879.0878.7878.5878.8879.0879.6879.9880.5880.2879.5880.4877.9878.5878.9879.1879.5879.8880.7879.7879.2878.8878.6878.1877.6877.5878.0878.5879.0879.3880.0881.9882.2880.1878.9878.3877.9877.6876.7877.3878.4879.8882.3877.6875.2AIS883.8883.8883.8883.4883.3883.2883.3 883.3 883.3 883.3883.2883.3883.2883.2883.3883.4883.6882.1881.6881.6881.8881.9882.6882.6882.2881.6881.2881.2881.1881.2881.2881.3881.5881.8882.1882.4882.8882.9882.9882.8882.7883.1883.1883.0881.4873.9874.0874.2874.2874.6874.6874.9874.7875.4875.4876.0875.8876.2876.5877.0876.6877.2877.6877.9877.4878.0878.5878.8878.4879.0879.2879.8879.3879.8880.2880.5880.3880.6881.0881.4881.0881.8882.2882.5882.3882.75"BIR882.85"BIR893.4BIRDHOUSE883.5892.6BOULDER883.2SIGN883.0882.9882.9883.0883.0883.0883.0883.0 883.0 883.0882.9882.9882.9883.0883.0883.0883.0882.9883.0883.0883.0883.0882.9883.0882.9883.0883.0883.0883.1883.0883.1883.0883.0882.9882.7882.2882.2883.9883.4883.4883.4883.5882.1882.6882.7882.8882.9880.7880.8883.8883.6883.3CBOX882.1882.2881.9881.5881.4881.6881.3881.6881.4881.1881.1881.2881.1881.0881.3881.6881.4881.3881.7881.9881.9882.3882.6883.1882.5882.7882.9883.1883.6882.9883.0883.3883.2883.1883.0882.6882.4887.4892.5894.1894.3894.5894.3894.1891.3888.3892.4892.7892.8892.9893.0885.0885.2884.7884.1882.4882.7883.1883.2883.3883.5883.8883.5883.6883.5874.4875.2876.2876.5876.4876.4877.9878.6879.0879.9881.0881.6881.7881.8883.2880.5CMH883.1COL882.3COL883.1COL883.3883.2881.8882.0883.1DUGOUTEB883.0883.3883.3EO883.6EO882.2FOUL POLE882.1FOUL POLE882.2GATE881.1GATE881.2883.1883.2GATE894.1GATE886.9886.6GATE 895.1GLP894.9GLPGLP883.9883.9884.0882.5882.1 882.0881.5881.3881.2881.2881.7881.6881.3881.2881.3882.4882.3882.3881.7881.7881.6881.5881.7881.9884.1 887.8889.5888.8887.1884.3 883.9883.4883.4883.5881.1HCR 881.6HCR882.5HCR881.0HHCHYD883.1HYDLP878.3LP875.4LP882.9LP884.06"MPL883.15"MPL882.66"MPL883.222"MPL883.119"MPL882.421"MPL882.320"MPL883.219"MPL883.319"MPL882.94"MPL881.814"MPL882.8882.9882.8882.9882.9882.8882.8882.8882.9882.8882.8882.5NPS882.3OD882.5ODPKSPKSPKSPKS882.2PKS882.4PKSPKS882.7882.8882.7883.3883.4883.4883.4883.3883.4882.6882.2882.5883.3883.0883.7883.7883.7883.4883.2883.4882.5882.3882.7882.5882.4882.6883.5883.3880.4881.0881.6881.7882.0883.1882.9882.0881.9882.4882.3883.3RM883.4RM883.6RM883.9RM883.8RM883.8RM883.6RM883.5RM883.4RM883.3RM883.2RM883.2RM883.2RM883.3RM883.4RM883.3RM883.3RM883.2RM883.3RM883.3RM883.2RM882.9RM882.9RM883.0RM 883.0RM 883.0RM883.0RM883.0RM883.1RM883.0RM882.9RM883.0RM883.0RM883.0RM883.0RM883.2RM883.3RM882.5SCOREBOARD882.9881.1SCOREBOARD881.1883.0SPB882.4SPB882.3SPB883.1SPB883.1SPB883.0SPBSPB882.1SPB894.0SPBSPB894.1SPB883.4SPG18"SPR18"SPR18"SPR18"SPR18"SPR18"SPR873.5TC873.8 TC874.1TC874.5TC875.1TC875.6 TC876.0TC876.4TC876.9 TC877.3TC877.6TC877.9TC878.3TC878.7 TC879.2TC879.7TC880.1TC880.9TC881.1TC881.8TC882.1TC882.7TC882.5TC882.2TC881.7TC881.7TC882.0 TC883.8 