Loading...
2024-07-02 City Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 2, 2024 at 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5.Public Comments - for items not on the agenda Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up. 6.Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business. a. Approve Minutes from the June 18, 2024, City Council Meeting b. Approve Minutes from the June 18, 2024, City Council Work Session c. Acknowledge Minutes from the May 28, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting d. Resolution 2024-35 Authorizing an Application for the Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Program Page 1 of 312 e. Resolution 2024-36 Accepting a Donation for Body Armor for the Police Department f. Resolution 2024-37 Approving an Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with the Criminal Justice Network (CJN) g. Approve Police Captain Out of State Travel Request h. Accept Police Officer Resignation and Authorize Posting i. Approval of May 2024 Treasurer's Report j. Approval of Claims List 7.Presentations 8.Public Hearings a. Resolution 2024-34 Easement Vacation for Springman Addition 9.New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2024-39 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of Springman Addition (Planning Case No. 2024-10) b. Resolution 2024-40 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fence greater than 6-ft in height at 1270 Northland Drive (Planning Case No. 2024-11) c. Resolution 2024-41 Approving a Variance to allow new Accessory Structures at 949 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2024-12) d. Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates (Planning Case No. 2024-01) 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Meeting July 16 at 7:00PM Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on NDC4/Town Square Television Cable Channel 18/HD798 and online at TownSquare.TV/Webstreaming Page 2 of 312 6.a CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 18, 2024 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items E and G. a. Approval of June 4, 2024, City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the May 14, 2024, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Liquor License Renewals d. Resolution 2024-32 Approving Final Payment and Acceptance of the Rogers Lake Skate Park Improvements e. Approve Reappointment of Jay Miller and Hayley Heidelberg as Fire Captains for the Mendota Heights Fire Department f. Approve Police Officer Hire g. Accept Parks and Recreation Commissioner Resignation and Authorize the Advertisement of the Commission Opening Page 3 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 4 h. Resolution 2024-33 Approving an Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for 1935 Glenhill Road (Planning Case No. 2024-14) i. Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS E) APPROVE THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JAY MILLER AND HAYLEY HEIDELBERG AS FIRE CAPTAINS FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT Mayor Levine recognized the leadership of Captains Miller and Heidelberg and thanked them for their service. Mayor Levine moved to approve THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JAY MILLER AND HAYLEY HEIDELBERG AS FIRE CAPTAINS FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 G) ACCEPT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONER RESIGNATION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OPENING Mayor Levine recognized Tica Hanson for her service on the Commission. She stated that the City has not had a vacancy on a Commission in some time and encouraged residents interested in parks and/or recreation to apply for the vacant position. Mayor Levine moved to accept PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONER RESIGNATION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OPENING. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS A) Patrol Fleet Purchasing Program Police Chief Kelly McCarthy presented background information on this item explaining that the Council is asked to consider the purchase of seven patrol vehicles using public safety funds. Councilor Miller commented that he appreciated the due diligence in this program and expressed thanks for the guidance of Police Chief Kelly McCarthy. He recognized that it is not just what is done today that makes a positive impact, but what is done now that has an impact on the future. He stated that this makes sense financially and related to the retention of a high-quality police force. Page 4 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 4 Councilors Mazzitello and Lorberbaum echoed those thoughts. Police Chief Kelly McCarthy commented that they researched best practices and policies and have also looked into concerns of public perception of take-home fleet vehicles to address those. She stated that a fuel surcharge is incorporated based on where the officer lives. Mayor Levine commented that this is a very large project that has been undertaken with a lot of time. She provided details on the robust process that has occurred to support this major shift. She stated that when the City found out that the bonding request for the new police station is on hold, it became clear that this needs to happen. She provided context related to the inadequate changing room at the station and the ability this program provides for officers to dress at home and then get into their squad car and be on-duty. She also recognized that officers do not have a desk and their vehicle is their desk and therefore this at least provides space for the officers to make it their own rather than resetting that space for every shift. She thanked Police Chief Kelly McCarthy for her out of the box thinking and the analysis she was able to provide. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve the purchase of seven 2025 Ford Explorers with 150,000-mile, eight-year warranties for $347,913. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS No items scheduled. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper provided the final numbers from the Scott Patrick Memorial 5k, noting that there will be a memorial on July 30th. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that the lawns to legumes grant process has opened and anyone can apply to be reimbursed up to $400 for establishment of pollinator habitat in their yards. She commented that it is a competitive process, and more information can be found on Bluethumb.org. Page 5 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 4 Councilor Miller wished everyone the best on Juneteenth and midsummer. He provided details on a recent electrical fire call and thanked the quick response of the Police department, noting their arrival prior to the fire and their work to tape off the scene. Councilor Mazzitello commented that this past Saturday he and Councilor Lorberbaum hosted Coffee with Council and received input from a few residents. He encouraged residents to attend an upcoming Coffee with Council to share their thoughts. He commented that it is summer and reminded drivers that children are playing outside, and speeds should be slowed. He reminded residents to wear sunscreen and stay hydrated. He stated that the Emerson project is proposed to start next week. He commented that 41 years ago the United States celebrated a milestone when Sally Ride went into space as the first female astronaut. Mayor Levine commented on the recently recognized Juneteenth holiday which recognizes emancipation of slaves. She reminded the community of the Aspen House open forum next week. She also expressed condolences to the Minneapolis Police department and to the family of the officer who lost his life in response to a shooting. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 6 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page -1 6.b CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, June 18, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilmembers Lorberbaum, Mazzitello, Miller, and Paper were also present. Other in attendance were City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Park and Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. City Attorney Amy Schmidt arrived about 6:50 pm. I-35E VEGETATION REMOVAL Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reported that MnDOT had mowed vegetation along the I-35E corridor. Residents had reached out to the city regarding the vegetation removal and staff requested a response from MnDOT. MnDOT had sent a letter stating the work was done to improve sightlines, maintenance to repair collapsed drains, gain access to utility lines, and safety issues for workers and highway traffic. MNDOT reported that most of the vegetation removed was invasive buckthorn or honeysuckle. Vegetation from Highway 13 to 494 was mowed. The most impact for residents was from Eagle Ridge, around southbound 35E, to the westbound Highway 62 area. Public Works Director Ruzek reviewed options to improve the area that was mowed including a construction of a sound wall. MnDOT has stated that the area from Marie Avenue to Lexington Avenue is priority ranked 97 out of 172 sites for a noise wall. To install a noise wall, the city would need to commit 10% of the cost share (estimated at $500,000) at the time of application. MnDOT funds one wall per year. Applications for a noise wall have been approved up until 2029. Staff could begin applying for the noise barrier wall, if the Council so desired. Mr. Ruzek continued that there is a Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Program, which is a reimbursement program for communities to install landscaping. The program for Mendota Heights would need to be evaluated by MnDOT due to liability, safety and access issues related to the freeway. MnDOT would prepare a landscape plan for the City. The program reimburses the City for the plant material and not equipment or labor. Page 7 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page -2 Staff asked Council for direction on applying for either of the programs, discuss other ideas, or to see if they wanted more information. Discussion was held regarding the right-of-way in general, the noise barrier wall, and the Roadside Landscape Partnership Program. Mayor Levine suggested looking into a sound barrier product that had been used at Two Rivers High School that was put along a chain link fence. Mr. Ruzek said that MnDOT would need to give the City permission to install the product on their fence. The price of the product was discussed. Councilor Paper asked what area needed the most attention. Mr. Ruzek replied that most comments came from the Eagle Ridge Condo Association, Victoria Townhomes around to Summit Avenue. The view and the noise were the biggest concerns with the mowing of the vegetation. It was the consensus of the Council to seek a vegetative/landscape plan design from MnDOT and gather more information about the Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Program. Also, MnDOT should be asked if a sound barrier product could be installed on their fence, if so, a product should be researched as to cost and effectiveness. A resident in the audience asked if vines could be planted on their side of the right-of-way. Mr. Ruzek said if planted it would be done at their own risk as it is not city right-of-way. DODD ROAD TRAIL – WESLEY LANE TO MARIE AVENUE Mayor Levine commented that she had received an email from a resident inquiring about a trail on Dodd Road between Wesley Lane and Marie Avenue. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reported that staff were seeking direction on pursuing a trail connection along the east side of Dodd Road between Wesley Lane and Marie Avenue. Previous councils have reviewed the trail gap connection in 2018 and 2019. It had been determined at that time, that the trail gap was not desirable due to concerns raised by residents and logistical challenges with acquiring easements. He noted that should the council choose to move forward, staff would hire a consultant that has expertise in easement acquisitions to support the project. Cost estimates for the project have been updated by staff. The trail gap would be eligible for state aid funds. It is estimated that right-of-way acquisitions would cost about $70,000, trail construction costs about $470,000 and there would be indirect costs. The engineers’ estimate for the project is $600,000. This is more than what is in our state aid fund but would be feasible. MnDOT right-of-way requirements were discussed. Mr. Ruzek reported that the trail was previously designed, MnDOT requirements are still the same, and Dodd Road would be narrowed to reduce the impact to the property owners adjacent Dodd Road. MnDOT said they need 16 feet from the centerline to the curb line and if the trail was built, the city Page 8 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page -3 would move the curb line as narrow as possible. Storm-sewer would also need to be added which is a big expense for the project. There are four properties that easements would need to be acquired. Storm water design had not been part of the previous project plans. Councilor Miller commented he was in favor of a trail, but in the past, did not want to take property from the owners along Dodd Road. Councilor Paper expressed interested in a five-foot sidewalk as compared with the standard. Mr. Ruzek said putting in a sidewalk would set a precedent for the rest of the Dodd Road corridor. Councilor Miller stated that the way Dodd Road is platted makes it a challenge. The council discussed property owner property lines along Dodd Road and MnDOT right-of-way requirements, replacing vegetation on property owners’ property if a trail were to be built, and acquiring right-of way from property owners was discussed. Councilor Mazzitello stated that the City has a tradition of not acquiring right-of-way from property owners. Mayor Levine stated that the trail is needed as Dodd Road is a dangerous road and used by many walkers and bikers. It was the consensus that some kind of pedestrian connection was needed and research MnDOT’s standards for making the connection five feet wide. If the connection could be brought down to five feet, staff could start gathering information for project planning. Information will be brought back to a future work session. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE Community Development Manager Madden reported she would like feedback from the Council on the updated amended draft ordinance for the short-term rental ordinance. It has been updated from the May 21 work session discussion. A couple of public comments have been received regarding the short-term rental ordinance. Changes that were made provided by City Council comments included: Remove reference to the word “transient” when defining short-term rental guests Include a reference to the Building Code provisions when defining the standards for qualifications as a bedroom Remove the 5-night minimum stay requirement and replace with a restriction of no rental reservations more than 7 days per month (year-round) Remove underage children from being exempt in occupancy calculations Continue to limit the occupancy maximums to two person per bedroom, but add in a maximum number of bedrooms Page 9 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page -4 Increase the minimum age of a rental occupant/guest to 25 The new draft ordinance clarified the initial inspection language in the enforcement section Short-term rentals on cul-de-sacs were discussed because of the lack of on-street parking. The number of days for the stay at a short-term rental was discussed. The size/definition of the bedroom and number of occupants per bedroom were discussed. Councilor Mazzitello suggested adding to the ordinance a definition of a bedroom with the size of the bedroom being defined and the number of occupants would depend on the size of the bedroom. It was the consensus that there be a two-night minimum stay added to the ordinance. The maximum number of allowed occupants to be increased to 12 depending on the number of bedrooms with staff to figure out the math. Carbon monoxide and smoke detectors were discussed. The new ordinance would apply to all short- term rentals in the city when it is enacted. Violations versus complaints was discussed. City Administrator Jacobson reported that administrative citations would be discussed in the future by the Council. A short-term rental complaint that is confirmed and validated would be a violation against the license and would need to be addressed. The short-term license would be an annual license and have a specific renewal date each year. An updated version of the ordinance will be brought back for the Council to consider at a future workshop. IVY HILLS PARK – BASKETBALL COURT Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek reported that the contractor for the Emerson/Sylvandale project was looking for a site to store materials for the street construction project. Staff suggested it could be located by the half basketball court at Ivy Hills Park. The contractor asked if material could be kept there permanently if the low area was filled in (up to 3 feet) by the half basketball court. Director Ruzek reported that the court gets minimal use at this time and that staff would look to upgrade the facility to a full court in the future. The contractor would remove the concrete slab and build up the area at no cost. The City would need to install a new concrete slab which would cost about $40,000. Storm sewer would also be installed. There is no funding source for the work. The Parks and Recreation Commission priority list for park improvements was discussed. It was the consensus of the Council to have the area filled in and the City could install a new concrete slab in the future after some community engagement. Page 10 of 312 June 18, 2024, Mendota Heights Council Work Session Page -5 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Levine asked for a motion to adjourn, a motion was made by Councilmember Mazzitello. Mayor Levine adjourned the work session meeting at 6:53 pm. ATTEST:_______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor _______________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 11 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank May 28, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 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 12 of 312 6.c 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 13 of 312 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 14 of 312 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 15 of 312 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 16 of 312 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 17 of 312 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 18 of 312 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 19 of 312 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 20 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 6.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-35 Authorizing an Application for the Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Program ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2024-35 authorizing an application and primary contact for the MNDOT Community Roadside Landscape Partnership Program for plantings along I-35E southbound from Eagle Ridge Condominiums to Summit Avenue and Victoria Road. BACKGROUND: Mendota Heights City Council discussed options for improvements to the I-35E corridor at their workshop on June 18, 2024. The council directed staff to apply for the MnDOT Community Roadside Landscape Partnership. The partnership program will be a city led project with material costs being reimbursed by MnDOT, the city will be responsible for the labor. MnDOT will also provide the design work. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The city portion of this work is yet to be determined. Once plans are developed, the city will seek bids and identify the proposed funding source. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res 2024-35 Authorizing Application and Primary Contact Person for MNDOT Lanscape Partnership Victoria Road CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 21 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2024-35 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION AND PRIMARY CONTACT FOR MNDOT COMMUNITY ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights will act as the sponsoring unit for the project identified as the Victoria Road Landscaping Improvement on southbound I-35E and the off ramp to westbound Highway 62 to be conducted during the period of January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council hereby authorizes Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director, to apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council for the City of Mendota Heights authorizes an application to MNDOT Community Roadside Landscape Partnership for the Victoria Road Landscaping Improvements. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of July, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ___________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 22 of 312 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-36 Accepting a Donation for Body Armor for the Police Department ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2024-36 accepting a donation in the amount of $15,500.00 for body armor for the police department. BACKGROUND: The city auditor has advised that Minnesota State Statute 465.03 "Gifts to Municipalities" requires all donations be acknowledged by resolution. This memo meets Minnesota State Statutory requirements by having the City Council formally accept and recognize the gift. The Mendota Heights Police Department was contacted by a citizen wishing to make a $15,500.00 donation to the police department. The citizen requested the donation go towards the purchase of ceramic body armor for officers. The citizen making the donation wished not to be named. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: There is no budget impact. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2024-36 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 23 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-36 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATION FOR BODY ARMOR WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 "Gifts to Municipalities"; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wishes to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts a $15,500 donation from a citizen to the Police Department to purchase ceramic body armor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 24 of 312 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-37 Approving an Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with the Criminal Justice Network (CJN) ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Pass Resolution 2024-37 Approving an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Network. BACKGROUND: For over twenty years, Mendota Heights has been a member of a cooperative partnership that addresses the needs of criminal justice information, technology, and data transfer between the Mendota Heights Police Department and our criminal justice partners. This cooperative partnership, Criminal Justice Network, was under the purview of Dakota County until January 2022. In January 2022, Mendota Heights Resolution 2022-05 was passed approving a joint powers agreement establishing the Criminal Justice Network Board. Since that time, the Board has been working to advance the Criminal Justice Network through designing and building a record management system for its members and expanding to other governmental agencies. The First Amendment to the Criminal Justice Network Joint Powers Agreement adds the City of Plymouth to the Board and amends the annual budget funding structure. The details of this Amendment have been evaluated and approved by the Board. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Funding for the Criminal Justice Network is encompassed in the Police Department's budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2024-37 -CJN JPA Amendment 2. CJN JPA_with signature page Page 25 of 312 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 26 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-37 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE NETWORK JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.59, political subdivisions in the State of Minnesota are empowered to provide assistance to, and act in coordination with, other political subdivisions as deemed necessary to benefit the public; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights previously passed a Resolution entering into a Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Criminal Justice Network; and WHEREAS, the Board of the Criminal Justice Network desires to amend the initial agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights desires to support the Board and the Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights does hereby approve the First Amendment to the Criminal Justice Network Joint Powers Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this second day of July 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By_________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: By______________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 27 of 312 Dakota Contract # C0034292.1 Page 1 of 3 First Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Criminal Justice Network WHEREAS, effective on January 1, 2022, the County of Dakota, the City of Burnsville, the City of Farmington, the City of Hastings, the City of Inver Grove Heights, the City of Mendota Heights, the City of Rosemount, the City of South St. Paul, and the City of West St. Paul (“Initial Members”) entered into a five-year joint powers agreement (“Agreement”) forming the Criminal Justice Network, a MN joint powers organization, (“CJN” or “CJN Board”); and WHEREAS, the Initial Members desire to amend the Agreement to amend the CJN annual budget funding structure in fiscal year 2026 and correct a scrivener’s error in the Agreement to correctly reflect an Initial Term of five years; and WHEREAS, the Initial Members desire to amend the Agreement to add the City of Plymouth as a party to the Agreement and Member of the CJN Board, subject to the conditions contained herein; and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended at any time by agreement of all Members. ACCORDINGLY, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Initial Members and City of Plymouth agree to amend the Agreement (“First Amendment”) as follows: 1. Effective upon the last required signature to this First Amendment, the City of Plymouth is a Member of the CJN Board and a party to the Agreement, as amended herein, and accepts the terms and conditions thereof, including any conditions specific to the City of Plymouth. 2. Article 3 (Term and Effective Date) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “This Agreement is effective, and the joint powers entity is established, on January 1, 2022, referred to herein as the Effective Date, and shall continue until December 31, 2026, or until terminated as provided in Article 10 or as required by law or court order (“Initial Term”). 3. Article 8 (Budget and Financing) of the Agreement is amended as follows: 3.1. Section 8.3 paragraph B. of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “B. From the Date of Execution through the end of fiscal year 2025, the CJN annual budget (Total Membership Fees) will be comprised of a minimum of two funding components: Operations and Records Management System (RMS). Section 8.3. paragraphs C. and D. are only applicable through the end of fiscal year 2025 for the Initial Members. Beginning in fiscal year 2026, the CJN annual budget (Total Membership Fees) will be comprised of a minimum of two funding components: Operations and Future Development, as described in Section 8.3 paragraph G. Section 8.3 paragraphs C. and D. shall not apply to any Member after the beginning of fiscal year 2026. During the Initial Term, the County will contribute a fixed annual subsidy in the amount of $472,642.00, which shall constitute the County’s annual Total Membership Fees, except for Membership Fees assessed to the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office pursuant to this section. There will be no annual adjustment of the subsidy amount.” 3.2. New paragraph G. is added to Section 8.3 of the Agreement, as follows: “G. Beginning in fiscal year 2026, the Members shall contribute to the Operations fund and the Future Development fund as described herein. 1. The Members will contribute to the Operations fund as follows: (a) 50% of the budgetary formula will be based on the population of the geographical areas for which it provides law enforcement services. For fiscal year 2026, the population will be determined as of January 1, 2025. For purposes of this paragraph, the geographical area for which the Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement services means that area Page 28 of 312 Dakota Contract # C0034292.1 Page 2 of 3 outside the boundaries of all cities located within Dakota County, but includes the areas within certain city boundaries that are patrolled by the Sheriff’s Office; and (a) the other 50% of the budgetary formula will be based upon the proportional total number of the users determined as of January 1 of the previous fiscal year. 2. The Members will contribute a fixed annual amount of $3,500 for the Future Development Fund.” 3.4 New Section 8.9 is added to Article 8 of the Agreement, as follows: “8.9 City of Plymouth RMS Project Contribution. The City of Plymouth shall contribute Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) to the CJN Board toward the design and build of a new law enforcement records management system (“RMS Project”), which does not include any costs the City of Plymouth may incur for data conversion. The City of Plymouth will be responsible for this contribution as follows: A. The City of Plymouth will contribute 50% of the total invoices due from CJN for any contract related to the RMS Project, except for CJN Contract # DCA21380 with GTEL Advisors, LLC for database design and user interfaces. B. CJN commits to the City of Plymouth that the first contract related to the RMS Project for which the City of Plymouth will be required to contribute such funds will be entered into between CJN and GTEL Advisors LLC (“First Contract”), and that the RMS Project will include integration of computer aided dispatch and citation information for Hennepin County law enforcement agencies into the records management system. C. After the First Contract, the City of Plymouth will be required to contribute its 50% contribution for any CJN contract related to the RMS Project. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement or this First Amendment, the City of Plymouth is not obligated to contribute Membership Fees until January 1, 2026, or the go-live date of the records management system, whichever date is later.” 4. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in force and effect unless otherwise amended in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. In Witness Whereof, the Initial Members and City of Plymouth have executed this First Amendment to the Agreement on the dates indicated below. COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA By______________________________ Its ______________________________ Date ____________________________ Approved as to form ________________________________ Assistant County Attorney Date File No. KS-24-75 Page 29 of 312 Dakota Contract # C0034292.1 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By: ______________________________ Its: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________ Page 30 of 312 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Police Captain Out of State Travel Request ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Approve out-of-state travel for Captain Wegener to attend the International Chiefs of Police 2024 Conference in Boston, MA. BACKGROUND: City policy requires notification for out-of-state travel. By policy, the Council is also required to approve out-of-metro travel in excess of $1,000.00. Captain Wegener requested to attend the International Chiefs of Police 2024 Conference in Boston, MA. The travel dates for this conference are October 18-23, 2024. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Cost for the conference totals approximately $3,144.18. This includes conference fees, lodging, flight, and meals. Funding for this is available in the police department training budget. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 31 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Accept Police Officer Resignation and Authorize Posting ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief ACTION REQUEST: Accept the resignation of Police Officer Caleb Kittock and authorize staff to begin the recruitment process to fill the vacant position. BACKGROUND: Police Officer Caleb Kittock submitted a letter of resignation effective July 1, 2024. With Officer Kittock's resignation, the city will be looking to fill the vacant police officer position. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The vacant police officer position is a budged position. Given the competitive job market, staff is requesting that the hiring salary be posted with the full range plus benefits with the intent to hire between the year-one through year-three range of $77,002-$102,876 annually plus benefits. Actual hiring salary will be determined on the selected candidates’ qualifications and experience. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 32 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank Page 33 of 312 6.i This page is intentionally left blank Page 34 of 312 6.j Page 35 of 312 Page 36 of 312 Page 37 of 312 Page 38 of 312 Page 39 of 312 Page 40 of 312 Page 41 of 312 Page 42 of 312 Page 43 of 312 Page 44 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 8.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-34 Easement Vacation for Springman Addition ITEM TYPE: Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Hold proceedings for Resolution 2024-34, a public hearing on an easement vacation commenced by petition within the Somerset View plat. BACKGROUND: The city of Mendota Heights received a preliminary and final plat application for the Springman Addition at 1170 Dodd Road, which includes vacating drainage and utility easements within the underlying Somerset View plat. The drainage and utility easements were retained under resolution 2022-50 vacating Burr Oak Avenue (from Dorset Road to Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road, formerly Jefferson Highway)) and Somerset Road (from Mears Avenue to Burr Oak Avenue). The Springman Addition plat will dedicate new drainage and utility easements meeting the city code. Notices were sent to all properties within the Springman Addition plat and all properties within 350 feet of the property. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: This request is in conjunction with the Preliminary and Final Plat for the Springman Addition. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Res 2024-34 Springman Addition Easement Vacation 2. 2024_CityBaseMap_Somerset View Easement Vacation CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 45 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-34 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EASEMENT VACATION COMMENCED BY PETITION WHEREAS, The Somerset View plat, Dakota County, Minnesota was recorded in 1936 and identified dedicated right-of-way; and WHEREAS, The Mendota Heights City Council vacated Burr Oak Avenue (from Dorset Road to Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road formerly Jefferson Highway)) and Somerset Road (from Mears Avenue to Burr Oak Avenue) Somerset View, Dakota County, Minnesota under resolution 2022-50; and WHEREAS, a drainage and utility easement was retained over said vacated right-of-way under resolution 2022-50; and WHEREAS, The drainage and utility easements within the described area below and shown on the Springman Addition plat, Dakota County, Minnesota are no longer required for drainage and utility purposes. Dakota County Property Identification 27-71150-08-062 and 27-71150-04-061 Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 8; Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 7, and so much and such part of Lot 8, Block 7 described as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Lot 8, thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 8 a distance of 77.2 feet to a point in a line parallel and distant 86.93 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles from the Southeasterly line of Lot 7 in Block 7 and a Northeasterly production of said Southeasterly line; Thence Southwesterly along said last-mentioned parallel line a distance of 30 feet; thence Northwesterly at a deflection angle of 72° 12', a distance of 88.4 feet to a point in the Northwesterly line of said Lot 8; thence along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 8 along a curve to the right having a radius of 575 feet, a distance of 46.9 feet to the point of beginning; all in Somerset View Addition according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Dakota County, Minnesota. Together with all streets, alleys and highways vacated or to be vacated. Together with an easement for ingress and egress to and from Parcels 1 and 2 to Dodd Road over and across an existing driveway located upon that portion of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Somerset View (Addition), adjacent to and within 15 feet of the southwesterly line of Parcels 1 and 2, which easement shall run with the land. EXCEPT the following described parcels: PARCEL 1: Those parts of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Somerset View Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Dakota County, Minnesota, which lies northeasterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly line of said Lot 3 distant 139.00 feet southwesterly from the most northerly corner of said Lot 3; thence running southeasterly to a point on the southeasterly line of said Lot 1 distant 52.00 feet northeasterly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 1. Page 46 of 312 Page 2 of 3 PARCEL 2: That part of Lot 1, Block 8, Somerset View Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of Lot 1, distant 25 feet northeasterly from the most southerly corner of Lot 1; thence northeasterly 27 feet along said line to the most southerly corner of Parcel 1 described above, thence northwesterly along the southwesterly line of Parcel 1, 50 feet, thence southerly 52 feet more or less to the point of beginning. PARCEL 3: All of Lot 12, and that part of Lot 11, Block 7, Somerset View Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota, and those parts of vacated Somerset Road accruing to said Lots 11 and 12, lying northeasterly of the following described line. Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 12; thence South 55 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the southeasterly line of said Lots 11 and 12, a distance of 91.42 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 51 degrees 06 minutes 13 seconds West a distance of 204.35 feet to the centerline of said vacated Somerset Road, and said line there terminating. And All of Lot 12, and that part of Lot 11, Block 7, Somerset View Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota, and those parts of vacated Somerset Road accruing to said Lots 11 and 12, lying northeasterly of the following described line. Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 12; thence South 55 degrees 45 minutes 21 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the southeasterly line of said Lots 11 and 12, a distance of 91.42 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 51 degrees 06 minutes 13 seconds West a distance of 204.35 feet to the centerline of said vacated Somerset Road, and said line there terminating. Together with the vacated portion of Burr Oak Avenue lying adjacent to said Lot 12. And The Northwest Half of Lot 5, Block 4, and all of Lot 6, Block 4, Somerset View Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota, Together with vacated Burr Oak Avenue adjacent.; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on July 2, 2024 at the City Hall of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views for support or objections to the granting of said vacation. Page 47 of 312 Page 3 of 3 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the drainage and utility easements described above is in the best interest of the public and the City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the above described drainage and utility easements be and the same are hereby vacated. 3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this second day of July, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 48 of 312 DODD RDME AR S A VE DORS ET RD B E E B E A V E I V Y H I L L D R SOMERSET RDA S H L E Y L N Nearmap US Inc 11 22 11 22 Easement Vacation Somerset View Plat Date: 6/14/2024 City of Mendota Heights0150 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 49 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-39 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of Springman Addition (Planning Case No. 2024-10) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2024-39 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of a four-lot residential subdivision to be known as Springman Addition located at 1170 Dodd Road and 8 Beebe Avenue. BACKGROUND: The subject site consists of 5.09 acres between two parcels. 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. 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 combined with the existing 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 (Note: 1160 Dodd Road is not included within this subdivision). 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, including minimum frontage on a city street or road system. For the R-1 Zoning 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 exceed the total lot size minimum requirement with a range between .89 acres - 1.82 acres in size. The three proposed single family residential properties will have frontage on Dodd Road, each with the required minimum lot width of 100-ft. The remaining parcel will continue to maintain 155-ft of frontage on Beebe Avenue. The preliminary building pad sites provided by the applicant also indicate that the new homes can be constructed in compliance with the required minimum setbacks from each lot line. The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory Page 50 of 312 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. 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 2nd meeting, and a public hearing on the request will be held prior to the review of this Preliminary and Final Plat application. At the June 25, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and two members of the public spoke to the application to mention concerns with the speed on Dodd Road, and advocate for the developer to evaluate the drainage on the properties and request a neighborhood meeting to learn more information about the new homes from the developer. The applicant was also present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the Commissioners. The Planning Commission discussed the access to the three new residential lots from Dodd Road, which is managed by MnDOT, as well as the home products proposed and the removal of the arc of the existing driveway that served the former home. A copy of the 06/25/24 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the applicant met the conditions set forth in City Code Title 11: Subdivisions and voted unanimously (7-0) in support of the Preliminary and Final Plat request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2024-39 2. Existing and Proposed Parcel Boundaries 3. Planning Staff Report, with attachments 6-25-24 4. Excerpt from Draft/Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-25-24 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 51 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-39 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SPRINGMAN ADDITION LOCATED AT 1170 DODD ROAD AND 8 BEEBE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2024-10) WHEREAS, Steve Norton (the “Applicant”) submitted under Planning Application Case No. 2024-10, a request of a new subdivision plat to be titled Springman Addition, for the properties located at 1170 Dodd Road and 8 Beebe Avenue, identified as Parcel ID: 27-71150-08-062 and Parcel ID: 27- 71150-04-061 respectively (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential district; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of properties, provided the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the requested subdivision would create four (4) single family lots on the Subject Property resulting in three (3) new buildable single family lots, and which also provides for the dedication of new drainage and utility easements throughout the plat; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application request at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended 7-0 to approve the requested subdivision plat application on the Subject Property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2024-10 is hereby affirmed, and the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat of SPRINGMAN ADDITION may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Preliminary and Final Plat of SPRINGMAN ADDITION is hereby approved, 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 Page 52 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 Page 2 of 3 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 2nd day of July, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 53 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Page 54 of 312 Existing Parcel Boundaries: Proposed Parcel Boundaries: Page 55 of 312 Existing Parcel Boundaries: Proposed Parcel Boundaries (Sketched Estimate): 8 Beebe Avenue1170 Dodd Road 8 Beebe Avenue LOT LOTLOT Page 56 of 312 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 57 of 312 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 58 of 312 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 59 of 312 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 60 of 312 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 61 of 312 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 62 of 312 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 63 of 312 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 64 of 312  !