TC883.4TC883.1TC882.8TC882.7TC882.8TC882.7TC882.6TC882.6TC882.7TC883.0TC882.7TC882.6TC882.5TC882.7TC882.8TC882.9TC883.2TC883.1TC883.0TC883.0TC883.0TC883.3TC883.4TC883.5TC883.4TC882.7TC882.6TC882.4TC882.4TC882.5TC882.6TC882.9TC882.7TC882.6TC882.8TC882.9TC883.1TC882.4TC882.2TC882.2TC882.1TC882.0TC881.9TC882.1TC882.4TC882.1TC881.7TC881.7TC881.7TC882.1TC882.4TC882.4TC882.1TC882.0TC881.6TC881.8TC882.1TC882.4TC882.8TC882.7TC882.5TC882.6TC882.0TC881.2TC880.7TC883.1TC883.0TC882.8TC882.6TC882.4TC882.6TC883.2TC884.4TC882.5TC882.3TC882.6TC882.7TC883.0TC883.3TC883.3TC883.0TC882.9TC883.0TC883.1TC883.1TC883.2 TC883.6 TCTCS880.6880.4881.1881.4881.0880.7884.316-5"TR874.96-5"TR875.310-6"TR875.912-8"TR875.812-4"TR879.99"TR880.512"TR879.713"TR878.910"TR878.522"TR877.510-7"TR878.713-6"TR879.011-6"TR882.85"TR883.05"TR883.25"TR883.45"TR882.55"TR882.45"TR883.35"TR883.15"TR881.817"TR882.322"TR883.020"TR882.418"TR883.520"TR877.610"TR875.515"TR877.415"TR882.810"TR881.6TRANS880.0WV875.6WV883.2WV883.6883.9884.2884.28 FT. CHAINLINK FENCE5 FT. CHAINLINK FENCEG R A V E LG R A V E L8 FT. CHAINLINK FENCENETNET8 FT. CHAINLINK FENCETOP=INV=SAN882.1873.6TOP=INV=SAN882.1870.3TOP=INV=CB880.0876.2TOPCB879 9TOP=INV=SMH880.3874.9(N)INV=874.7(E)INV=876.0(S)TOP=INV=CB877.3872.6TOP=CB877.2TOP=INV=SMH877.5872.3(N)INV=871.8(W)INV=870.1(E)INV=873.1(S)TOP=INV=CB881.3878.5TOP=INV=CB881.1877.7(N&W)INV=877.9(SW&S)TOP=INV=SMH882.7879.0(W&NE)BOTTOM=878.5TOP=INV=CB881.0876.4(NW)INV=877.8(SW)INV=876.6(S)TOP=INV=CB882.0876.712 FT. CHAINLINK FENCE8 FT. CHAINLINK FENCEB I T U M I N O U SB I T U M I N O U SB I T U M I N O U SB I T U M I N O U SB I T U M I N O U SBITUMINOUS PATHBITUMINOUS PATHBITUMINOUS PATHG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SLAG R A S SG R A S SGRAV EL T R A C KT R A C KG R A S SBITUMINOUSFOOTBALL FIELDCONCRETECONCRETEBITUMINOUSBITUMI N O US CONCRETE6 FT. CHAINLINK FENCEHYD4 FT. CHAINLINK FENCE6.006.00WEST LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SEC. 35 ANDEAST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PATTERSON COMPANIESADDITION1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE7.27'25.00'SHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2024, All Rights ReservedcN:\Proposals\Wold\St. Thomas Academy\Baseball\5-22.2024 Covered Batting and Seating\PRJT_Variance.dwg 6/13/2024 3:42:52 PMDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FOR DATENO.ST. THOMAS ACADEMYST. THOMAS BASEBALL IMPROVEMENTSJRPCCAJRP24X.1349430001 Variance 06/13/24DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.23543 05/28/20243300 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH, SUITE 300PLYMOUTH, MN 55447Phone: (763) 544-7129Email: Plymouth@bolton-menk.comwww.bolton-menk.comC1.00EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (SURVEY)PRELIMINARY DRAFTCITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALFEETSCALE0HORZ.4080R1. REFER TO SHEET C0.00, TITLE SHEET, FOR GENERAL NOTES.NOTESLOCATION MAP - ST. THOMAS ACADEMYAREA OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSPage 180 of 186 8 FTLINK12 FT. CHALINK FENCB I T U M I N O U SB I T U M I N O U SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SCONCRETE6 FT. CHAINLINK FENCE6.0035.00'42.39'64.00'24.50'PROPOSED COVEREDBATTING CAGEPROPOSEDSPECTATORPAVILION/ PLAZAEXISTING BASEBALL FIELDPROPOSEDBULLPENPROPOSEDSTEPS38.50'12" WIDERETAINING WALLSHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2024, All Rights ReservedcN:\Proposals\Wold\St. Thomas Academy\Baseball\5-22.2024 Covered Batting and Seating\PRJT_Variance.dwg 6/13/2024 3:42:53 PMDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FOR DATENO.ST. THOMAS ACADEMYST. THOMAS BASEBALL IMPROVEMENTSJRPCCAJRP24X.1349430001 Variance 06/13/24DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.23543 05/28/20243300 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH, SUITE 300PLYMOUTH, MN 55447Phone: (763) 544-7129Email: Plymouth@bolton-menk.comwww.bolton-menk.comPRELIMINARY DRAFTCITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALC2.00SITE FINISHING PLAN45.00'90.00'1. REFER TO SHEET C0.00, TITLE SHEET, FOR GENERAL NOTES.2. ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE OF FENCE OR EDGE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS, WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED OR RECEIVE AGLIME, SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6” OFTOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED.5. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, RE-SEED ALLAPPLICABLE AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER OR LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.NOTESFEETSCALE0HORZ.2040RCOVERED BATTING CAGE:x24'-4" HIGH x 38'-8" W x 80' LxSHADE STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 35' EAST OF WEST PROPERTY LINE.SPECTATOR PAVILIONx21'-7" HIGH x 24'-5" W x 64' LxSHADE STRUCTURE TO BE SETBACK 42.39' EAST OF WEST PROPERTY LINE.SIZES OF SHADE STRUCTURES- SEE SHEETS EXH 1 AND 2Page 181 of 186 882.4882.9882.8882.4882.1882.7882.6881.9882.2882.7883.0882.9883.2883.2883.4883.3883.4883.6883.8883.4883.2883.2882.9894.5894.9895.2895.4895.8895.8895.2895.1894.6889.1891.1894.5894.7894.9895.6896.0895.7895.3894.9894.7895.1895.7895.9895.5894.9894.7894.5894.0893.2888.3887.8891.0892.2893.1894.0894.5894.9895.3895.5895.7895.3895.0894.9894.8894.3893.8892.8889.8887.3883.5883.6887.5891.0892.9893.9894.4894.5894.5894.0893.7894.0891.1887.5885.5883.2883.0883.0884.5885.5886.5888.1888.9882.1882.1891.3886883895.0894.5894.1892.2884.0883.8883.6882.7881.5881.8882.1882.3882.1882.0881.6881.7881.8882.7882.75"BIR882.85"BIR883.5883.9883.4883.4883.4883.5882.6882.7882.8882.9883.8883.6883.3881.9882.3882.6883.1882.5882.7882.9883.1883.6882.9883.0883.3882.887.4892.5894.1894.3885.0885.2884.7884.1882.4882.7883.1883.5883.8883.5883.6883.5883.2883.1DUGOUTEO883.6EO895.1GLP894.9GLP884.0882.588883.4883.4883.5882.5HCR883.1HYD883.15"MPL882.66"MPL883.222"MPL883.119"MPL882.421"MPL882.320"MPL883.219"MPL883.319"MPL882.94"MPL882.5NPSPKSPKS882.2PKS882.4PKS882.7882.8882.7883.3883.43.4883.4882.5880.4881.0881.6881.7882.0883.1882.9882.0881.9882.4882.3883.0SPB882.4SPB882.3SPB883.4SPG882.5TC882.9TC882.7TC882.6TC882.8TC882.9TC883.1TC881.7TC882.1TC882.4TC882.4TC882.1TC882.0TC881.6TC881.8TC882.1TC882.4TC882.8TC882.7TC882.5TC882.6TC882.0TC881.2TC883.1TC883.0TC882.8TC882.6TC882.4TC882.6TC883.2TC884.4TC882.5TC882.3TC882.6TC882.7TC883.0TC883.3TC883.3TC883.0TC882.9TC883.0TC883.1TC883.1TC883.2TC883.6 TC883.35"TR883.15"TR881.817"TR882.322"TR883.020"TR882.418"TR883.520"TR883.2WV883.6883.9884.2884.28 FTLINKTOP=INV=CB881.1877.7(N&W)INV=877.9(SW&S)TOP=INV=SMH882.7879.0(W&NE)BOTTOM=878.5TOP=INV=CB881.0876.4(NW)INV=877.8(SW)INV=876.6(S)12 FT. CHALINK FENCB I T U M I N O U SB I T U M I N O U SG R A S SG R A S SG R A S SCONCRETE6 FT. CHAINLINK FENCE6.00>>>>>>>>>><<<<> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE1" X 12" FLAT TILE88395.495.094.093.683.683.093.783.783.083.5 MESHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2024, All Rights ReservedcN:\Proposals\Wold\St. Thomas Academy\Baseball\5-22.2024 Covered Batting and Seating\PRJT_Variance.dwg 6/13/2024 3:42:54 PMDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FOR DATENO.ST. THOMAS ACADEMYST. THOMAS BASEBALL IMPROVEMENTSJRPCCAJRP24X.1349430001 Variance 06/13/24DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.23543 05/28/20243300 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH, SUITE 300PLYMOUTH, MN 55447Phone: (763) 544-7129Email: Plymouth@bolton-menk.comwww.bolton-menk.comPRELIMINARY DRAFTCITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALC3.00GRADING PLAN1. REFER TO SHEET C0.00, TITLE SHEET, FOR GENERAL NOTES.NOTESFEETSCALE0HORZ.2040R893895.1REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D. NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONME = MATCH EXISTINGLEGEND1C4.00Page 182 of 186 SHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2024, All Rights ReservedcN:\Proposals\Wold\St. Thomas Academy\Baseball\5-22.2024 Covered Batting and Seating\PRJT_Variance.dwg 6/13/2024 3:42:54 PMDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FOR DATENO.ST. THOMAS ACADEMYST. THOMAS BASEBALL IMPROVEMENTSJRPCCAJRP24X.1349430001 Variance 06/13/24DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.23543 05/28/20243300 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH, SUITE 300PLYMOUTH, MN 55447Phone: (763) 544-7129Email: Plymouth@bolton-menk.comwww.bolton-menk.comPRELIMINARY DRAFTCITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALC4.00DETAILSNORMAL USEPOSTS:(IF USED WITHOUTSUPPORT FENCE) WOOD2" SQ. (MIN)@ 4' (MAX)SPACING METAL0.95 lbs/lf (MIN.) @ 6'(MAX) SPACINGDIRECTION OFRUNOFF FLOWNOTE:DEPENDING UPON CONFIGURATION, ATTACH TO WIRE MESH WITHHOG RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH TIE WIRES, OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES6" MIN.6" MIN.24" MIN. BURY DEPTH (METAL)18" MIN BURY DEPTH (WOOD)30" MIN.1C4.00SILT FENCENOT TO SCALE5' MIN. LENGTH POST (METAL)4' MIN. LENGTH POST (WOOD)SILT FENCE FABRICOVERLAP FABRIC 6" ANDFASTEN @ 2' INTERVALSEXTEND WIRE MESH INTO TRENCHFABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH BACKFILLWITH TAMPED NATURAL SOILNATURAL SOILMETAL STAKE ORWOOD POSTOPTIONAL SUPPORTFENCE (WIRE MESH)NOTE:PROVIDE WHERE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ENTERS OR EXITS THE CONSTRUCTION SITE50' MINIMUMAS REQUIRED2C4.00ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCENOT TO SCALEEXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMAINPROPERTY/R.O.W. LINE2" TO 3" WASHED ROCKGEOTEXTILE FABRIC6" MINIMUM THICKNESSHEIGHT VARIES REFER TO PLANNOTES:1. END, CORNER, AND PULL POSTS SHALL BE 4". LINEPOSTS SHALL BE 278".2. ALL FENCING SHALL RECEIVE 2" x 2" #9 GAUGEFABRIC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3. LINE POSTS MAY BE AIR DRIVEN.4. POST SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 10' O.C.5. BOTTOM RAIL SHALL BE PLACED NO MORE THAN2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.6"CHAIN LINK FENCE WITHMAINTENANCE STRIP5C4.00NOT TO SCALEC4.006158" TOP RAILCHAIN LINK FENCE158" BOTTOM RAILFINISH GRADECONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIPCONCRETE FOOTING 12" x 48"FOR END, CORNER, GATE, ANDPULL POSTS2" MIN.PROVIDE 2% CROSS SLOPE (MAX)REFER TO GRADING PLAN FORDIRECTIONDOWNHILLSIDEUPHILLSIDE1''CONCRETE WALK4C4.00NOT TO SCALEWALK WIDTH AS LABELED ON PLAN4" CONCRETE WALK4" SAND BASE ORSTABILIZED AGGREGATEBASETURFGRASS FLUSH WITH TOP OF WALKPREPARED SUBGRADETURFGRASS RECESSED 1" BELOW WALK SURFACENOTE:PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINT AND CAULK SEALANT AT ALL WALK, BUILDING, AND STOOP JOINTS.FLOW2' O.C.MAX.FLOWFLOWSTAKE DETAILINSTALLATION DETAIL3C4.00SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGNOT TO SCALESEDIMENT CONTROL LOGSTAKE TO BE PLACED AT TOEOF SLOPE, BOTH SIDESWOOD STAKE DRIVENAT 45°ANGLEBOTTOM OF SWALEWOOD STAKE TOPENETRATE NETTINGMATERIAL ONLYSEDIMENT CONTROL LOGPLACE LOG IN ASHALLOW TRENCH15"4"3"2"PLANSECTIONCONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIP6C4.00NOT TO SCALE12" RADIUS(TYPICAL)FINISH GRADE OF MAINTENANCE STRIP SHALL BE ONEINCH ABOVE TURFGRASS AND FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT(2) #4 REBAR1" DEPTH CONSTRUCTION JOINTCOMPACTED SUBGRADE1'' DEPTH CONSTRUCTION JOINT AT EACHPOST AND AT MIDPOINT BETWEEN POSTSPOST(2) #4 REBARTOPSOIL 1'' BELOW CONCRETENOTE:PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN GATE POST AND GATE SUCH THAT GATE IS IN LINE WITH FENCINGWHEN FULLY CLOSED AND LATCHED.GATE LATCH7C4.00NOT TO SCALE112" LONG HANDLE(ONE ON EACH SIDEOF LATCH)LATCH RECEIVER(ONE EACH SIDEOF LATCH)LATCH ARM (ONE ONEACH SIDE OF GATE)LATCH HINGESECURE LATCH TO GATEPROVIDE MECHANISM TO ALLOWGATE TO BE SECURED WITHPAD LOCKSECURE LATCHRECEIVER TO GATEGATE LATCHCLAMP SECUREDTO GATE POSTLIFT HANDLELATCHLIFT HANDLE RECEIVERPROVIDE HOLE THROUGH LIFTHANDLE AND RECEIVER TOACCOMMODATE PAD LOCK(PAD LOCK BY OWNER)LIFT HANDLERECEIVER CLAMPSECURED TO GATEPOSTSINGLE SWING GATE LATCHDOUBLE SWING GATE LATCH1'-0"1'-4"1'-6"1'-0"1'-3"6"CONCRETE LANDINGSAND BASEBE 