%!!" !  $#(% # ! #( ##" 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 65 of 312 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 66 of 312 Page 67 of 312 Page 68 of 312 Page 69 of 312 Page 70 of 312 Page 71 of 312 Page 72 of 312 Page 73 of 312 Page 74 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/25/24 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C) PLANNING CASE 2024-10 STEVE NORTON (NORTON REALTY), 1170 DODD ROAD – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that 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 feet of the 1170 Dodd Road site as part of their property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one comment was received and included as part of the report. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel referenced an arch on the plat and asked if that is an existing driveway. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that was an existing driveway which has been demolished. Chair Field asked what would happen in MnDOT were to deny the access. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the lots require 100 feet of lot width on a City street and therefore that requirement would be met. She stated that access could be established in conjunction with the City and MnDOT. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that MnDOT could put limitations or qualifications on their approval, but access would be provided to Dodd Road. Steve Norton, applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Katz asked if the applicant has any concerns with access onto Dodd Road. Mr. Norton replied that he does not. Commissioner Stone asked if the plan would be to construct three homes, or whether they would plan to build twinhomes. Page 75 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mr. Norton commented that this is single-family zoning so these would be single-family homes. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Laurel Stokke, 571 Mears, she commented that Dodd Road has a high speed and perhaps this would be an opportunity to lower the speed around that corner. She also expressed concern with drainage as that area is very wet. Julie Gugin, 9 Dorset Road, suggested that MnDOT be consulted first rather than assuming what they will or will not allow. She also suggested that the developer host a small community meeting to have a conversation about the intent, what this will look like, and to provide an opportunity of what this could look like as this has been a longstanding vacant parcel. Mr. Norton commented that the intent is as outlined with three additional single-family homes, setback in parallel with 1160 Dodd Road. He commented that there would still be a substantial setback from the Dorset properties. He commented that Ms. Stokke would be the closest neighbor and they would ensure they have a proper drainage plan and have plans for erosion control during construction. He commented that two of the people building on the southerly lot are present tonight and they would be willing to have a meeting to discuss the plans. He commented that there will be homes on the northerly lots, but he is unsure as to when that would happen. Commissioner Katz asked if the area is designated as a wetland, noting that it is quite wet. Mr. Norton commented that the portion near Dodd Road is lower and therefore gets quite wet but is not designated as a wetland. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND 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 AND 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. Page 76 of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’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 AN/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. Further discussion: Commissioner Johnson asked if there is any concern with the 38 feet being a second access to 8 Bebe in the Code. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there is not something explicit about that in the current Code and Ordinances. She stated that there is a notice in the Comprehensive Plan about the intention to not allow flag lots, but this lot has suitable frontage on Bebe and therefore would not be considered a flag lot. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. Page 77 of 312 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-40 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a fence greater than 6-ft in height at 1270 Northland Drive (Planning Case No. 2024-11) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2024-40 approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a fence greater than 6-ft in height at 1270 Northland Drive. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the south side of Northland Drive and north of Interstate 494 and contains an existing multi-tenant office building. The site is one property and building within the Mendota Office Center (6 total buildings within the office development), and the subject site and adjacent properties on all sides are zoned and guided for Industrial uses. The property owner is intending to construct an outdoor sport court amenity for the use by the employees/tenants of the office center, which will be enclosed by a new 10-ft chain link fence. 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-ft high fence to enclose the sport court is permitted by CUP under Section 12-1D2-6 of the City Code, which would allow fences within Business and Industrial zones to exceed 6-ft 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. At the June 25, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held to consider the request for the CUP. No public comments or objections were received during the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the parking and access to the site and the fenced sport court area, as well as the need for signage to indicate that this amenity was not open and available to the public. A representative from the applicant team was present and spoke to the property owner’s plans to secure and enclose the sport court with signage in addition to Page 78 of 312 the fence height proposed. A copy of the 6/25/24 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) in support of the Conditional Use Permit request for a fence height of 10-ft, with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. The City Council may affirm the recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting Resolution No. 2024-40. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2024-40 Conditional Use Permit 2. Planning Staff Report, with attachments 6/25/24 3. Excerpt from Draft/Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6/25/24 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 79 of 312 Res. No. 2024-40 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-40 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FENCE GREATER THAN 6-FT IN HEIGHT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1270 NORTHLAND DRIVE PLANNING CASE 2024-11 WHEREAS, Cushman & Wakefield, (the Applicant and Owners’ representative of MSP SLP APARTMENTS LLC), requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under Planning Case No. 2024-11, which would allow a fence greater than 6-ft in height to be constructed at the property located at 1270 Northland Drive, and legally described on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and situated in the I-Industrial Zoning District, and WHEREAS, Title 12-1D2-6 of the City Code allows fences within Business and Industrial zones to exceed 6-ft in height by Conditional Use Permit, and the proposed 10-ft vinyl coated chain link fence requires these approvals; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this planning case item, whereby planning reports were presented and received by the commission, and comments from the applicant and public were allowed, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the request from Cushman & Wakefield for the CUP, which would allow the proposed 10-ft fence to be constructed and installed, located at 1270 Northland Drive, as proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2024-11, with certain conditions identified herein and specific findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2024-11 is hereby affirmed, and the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1270 Northland Drive is approved based on the following findings-of-fact. 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. Page 80 of 312 Res. No. 2024-40 Page | 2 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located at 1270 Northland Drive is hereby approved, with 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 81 of 312 Res. No. 2024-40 Page | 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1270 Northland Drive PIN: 27-48446-01-010 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2ND ADDITION. Page 82 of 312 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 83 of 312 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 84 of 312 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 85 of 312 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 86 of 312 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 87 of 312 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 88 of 312 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 Heights0310 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 89 of 312 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 90 of 312 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 91 of 312 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 92 of 312 *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>EWZ</E'Wd,/'ZD^>͗ϭΗсϯϬΖϯϬΖϲϬΖϭϱΖϬWZKWK^W/<>>>KhZd>Kd/KEPage 93 of 312 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 94 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/25/24 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B) PLANNING CASE 2024-11 CUSHMAN WAKEFIELD (MSP SLP APARTMENTS LLC), 1270 NORTHLAND DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the owner of 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the shared parking and access. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided additional details on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the shared parking and ingress and egress. She noted that each tenant has more than the required parking stalls for their use. Commissioner Katz asked if staff talked to the applicants about any required signage. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that they have had discussions about locking the gate with signage that the amenity is private. She stated that the applicants plan to use key card access. Dennis Meadows, applicant, commented that they were lucky enough to have a tenant choose this location over another location. He stated that they are having a hard time finding tenants and believe that this additional amenity would help to make their location more attractive. He commented that a six-foot fence would not be high enough for pickleball. He noted that the additional height would also make the space more secure. He confirmed that the amenity would be for their business campus, and they would have signage that the amenity is not available for the general public. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Page 95 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND 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-FOOT-TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTS APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10-FOOT-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. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. Page 96 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 9.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-41 Approving a Variance to allow new Accessory Structures at 949 Mendota Heights Road (Planning Case No. 2024-12) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2024-41 Approving a Variance to allow new accessory structures on the St. Thomas Academy campus property located at 949 Mendota Heights Road. BACKGROUND: 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 shade structure within the bleacher and seating area to exceed the maximum number, height, and overall size standards for structures within the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. The school campus property consists of eight separate parcels, totaling 88.5 +/- acres. The campus is located in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is considered a permitted use under said district. 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. 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 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 Page 97 of 312 1,562 square feet in size. The proposed structure for the spectator area will be setback 42.39-ft from the west property line. At the June 25, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented. A duly noticed public hearing was held, and no members of the public spoke to the application as part of the public hearing. The applicant’s representatives were in the audience, and were present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission discussed the proximity of the new batting cage structure to Rogers Lake and any plans for landscaping improvements. The applicant’s architect stated that they would continue to work with staff on additional landscaping that could be provided as part of the building permit process. A representative from St. Thomas Academy also confirmed for the Planning Commissioners that there had been a discussion and share of plan details with the neighboring Patterson Dental. A copy of the 06/25/24 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval of the Variance request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the applicant met the conditions set forth in City Code Title 12-1L-5: Variances and affirmed that 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. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) in support of the Variance request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2024-41 2. Planning Staff Report, with attachments 6-25-24 3. Excerpt from Draft/Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-25-24 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 98 of 312 Res. No 2024-41 Page | 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-41 RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ALL PART OF ST. THOMAS ACADAMEY’S BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD PLANNING CASE 2024-12 WHEREAS, Bolton and Menk (the Applicant and Owners’ representative of St. Thomas Academy) applied for a Variance to allow the construction of new accessory structures located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2024-12, and as legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, situated in the R-1 Single Family Residential District; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking approval of a number of Variance requests to allow a new covered batting cage structure to exceed the maximum height standard from 15-ft to 24-ft.4- inches, and size to approximately 3,093 sq. ft. in area, and a new shade canopy structure within the north seating and bleacher area to exceed the maximum height standard of accessory structures from 15-ft to 21-ft.7-inches, and size to approximately 1,562 sq. ft. in area, all proposed and presented under Planning Case No. 2024-12; and WHEREAS, Title 12-1L-5 of the City Code (Variances) allows for the Council to grant variances or certain modifications from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code, and impose conditions and safeguards with variances if so needed or granted; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Variance, and whereupon closing the hearing, recommended unanimously (7-0 vote) to approve the application for Variances on the subject property, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2024-12 is hereby affirmed, and the Variance requested for the property located at 949 Mendota Heights Road is approved based on the following findings-of-fact:. 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. Page 99 of 312 Res. No 2024-41 Page | 2 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. 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 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variance requested for the property located at 949 Mendota Heights Road is hereby approved, 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. 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 Page 100 of 312 Res. No 2024-41 Page | 3 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 101 of 312 Res. No 2024-41 Page | 4 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 949 Mendota Heights Road PIN: 27-03500-51-010 Legal Description: NE 1/ 4 OF SW 1/ 4 EX N 198 FT OF E 636 FT, SECTION 35 TWN 28 RANGE 23; DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA [Abstract Property] Page 102 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 1 of 10 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 103 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 2 of 10 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 104 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 3 of 10 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 105 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 4 of 10 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 106 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 5 of 10 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 107 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 6 of 10 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 108 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 7 of 10 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 109 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 8 of 10 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 110 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 9 of 10 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 111 of 312 Planning Case 2024-12 (949 Mendota Heights Rd - STA)Page 10 of 10 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 112 of 312    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 113 of 312 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 114 of 312 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 Heights0340 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information 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 115 of 312 Page 116 of 312 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.2354305/28/20243300 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 117 of 312 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.2354305/28/20243300 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 118 of 312 882.4882.9882.8882.4882.1882.7882.6881.9882.2882.7883.0882.9883.2883.2883.4883.3883.4883.6883.8883.4883.2883.2882.9894.5894.9895.2895.4895.8895.8895.2895.1894.6889.1891.1894.5894.7894.9895.6896.0895.7895.3894.9894.7895.1895.7895.9895.5894.9894.7894.5894.0893.2888.3887.8891.0892.2893.1894.0894.5894.9895.3895.5895.7895.3895.0894.9894.8894.3893.8892.8889.8887.3883.5883.6887.5891.0892.9893.9894.4894.5894.5894.0893.7894.0891.1887.5885.5883.2883.0883.0884.5885.5886.5888.1888.9882.1882.1891.3886883895.0894.5894.1892.2884.0883.8883.6882.7881.5881.8882.1882.3882.1882.0881.6881.7881.8882.7882.75"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.2354305/28/20243300 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 119 of 312 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.2354305/28/20243300 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 120 of 312 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.2354305/28/20243300 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 121 of 312 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.2354305/28/20243300 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 122 of 312 &?: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 123 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/25/24 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A) PLANNING CASE 2024-12 BOLTON AND MENK (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY), 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Bolton and Menk, acting on behalf of St. 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson referenced the elevation of the batting cage, which looks to be closer to Rogers Lake and asked for more information. Commissioner Petschel commented that the cage is well over 100 feet from Rogers Lake, estimating about 500 feet. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a plan for additional trees. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there is no proposed landscaping immediately adjacent to the batting cage. She stated that the information provided is what is required for this review and additional details may be required at the time of a building permit request. She stated that there were previously trees north of the baseball field that were proposed to be removed as part of the 2020 application and that was completed. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Paul Aplikowski, Wold Architects on behalf of the applicant, was presented to address any questions. Amy McQuillan, Director of Facilities at STA, thanked the Commission for considering the application. Page 124 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Johnson asked if any trees are planned to be planted as there were trees shown in the rendering. Mr. Aplikowski replied that was an effect of the rendering. He noted that they would work with City staff through the building permit process to ensure they are in compliance. Commissioner Katz asked if they have talked to Patterson about the plan. Ms. McQuillan commented that they have spoken with Patterson, shared their plan and no additional questions were raised. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND 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. 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 RECEIVEING 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 ACTIVITIES 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 Page 125 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 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. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. Page 126 of 312 9.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates (Planning Case No. 2024-01) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of a three-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels owned in common and generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. BACKGROUND: The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels. The primary property addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is a long, rectangular, unplatted parcel consisting of 10.06 acres, measuring 329.18-ft. in width along Delaware Avenue to the east. This parcel contains an existing single-family home. The remaining two parcels are known as Outlots A and B of Grappendorf Addition, which was approved in 1984. The two Outlots are situated at the end of Ridgewood Drive and consist of 4.5 acres (Outlot A) and 2 acres (Outlot B). Both outlots are vacant. In order to establish the required frontage for the two lots proposed which will not abut Delaware Avenue, 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. 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. Page 127 of 312 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 also proposing to dedicate the delineated wetland areas as drainage and utility easements on the Plat. 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. 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. 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. 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 will need to be approved under separate building permits for each lot. For the R-1A District, all new lots require a minimum of 125-ft. of lot width, or frontage, 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 is requesting that the City Council consider a phased approach to the installation of the public improvements, deferring various utility extensions until the time that a building permit is prepared to be submitted for the individual lots for a new single-family home, and deferring the construction of the full extension of the roadway to the new dedicated cul- de-sac at such time is required by the City, or until the proposed Lot 1 is further resubdivided to allow new residential lots. 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 was included in the staff report presented to the Planning Commission that the 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. The applicant is requesting that the City Council consider the phased and deferred installation of improvements associated with this Plat, as mentioned earlier in this report. The City Council should consider if the deferral of constructing the street improvements to a future development proposal or lot split is appropriate. A public hearing was first held on this application on March 26, 2024. Prior to the meeting, the applicant requested that the Commission table the application to its next available meeting in order to continue working with staff on the submission and review of the plans. A brief staff report was Page 128 of 312 presented, and the public hearing was opened and tabled to the April 30, 2024 meeting. While the public hearing was open, four residents spoke to the application and expressed concerns with the subdivision application and its potential to impact the nearby delineated wetlands, and also expressed concerns with the ability to construct a new home on the proposed Lot 3 of the Plat. At the April 30, 2024 meeting, the application was still being reviewed by staff and staff recommended further tabling of the request to s future meeting date, with required notices being published and mailed again. The tabled public hearing was then continued at the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, a full planning report was presented. The duly noticed public hearing was held, and six members of the public spoke to the application. An excerpt form the draft and unapproved Planning Commission minutes are included as an attachment to this report, as well as all of the written public comments received in relation to this application to date. The verbal comments provided regarding this application consisted primarily of resident concerns with the impacts of this subdivision on the existing delineated wetlands on the subject property, as well as concerns with the visual impact of the resulting two new residential structures that could be added if the subdivision request were approved. Additional concerns were brought up by nearby residents regarding the extension of the Ridgewood Drive right-of-way, with concerns with both the visual and wetland impacts, as well as the deferred construction of this right-of-way which is dedicated on paper. Two nearby residents expressed that they were not generally opposed to the subdivision request, but would like the City to continue to evaluate how their nearby properties would be able to further subdivide, and for utility connections to be made available. The applicant was also present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the Commissioners. During the public hearing comments and the discussion of the Planning Commission, an additional condition was recommended to be added which would direct the applicant to coordinate in providing an additional easement for future utility purposes to extend to the north property line. The Planning Commission discussed extensively the topic of the applicant’s request to defer the construction of the street improvements for the extended cul-de-sac within the proposed dedicated right-of-way. Planning Commissioner Corbett stated concerns with an indefinite deferral and would prefer to see the applicant commit to an installation date, as the proposed right-of-way is needed in order for the application to meet the zoning requirements for the lot width of an R-1A parcel. Commissioner Stone agreed and noted that he would support further tabling the request to address neighborhood resident issues with the proposal, or a recommendation for denial if there was no further ability to table the application. A copy of the 06/25/24 planning report with attachments and an excerpt from the unapproved minutes are attached to this memo. As noted in the attachment, staff recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat request. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the applicant met the conditions set forth in City Code Title 11: Subdivisions and voted 5-2 (Corbett and Stone against) in support of the Preliminary and Final Plat request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, as outlined in the attached [draft] Resolution. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable Page 129 of 312 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2024-38 2. Existing and Proposed Parcel Boundaries 3. Planning Staff Report, with attachments 6-25-24 4. Public Comment Addendum to 6-25-24 Staff Report 5. Excerpt from Draft/Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 6-25-24 6. Additional Public Comment Received CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 130 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-38 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF MCMILLAN ESTATES LOCATED AT 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE AND THE ADJACENT VACANT OUTLOTS (PLANNING CASE NO. 2024-01) WHEREAS, Spencer McMillan (the “Applicant” and “Owner”) submitted under Planning Application Case No. 2024-01, a request of a new subdivision plat to be titled McMillan Estates, for the properties located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and the adjoining vacant outlots, identified as Outlots A and B, Grappendorf Addition (the “Subject Property”), and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided RR-Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the R-1A One Family Residential district; and WHEREAS, Title 11-1-1 of the City Code (Subdivision Regulations) allows the subdivision of properties, provided the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district; and WHEREAS, the requested subdivision would create three (3) single family lots on the Subject Property resulting in two (2) new buildable single family lots, and which also provides for the dedication of new right-of-way to access the two new buildable lots, the dedication of additional right-of-way along Delaware Avenue for Dakota County, and dedication of drainage and utility easements throughout the plat and over delineated wetlands; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2024, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the application request at their regular meeting, and whereupon receiving the presented staff report and applicant’s request to table the application, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to table the requested subdivision plat application to April 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2024, the tabled public hearing before the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was further tabled to a future meeting date with appropriate new notices published, at the request of staff and the applicant; and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held the open and tabled public hearing on the application request at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended 5-2 to approve the requested subdivision plat application on the Subject Property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the recommendation from the Planning Commission on Planning Case No. 2024-01 is hereby affirmed, and the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES may be approved based on the following findings-of-fact: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. Page 131 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 Page 2 of 4 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Preliminary and Final Plat of SPRINGMAN ADDITION is hereby approved, 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. 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. Page 132 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 Page 3 of 4 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. 12. The applicant shall work with the adjacent landowner to define a utility easement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 2nd day of July, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 133 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: 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 Page 134 of 312 Existing Parcel Boundaries: Proposed Parcel Boundaries: Page 135 of 312 Existing Parcel Boundaries: Proposed Parcel Boundaries (Sketched Estimate): 1707 DELAWAR E OUTLOT OUTLOT PROPOSED LOT 1707 DELAWARE PROPOSED LOT Page 136 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 1 of 10 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 137 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 2 of 10 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 138 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 3 of 10 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 139 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 0 of 10 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 140 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 4 of 10 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 141 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 5 of 10 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 142 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 6 of 10 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 143 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 7 of 10 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 144 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 8 of 10 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 145 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 19 of 10 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 146 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 11 of 10 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 147 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 12 of 10 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 148 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 13 of 10 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 149 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 10 of 10 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 150 of 312 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 Heights0340 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information 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 151 of 312 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 152 of 312 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 153 of 312 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 154 of 312 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 155 of 312 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 156 of 312 6 Spencer McMillan Page 157 of 312 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 158 of 312 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 dayof, 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 159 of 312 Page 160 of 312 Page 161 of 312 Page 162 of 312 Page 163 of 312 Page 164 of 312 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 165 of 312 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 166 of 312 882580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanTREE NOTESTag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status Tag DBH Species Notes Status1 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 81 6 Black Cherry Save 336 17 Black Cherry Mostly Dead Save 416 13.5 BuckthornSave 1750 10 Black CherrySave 1837 12 Red OakSave2 6 Quaking AspenRemove 82 7 Black CherrySave 337 13 Box ElderSave 417 9 BuckthornRemove 1751 8 Quaking AspenSave 1838 7 Black CherrySave3 7 Black CherryRemove 83 8 Box Elder poor Save 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White AshRemove 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1839 6 Red OakSave4 6 Quaking AspenRemove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Save 339 10 BuckthornSave 419 23.5 White AshRemove 1753 8 Quaking AspenSave 1840 7 Black CherrySave5 6 Green AshRemove 85 10 Black CherryRemove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White AshSave 1754 7 Quaking AspenSave 1841 7 Red OakSave6 6 Quaking AspenRemove 86 7 Box ElderRemove 341 17 CottonwoodSave 421 18 Green AshSave 1755 6 Green AshRemove 1842 6 Red OakSave7 7 Quaking AspenRemove 87 7 Black CherryRemove 342 16 White AshSave 422 12 Green AshSave 1756 7 Green AshRemove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save8 8 Quaking AspenRemove 88 6 Bur OakRemove 343 6.5 White AshRemove 423 8.5 Green AshSave 1757 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save9 6 Quaking AspenRemove 89 8 Black CherryRemove 344 12 White AshRemove 424 13 White AshRemove 1758 9 Quaking AspenSave 1845 7 Red OakSave10 7 Quaking AspenSave 90 15 Red OakSave 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Remove 425 7 BuckthornRemove 1759 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1846 10 BasswoodSave11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 91 12 Red OakRemove 346 13 American ElmRemove 426 6Swamp White OakRemove 1760 6 Quaking AspenSave 1847 10 Red OakSave12 8 Black Cherry poor Save 92 8 Black CherryRemove 347 8 White AshSave 427 16 White AshRemove 1761 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1848 11 Red OakSave13 7 Green Ash poor Save 93 6 American ElmRemove 348 6 White AshSave 428 9 White AshRemove 1762 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1849 6 Quaking AspenSave14 7 Black CherrySave 94 9 Black CherryRemove 349 10 Box ElderRemove 429 17 White AshRemove 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking AspenSave15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black CherryRemove 350 9 Box ElderRemove 430 6 BuckthornRemove 1764 8 Green AshRemove 1851 7 Quaking AspenSave16 12 Black CherrySave 96 9 Quaking AspenRemove 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Remove 431 16 White AshRemove 1765 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1852 8 Quaking AspenSave17 6 Green AshSave 97 8 Quaking AspenRemove 352 9.5 Box ElderRemove 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking AspenSave18 10 Black CherrySave 98 9 Quaking AspenRemove 353 12 Box ElderRemove 433 23 Green AshSave 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1854 6 Quaking AspenSave19 6 Apple Save 99 7 Quaking AspenRemove 354 10 Box ElderRemove 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1768 10 Quaking AspenSave 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove20 6 Apple Save 100 7 Black CherryRemove 355 10 White AshRemove 435 14 CottonwoodRemove 1769 8 Quaking AspenSave 1856 7 Quaking AspenRemove21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green AshRemove 436 18.5 Box ElderRemove 1770 11 Quaking AspenSave 1857 7 Red OakSave22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black CherrySave 357 14 Black OakRemove 437 13 Box ElderSave 1771 10 Quaking AspenSave 1858 7 Red OakSave23 9 Box ElderSave 103 8 Amur MapleSave 358 20.5 White AshRemove 438 10 White AshSave 1772 8 Quaking AspenSave 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black CherrySave 104 8 Black CherrySave 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Remove 439 11 Black CherryRemove 1773 9 Quaking AspenSave 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red OakSave 360 8 White AshRemove 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Remove26 8 Black CherrySave 106 10 American ElmSave 361 8 White AshRemove 441 16 Box ElderSave 1775 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1862 8 Quaking AspenRemove27 6 Green AshSave 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White AshRemove 442 14 White AshSave 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1863 6 Quaking AspenRemove28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 CottonwoodSave 363 9 White AshRemove 443 8 BuckthornSave 1777 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1864 6 Quaking AspenRemove29 7 Black CherrySave 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American ElmRemove 444 18 White AshSave 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking AspenRemove30 8 Box ElderSave 110 8 Quaking AspenSave 365 12 White AshRemove 445 16.5 HophornbeamSave 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1866 7 Quaking AspenRemove31 7 Black CherrySave 111 9 Red OakSave 366 8 White AshRemove 446 9 Green AshSave 1780 15 Quaking AspenRemove 1867 6 Quaking AspenRemove32 8 Black CherrySave 112 13 Red OakSave 367 11 White AshRemove 1701 21 CottonwoodRemove 1781 6 Green AshRemove 1868 6 Quaking AspenRemove33 12 Black CherrySave 113 12 Red OakSave 368 10 White AshRemove 1702 7 Black CherrySave 1782 6 Quaking AspenRemove 1869 8 Quaking AspenRemove34 6 Apple Save 114 6 Bur OakSave 369 6 White AshRemove 1703 13 Green AshSave 1783 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1870 10 Red OakRemove35 8 Black CherrySave 115 8 American ElmSave 370 10 White AshRemove 1704 7 Green AshRemove 1784 10 Black WalnutRemove 1871 6 Red OakRemove36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green AshRemove 1705 7 Green AshRemove 1786 8 Box ElderRemove 1872 7 Red OakRemove37 6 Black CherrySave 117 19 Red OakSave 372 9.5 White AshRemove 1706 12 Box ElderRemove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking AspenRemove38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 CottonwoodSave 373 15 White AshRemove 1707 19 CottonwoodRemove 1788 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1874 6 Black Cherrypoor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green AshSave 374 15 Green AshRemove 1708 7 CottonwoodSave 1789 10 Box ElderRemove 1875 25 CottonwoodRemove40 8 Black CherrySave 120 7 Green AshSave 375 10.5 White AshSave 1709 6 CottonwoodSave 1790 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black CherrySave 121 6 Green AshSave 376 12 White AshSave 1710 7 American ElmSave 1791 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American ElmRemove 377 8.5 White AshSave 1711 30 CottonwoodSave 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1878 6 Quaking AspenRemove43 10 (25') Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green AshSave 378 8.5 White AshRemove 1712 35 CottonwoodSave 1793 11 Green AshSave 1879 7 Quaking AspenRemove44 8 Black CherrySave 124 12 Red OakSave 379 15.5 Green AshRemove 1713 6 Box ElderSave 1794 11 Black WalnutSave 1880 7 Quaking AspenRemove45 6 Bur OakSave 125 11 Red OakSave 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box ElderSave 1795 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1881 7 Quaking AspenRemove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur OakRemove 381 11.5 Green AshSave 1715 18 CottonwoodSave 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking AspenRemove47 6 Green AshSave 302 16 CottonwoodRemove 382 14.5 Green AshSave 1716 12 Box ElderSave 1797 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1883 9 Quaking AspenRemove48 6 Green AshSave 303 20.5 White AshRemove 383 16 White AshSave 1717 10 Siberian ElmSave 1798 12 Red OakRemove 1884 6 Quaking AspenRemove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Remove 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking AspenRemove 1885 6 Quaking AspenRemove50 7 Green AshSave 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box ElderRemove 1800 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1886 7 Quaking AspenRemove51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green AshSave 386 17.5 White AshSave 1720 6 Black CherryRemove 1807 10 American Elm poor Remove 1887 7 Quaking AspenRemove52 6 Bur OakSave 307 17.5 Green AshSave 387 10 White AshSave 1721 7 Black CherrySave 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Remove 1888 12 Red OakRemove53 6 Black CherrySave 308 6 Black CherrySave 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black CherrySave 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 1889 13 Black CherryRemove54 6 Bur OakSave 309 10 American ElmSave 389 7 White AshSave 1723 13 Box ElderSave 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1890 6 Red OakRemove55 6 Green AshSave 310 42 CottonwoodSave 390 13.5 White AshSave 1724 7 Black CherrySave 1811 12 Quaking AspenRemove 1891 12 Red OakRemove56 6 Black CherrySave 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White AshSave 1725 9 Black CherrySave 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1892 7 Red OakRemove57 14 Red OakSave 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Save 392 18 White AshSave 1726 8 Box ElderSave 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1893 8 Quaking AspenRemove58 15 Red OakSave 313 6 White AshSave 393 22.5 White AshRemove 1727 7 Black CherrySave 1814 28 Red OakSave 1894 7 Quaking AspenRemove59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White AshSave 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1728 6 Black CherrySave 1815 24 Red OakSave 1895 7 Quaking AspenRemove60 7 Black WillowSave 315 22 CottonwoodSave 395 10 White AshRemove 1729 9 Box Elder poor Save 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking AspenRemove61 8 Green AshSave 316 7 Black CherrySave 396 25 White AshSave 1730 8 Box ElderSave 1817 6 Red OakSave 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove62 10 Green AshSave 317 14.5 Siberian ElmSave 397 12 Green AshRemove 1731 10 Box ElderRemove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking AspenRemove63 6 Green AshSave 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White AshRemove 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American ElmRemove64 10 Green AshSave 319 7 Box ElderSave 399 16.5 White AshRemove 1733 10 Black CherrySave 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking AspenRemove65 8 Green AshSave 320 9 Quaking AspenSave 400 21 White AshRemove 1734 8 Box Elder poor Save 1821 12 Red OakSave66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black CherrySave 401 6.5 BuckthornRemove 1735 12 Black CherrySave 1822 11 Red OakSave67 10 Green AshSave 322 14.5 Box ElderSave 402 7.5 BuckthornRemove 1736 6 Box ElderSave 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green AshSave 323 10 Box ElderSave 403 7 White AshRemove 1737 14 Black CherrySave 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green AshSave 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White AshRemove 1738 8 Box ElderSave 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red OakSave 325 9 Box ElderSave 405 8.5 White AshRemove 1739 8 Quaking AspenSave 1826 7 Black CherrySave71 7 Bur OakSave 326 8 Box ElderSave 406 10 Box ElderRemove 1740 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1827 6 Black CherrySave72 9 Bur OakSave 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box ElderRemove 1741 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1828 9 Black CherrySave73 7 Apple Save 328 8 BuckthornSave 408 14 Green AshRemove 1742 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 Apple Save 329 54 CottonwoodSave 409 15 White AshRemove 1743 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1830 8 Apple Save75 6 Green AshSave 330 15 Box ElderSave 410 8.5 Box ElderRemove 1744 6 Box ElderSave 1831 8 Black CherrySave76 7 Green AshSave 331 8 Box ElderSave 411 7 Amur Cork TreeSave 1745 12 American ElmSave 1832 7 Black CherrySave77 6 Black CherrySave 332 9 Box ElderSave 412 12 Box ElderSave 1746 8 Quaking AspenSave 1833 8 Black CherrySave78 8 American ElmSave 333 13 Box ElderSave 413 9 American ElmSave 1747 9 Black CherrySave 1834 7 Black CherrySave79 9 Black CherrySave 334 9 Box ElderSave 414 8.5 Black CherrySave 1748 9 Quaking AspenSave 1835 10 Black CherrySave80 12 Black CherrySave 335 63.5 CottonwoodSave 415 9 Black CherrySave 1749 10 Quaking AspenSave 1836 12 Red Oak poor SavePage 167 of 312 Page 168 of 312 Page 169 of 312 Page 170 of 312 Page 171 of 312 Page 172 of 312 Page 173 of 312 Page 174 of 312 Page 175 of 312 Page 176 of 312 Page 177 of 312 Page 178 of 312 Page 179 of 312 Page 180 of 312 Page 181 of 312 Page 182 of 312 Page 183 of 312 Page 184 of 312 Page 185 of 312 Page 186 of 312 Page 187 of 312 Page 188 of 312 Page 189 of 312 Page 190 of 312 Page 191 of 312 Page 192 of 312 Page 193 of 312 Page 194 of 312 Page 195 of 312 Page 196 of 312 Page 197 of 312 Page 198 of 312 Page 199 of 312 Page 200 of 312 Page 201 of 312 Page 202 of 312 Page 203 of 312 Page 204 of 312 Page 205 of 312 Page 206 of 312 Page 207 of 312 Page 208 of 312 Page 209 of 312 Page 210 of 312 Page 211 of 312 Mark Sullivan 670 Hidden Creek Trail, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651-263-1771 Page 212 of 312 Page 213 of 312 Page 214 of 312 Page 215 of 312 Page 216 of 312 Page 217 of 312 Page 218 of 312 Page 219 of 312 Page 220 of 312 Page 221 of 312 Page 222 of 312 Page 223 of 312 Page 224 of 312 Page 225 of 312 Page 226 of 312 Page 227 of 312 Page 228 of 312 Page 229 of 312 Page 230 of 312 Page 231 of 312 Page 232 of 312 Page 233 of 312 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 234 of 312 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 235 of 312 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 236 of 312 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 237 of 312 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 238 of 312 Page 239 of 312 Page 240 of 312 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 241 of 312 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 242 of 312 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 243 of 312 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 244 of 312 Website | Connect smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov Pronouns: she/her Page 245 of 312 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 246 of 312 •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 247 of 312 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 248 of 312 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 249 of 312 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 250 of 312 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 251 of 312 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 252 of 312 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 253 of 312 Page 254 of 312 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 255 of 312 AstheMcMillan’sstate,suchlotsinMcMillanEstateswouldgeneratesigniĮcanttaxrevenuefor  MendotaHeightsandourpropertyoncedevelopedwouldbesimilarinnature,evenifonlyone singlelotwasdeveloped.LandlockingourpropertyunintenƟonallyorwithoutconsideraƟon couldprecludeanyfutureopportunityfordevelopmentandsigniĮcanttaxrevenue. IcurrentlyplantoaƩendtheMeeƟngonMarch26thandwillprovidecomments,howeverat thisƟmeIrespecƞullyrequestthatanydecisionbedeferredsuĸcienttoallowmetheƟmeto assessourpropertyandcomebacktothecommissionwithaproposalthatcouldbeconsidered comprehensivelywiththeMcMillan’s.  Sincerely,  JamesPKolar Page 256 of 312 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 257 of 312 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 258 of 312 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 259 of 312 /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 260 of 312 From:Dana Johnston 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:McMillan Estates Proposal concerns Date:Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:28:15 AM Dear Council Members, We are writing to voice our opposition to the McMillan Estates development proposals. My wife and I live at 1769 Delaware Ave and have been here for over 30 years. When we purchased our property, we looked closely at the undeveloped land to our west, which is now proposed lot 3. We were told that the area was designated a wetland and could not be developed. This was a big factor in our decision to purchase the home. Our concerns regarding this proposed development are many. And to be honest, it’s hard to keep up with and understand what the proposal is at any given time. However, it is our strong opinion that such a development (whether it be 2 homes or 7+, one culdesac or 2….) would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The privacy and natural setting that residents along Delaware Ave and Ridgewood Dr enjoy are the reason we all live here (most of us for many decades). It would be a shame to allow it to forever be diminished. The parcel of land in question is primarily a wetland and supports a diverse ecosystem. The wetland is likely more expansive than indicated on the map, as the survey was done several years ago during a drought. Regardless, wetland protection and preservation are one of the things that makes Mendota Heights such a desirable place to live. Here are some of our other concerns: This proposal would most certainly have a negative impact on property values The loss of 500 mature trees What happens to the stream (not on the map) that runs west along the southern border of lot 3? It is right where the proposed driveway would go. Please see attached photo of the stream. Is there a 100 year high water mark building restriction on proposed new homes? In our opinion, the proposed sale and development of Lot 3 is simply the owner selling off over purchased land that he doesn’t have use for. It is our hope that preservation and responsible stewardship of this precious ecosystem (as displayed by the previous owners of this property), will take precedent over the desire to flip land for profit. Respectfully, Will and Dana Johnston 1769 Delaware Ave. Page 261 of 312 Page 262 of 312 From:jennifer mattocks 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:Monday, June 24, 2024 11:08:14 PM Attachments:Community petition_McMilllan Estates proposal 6_24.pdf Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff, Ahead of tomorrow’s Planning Commission meeting regarding Planning Case 2024- 01 McMillan Estates, please accept, review and include in public record the attached letter from 14 neighbors who would be significantly impacted by the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity for neighbors to be heard individually with letters that highlight those aspects most meaningful to each of us. In addition, there are many issues regarding this proposal that are important to all of us, which we’d like to be taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not to approve the proposal. As a collective group of those living on Ridgewood Drive, as well as neighbors on Delaware Ave, we respectfully request that the McMillan Estates proposal re- application be denied. Thank you, Jennifer Mattocks 1770 Ridgewood Dr, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 263 of 312 Page 264 of 312 Page 265 of 312 From:John Torinus To:Sarah Madden Subject:Re: Planning Commission: June 25, 2024 Meeting Packet Date:Friday, June 21, 2024 3:19:00 PM Hello again Sarah, Thank you for sharing the updated preliminary and final plat application for McMillan Estates. I appreciate the impressive work you and your team did on the last application. It’s clear you’ve been diligent in applying the relevant ordinances and precedents. Regarding the current revised application, while I struggle to find meaningful changes from the original application the staff previously recommended denial of, I appreciate the opportunity to share my response. Below are my reasons for recommending the denial of the revised application. 1. Lack of Required Frontage City Ordinance Requirement: The proposed lots do not meet the required 125 feet of frontage on a public roadway, as noted in the previous recommendation for denial. Precedent: The Planning Commission decision in PLANNING CASE #2019-03 stated that “any new developable lot MUST have 125 feet of frontage on a public roadway.” See Planning Commission Decision (page 8). Conclusion: Neither proposed lot meets this requirement, so the application should be denied. 2. Reliance on Unrequested Variances Precedent: Per the Foxwood Estates precedent, "the applicant’s plat – however designed – needs to stand on its own" without relying on unrequested variances. See Foxwood Estates Opinion. State Statute: Even if a decision is made to consider unrequested or granted permits and variances when reviewing the revised application, the applicant does not meet the criteria for such permits and variances required by MN Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 in the following ways: The applicant purchased the property with full knowledge of existing conditions, failing the practical difficulties requirement. The applicant has no plans to do anything with the land for 10-15 years, failing the practical difficulties requirement. The extension of Ridgewood Drive and its cul-de-sac would alter the character and reduce the value of neighboring properties. Any variances would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as detailed below. Page 266 of 312 Conclusion: The application relies on future variances and permits, which is not allowed, and the application fails to meet the minimum requirements for such permits and variances and therefore should be declined. 3. Lack of Alignment with Comprehensive Plan Environmental Protection: Development in the protected wetland area contradicts goals of maintaining green spaces and natural habitats. Stormwater Management: Development in wetlands disrupts natural drainage, increasing runoff and contradicting stormwater management policies. Conclusion: The application is in direct conflict with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in multiple ways and should be denied. 4. Negative Impact on Surrounding Properties •The proposed movement of the current cul-de-sac of Ridgewood Drive will remove the cul-de-sac from homes that currently enjoy it, immediately degrading their property value. This is prohibited by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 which explicitly requires municipalities to consider the impact on surrounding properties when making decisions to ensure they do not adversely affect neighboring properties and maintain the character and welfare of the community. •Supporting Evidence: This degradation of neighborhood property values is perhaps best demonstrated by the Orchard Heights development the applicant references in his reapplication: o The lot sale prices are available here: https://www.pldorngroup.com/listings/the- orchard-of-mendota-heights/. o As you will see from the sale prices, addresses on the cul-de-sac - 1878, 1884, 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane - all sold for an average of 22% more than non-cul-de- sac lots. o Additional research supporting the higher value of cul-de-sac lots and, by consequence, the loss of value when the cul-de-sac is moved is ubiquitous, including: "Cul-de-Sacs and Property Values: A Study in Midwestern Suburbs" (2020), "Residential Street Design and Property Value in the Twin Cities" (2017), University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs: "Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Design: Implications for Residential and Urban Development in the Twin Cities", "Housing Market Analysis: Trends in Suburban Twin Cities" by the Metropolitan Council o The Applicant's Own Statements: If you refer to page 12 of the previous Findings of Fact for Denial HERE you’ll note that when city staff presented the applicant with the idea of enabling further development in the wetland adjacent to his future property (“Lot 1”) – exactly what he is currently is proposing to everyone in the surrounding neighborhood – he declined, citing a desire “to maintain the natural area”. Page 267 of 312 •Conclusion: Voluminous amounts of empirical data and, most importantly, the applicant’s own words make it clear that this plan will disrupt the neighborhood's character. Therefore, the revised application should be denied. Thank you for considering these points and for your ongoing work on behalf of the community, John Torinus ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of Mendota Heights <cityofmendotaheights@public.govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:26ௗAM Subject: Planning Commission: June 25, 2024 Meeting Packet To: <jen.mattocks@gmail.com> Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page New Web Header Page 268 of 312 This email was sent to jen.mattocks@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Mendota Heights · 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights · MN 55118 Planning Commission The Mendota Heights Planning Commission will hold it's regular meeting in the Council Chambers at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 on: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Website of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651-452-1850 Stay connected with the City of Mendota Heights: @MendotaHeightsMN @MendotaHeightsPD @MHParksAndRec @MendotaHeightsMN SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Subscriptions | Help | Unsubscribe from all Topics Page 269 of 312 From:John Torinus To:Stephanie Levine; Sally Lorberbaum; John Mazzitello; Jay Miller; Joel Paper Cc:Sarah Madden Subject:Response to McMillan Estates revised proposal Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 10:21:31 AM Hi everyone, I hope your week is off to a good start. I’m writing today to share my comments about the pending McMillan Estates proposal that will be considered in tomorrow evening’s meeting. I also shared a version of this earlier with Sarah. Regarding the current revised application, while I struggle to understand how it addresses the valid reasons for denial of the previous application, I appreciate the opportunity to share my response. Below are my reasons for recommending the denial of the revised application. 