1-1/2" O.D. STD. PIPEWELD AND GRINDSMOOTH JOINTSCAULKED EXPANSION JOINT#4 CONTINUOUS REBAR (TYP)8" SAND BASESLOPE DOWN @ 1/4" PER TREADSECTION VIEWPLAN VIEWEXPANSION JOINTHANDRAIL4" TO CENTEROF HANDRAIL7'-2" CENTER OFHANDRAIL TOCENTER OFHANDRAILNOTES:1. VERIFY ELEVATIONS IN FIELD.2. HANDRAIL TO CONFORM TO ADA AND STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING ACCESSSURVEY STANDARDS.3. HAND RAIL SHALL RECEIVE 2 COATS OF PRIMER AND 2 COATS OF FINISH COLOR ASAPPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.1'-4"1'-6"8' - 0"2'1'-0"2 #4 REBAR (TYP)#4 REBAR 16" O.C. EACH WAY (TYP)6" (TYP)3'-0"3'-0"SECTION VIEW7' - 2"PREPARED SUBGRADETREAD REINFORCEMENT#3 REBAR CONTINUOUSNOSING BAR @ 16" O.C.CAST SLEEVE TORECIEVE HANDRAIL3/4" STAIR SETBACK (TYP)9C4.00PROPOSED STEPSNOT TO SCALEWALL BASESEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL8C4.00NOT TO SCALECONCRETEWALKRETAINING WALL CAP BLOCKSECURED WITH EXTERIORGRADE CONSTRUCTIONADHESIVEEXISTING SUBBASEMAX. ELEVATION CHANGE AT TOP OF WALL IS 4" -DOUBLE STACK CAP BLOCKS AS NECESSARY6" MINIMUMCOMPACTEDGRANULARBASEFINISH GRADEFREE DRAININGAGGREGATEDRAINTILE DAYLIGHT THROUGHFACE OF WALL AT MIDPOINTOF WALL LENGTHNOTE: WHERE WALLS EXIST, MATCH RETAINING WALL BLOCK TYPE AND STYLE.Page 183 of 186 SHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2024, All Rights ReservedcN:\Proposals\Wold\St. Thomas Academy\Baseball\5-22.2024 Covered Batting and Seating\PRJT_Variance.dwg 6/13/2024 3:42:55 PMDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FOR DATENO.ST. THOMAS ACADEMYST. THOMAS BASEBALL IMPROVEMENTSJRPCCAJRP24X.1349430001 Variance 06/13/24DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.23543 05/28/20243300 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH, SUITE 300PLYMOUTH, MN 55447Phone: (763) 544-7129Email: Plymouth@bolton-menk.comwww.bolton-menk.comPRELIMINARY DRAFTCITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALEXH 1COVERED BATTING CAGEating\PRJT_Variance.dwg6/13/2024 3:42:55 PMPRELIMINPage 184 of 186 SHEET Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2024, All Rights ReservedcN:\Proposals\Wold\St. Thomas Academy\Baseball\5-22.2024 Covered Batting and Seating\PRJT_Variance.dwg 6/13/2024 3:42:59 PMDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDCLIENT PROJ. NO.ISSUED FOR DATENO.ST. THOMAS ACADEMYST. THOMAS BASEBALL IMPROVEMENTSJRPCCAJRP24X.1349430001 Variance 06/13/24DATELIC. NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.23543 05/28/20243300 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH, SUITE 300PLYMOUTH, MN 55447Phone: (763) 544-7129Email: Plymouth@bolton-menk.comwww.bolton-menk.comPRELIMINARY DRAFTCITY VARIANCE SUBMITTALEXH 2SPECTATOR PAVILION/ PLAZAating\PRJT_Variance.dwg6/13/2024 3:42:59 PMPRELIMINPage 185 of 186 &?:LQGRZV?V\VWHP?FRQILJ?V\VWHPSURILOH?'RFXPHQWV?6W7KRPDVEDWWLQJPRGHOBILQDOBNFKDPEHUVUYW306W7KRPDV$FDGHP\%DWWLQJ&DJHV0D\&RPP1R5(1'(5,1*6$%$77,1*&$*(66($7,1*3$9,//,21BATTING CAGESSPECTATOR SEATING PAVILLIONPage 186 of 186