1. Lack of Required Frontage City Ordinance Requirement: The proposed lots do not meet the required 125 feet of frontage on a public roadway, as noted in the previous recommendation for denial. A private right of way is not a street and does not meet the zoning requirements in City Ordinance, as demonstrated by recent denial of the Foxwood Addition in adjacent property and almost identical circumstances. Precedent: The Planning Commission decision in PLANNING CASE #2019-03 stated that “any new developable lot MUST have 125 feet of frontage on a public roadway.” See Planning Commission Decision (page 8). Conclusion: Neither proposed lot meets this requirement in the initial application nor the current revised application, so the application should be denied. 2. Reliance on Unrequested Variances Precedent: Per the Foxwood Estates precedent, "the applicant’s plat – however designed – needs to stand on its own" without relying on unrequested variances. See Foxwood Estates Opinion. State Statute: Even if a decision is made to consider unrequested or granted permits and variances when reviewing the revised application, the applicant does not meet the criteria for such permits and variances required by MN Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 in the following ways: The applicant purchased the property with full knowledge of existing conditions, failing the practical difficulties requirement. The applicant has no plans to do anything with the land for 10-15 years, failing the practical difficulties requirement. The extension of Ridgewood Drive and its cul-de-sac would alter the character and reduce the value of neighboring properties. Page 270 of 312 Any variances would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan as detailed below. Conclusion: The application relies on future variances and permits, which is not allowed, and the application fails to meet the minimum requirements for such permits and variances and therefore should be declined. 3. Lack of Alignment with Comprehensive Plan Environmental Protection: Development in the protected wetland area contradicts goals of maintaining green spaces and natural habitats. Stormwater Management: Development in wetlands disrupts natural drainage, increasing runoff and contradicting stormwater management policies. Conclusion: The application is in direct conflict with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in multiple ways and should be denied. 4. Negative Impact on Surrounding Properties •The proposed movement of the current cul-de-sac of Ridgewood Drive will remove the cul-de-sac from homes that currently enjoy it, immediately degrading their property value. This is prohibited by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 which explicitly requires municipalities to consider the impact on surrounding properties when making decisions to ensure they do not adversely affect neighboring properties and maintain the character and welfare of the community. •Supporting Evidence: This degradation of neighborhood property values is perhaps best demonstrated by the Orchard Heights development the applicant references in his reapplication: o The lot sale prices are available here: https://www.pldorngroup.com/listings/the- orchard-of-mendota-heights/. As you will see from the sale prices, addresses on the cul- de-sac - 1878, 1884, 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane - all sold for an average of 22% more than non-cul-de-sac lots. o Additional research supporting the higher value of cul-de-sac lots and, by consequence, the loss of value when the cul-de-sac is moved is ubiquitous, including the options "Cul-de-Sacs and Property Values: A Study in Midwestern Suburbs" (2020), "Residential Street Design and Property Value in the Twin Cities" (2017), University of Minnesota Center for Urban and Regional Affairs: "Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Design: Implications for Residential and Urban Development in the Twin Cities", and "Housing Market Analysis: Trends in Suburban Twin Cities" by the Metropolitan Council o The Applicant's Own Statements: If you refer to page 12 of the previous Findings of Fact for Denial HERE you’ll note that when city staff presented the applicant with the idea of enabling further development in the wetland adjacent to his future property (“Lot 1”) – which is exactly what he is currently is proposing to everyone in the surrounding neighborhood – he declined, citing a desire “to maintain the natural area”. This is further validated by the applicant in the revised proposal where he recommends nd Page 271 of 312 deferring the construction of a 2 cul-de-sac on Ridgewood Dr. in order to “maintain the neighborhood character”. Conclusion: Voluminous amounts of empirical data and, most importantly, the applicant’s own words make it clear that this plan will disrupt the neighborhood's character, something the Council is bound by City Ordinance and State Statute to protect; therefore, the revised application should be denied. Thank you for considering these points and for your ongoing work on behalf of the community, John Torinus Page 272 of 312 From:Jonathan Deering 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:Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:31:32 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 McMillian Estates proposal. I attended the first planning commission meeting regarding the original McMillian Estates proposal. I verbally shared my concerns about water management and environmental impact. My property immediately abuts the southwest corner of the McMillian property and the creek that flows near our shared property line. My comments below are separate from my previous comments and I greatly appreciate your consideration of these additional comments. I received notice of the revised McMillian Estates proposal. I want to note my concern regarding the extension of Ridgewood Drive and the platting of a second cul-de-sac, whether actually constructed or not. I am not in favor of this proposal and would request that the city attorney re-review the staff findings, particularly in regard to the use of the Orchard Heights development as a precedence for not requesting a variance in regard to this proposal’s extension of Ridgewood Drive. Not only are these materially different development proposals (see section below) but the judge in Dakota County case Royal Oaks Realty, Inc, David J Olin, James R. Olin Marital Family Trusts v City of Mendota Heights noted in their order for judgement (Court file no. 19HA-CV-17-3446) that “Whether or not a variance is required is immaterial [in the Orchard Heights Case] because Royal Oaks submitted a variance request, and they satisfy the requirements for its issuance”. The judge never ruled that Mendota Heights cul-de-sac length city code exceptions don’t require a variance but that the Orchard Heights variance request met the criteria for approval of a variance. As set by the precedence of how Mendota Heights handled the Orchard Heights proposal without direction of the judge to the contrary, the McMillan Estates proposal still conflicts with city code that cul-de-sacs “shall normally not” be longer than 500ft. Although a 500ft+ cul-de-sac is not prohibited, the judge did not say that a variance was not warranted to enable the city to properly assess the need for the development of these lots via this routing, making Ridgewood Drive further out of compliance with city code. Further, applying the 3 criteria used by the Judge in the Orchard Heights case to determine variance approval (1. use of property in a reasonable manner, 2. necessity of a lengthy cul-de-sac not caused by the applicant, 3. length of cul-de-sac would not alter essential character of the locality), it is my opinion that the McMillan Estates variance request would not satisfy those criteria for approval (see below). Material difference between Orchard Heights and McMillan Estates proposals: Orchard Heights was a new cul-de-sac built off a collector road on land whose 3 non-road boundaries were defined by wetlands. There was only one feasible entry point due to alternatives requiring impact to wetlands and/or the acquisition of already developed private property. Orchard Heights had no alternative access points. McMillan Estates is requesting an extension of an existing neighborhood cul-de-sac further Page 273 of 312 beyond city code, that seeks to develop directly through wetlands and a freeflowing creek instead of other available options that don’t require development through wetlands nor acquisition of land not owned by the applicant (i.e. use of the proposed lot 2 for road and utility access from Delaware Avenue to the proposed development sites within proposed lots 1 and 3). Assessment of variance approval/rejection based on McMillan Estates proposal: The three criteria explored by the judge for the Orchard Heights variance request were 1. “[the applicant] proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner”, 2. “The necessity for the lengthy cul-de-sac was not caused by [the applicant]”, 3. “The lengthy cul-de-sac would not alter the essential character of the locality.” Note: this may not be an exhaustive list of criteria for a variance of this nature but were the City’s points for rejecting Orchard Heights that the judge ruled against for that particular case with articulation of why they were not relevant in Orchard Heights but I believe are relevant for McMillan Estates. The McMillan Estates variance could require additional criteria considerations beyond these three but leveraging these three criteria alone, it can be demonstrated that the variance could be rejected based on objective facts of the current proposal in contrast to the Orchard Heights proposal. 1.The Orchard Heights proposal had no other reasonable alternatives besides their one cul-de-sac proposal. McMillan Estates has at least two options: A. The current proposal with development through wetlands and a freeflowing creek, or B. the development of access through proposed lot 2 for road and utility access to proposed development sites within proposed lots 1 and 3. •Other options may also be possible with further exploration (e.g. development from the north through Bader and Kohler properties who appeared interested in leaving development options available for their land, per public comments from their respective representatives.) 2.The proposal of the extension of Ridgewood Drive is at the discretion of the applicant and not required based on the existing properties owned by the applicant. In the case of Orchard Heights, the developer avoided wetland impacts and minimized impact to the neighborhood in their design. The current proposal appears to choose a routing for the right of way that does not seek to minimize wetland impact nor minimize the impact to the surrounding neighbors (e.g. access to proposed lot 3 via encroachment on wetlands along the southern border of the property that would remove trees along the property line with Paul and Linda Pontinen and lead to damage to mature trees on Pontinen land along that property line from the proposed development of a driveway on the boundary over said mature trees’ root systems). Alternatively, a driveway could be built from Lot 2 that avoids wetland impact. Delaware Avenue would also be better suited to absorb additional traffic from the 2 or 7+ lot developments noted in the proposal. 3.Unlike Orchard Heights, which built a subdivision onto a collector road, McMillan Estates is seeking to extend a pre-existing cul-de-sac with eight homes on it to include at least two additional homes (a 25% increase) via a right of way extension that would create a double cul-de-saced road. This is a design that is unprecedented in general city planning design, let alone Mendota Heights. If built, this would negatively impact the appearance and value of properties on Ridgewood Drive, with particular impact to the two existing properties that reside on the existing cul-de-sac. Additionally, as noted in the Page 274 of 312 latest McMillan Estates proposal section titled “Through road, multiple lot alternative”, the applicant has shown a willingness and potential future intent to build 7+ lots on this property (a ~88%+ increase) that could see traffic nearly double on Ridgewood Drive, impact the value of the existing ridgewood drive homes (especially properties on the existing cul-de-sac), and risk the water management capabilities of the wetland system that the applicant is considering developing. These proposals would undoubtedly alter the essential character of the locality and negatively impact the existing properties and residents on Ridgewood Drive. Based on the arguments made above, it is my opinion that this proposal requires a variance to extend the cul-de-sac and that the variance would be rejected based on City Code (i.e. the means by which to develop these outlots that minimizes wetland impact and neighborhood impact, per City Code’s Wetland Systems section and state statutes referred to in the Orchard Heights case, would not be via Ridgewood Drive). If the applicant would like to seek a variance at the discretion of the City Council, I would recommend the applicant seek a collaborative approach with the individuals that they are currently seeking to make their future neighbors, so as to find an amicable path forward for all stakeholders involved. Thank you for your attentiveness to my concerns. Jonathan Deering 1759 Ridgewood Drive Page 275 of 312 From:Linda Pontinen To:Brian Petschel; Brian Udell; Andrew Katz; Cheryl Jacobson; Cindy Johnson; Jason Stone; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Kelly Torkelson; Krista Spreiter; Litton Field; Lucas Ritchie; Patrick Corbett; Ryan Ruzek; Sally Lorberbaum; Sarah Madden Subject:Subject: Re: Public Comment on Planning Case 2024-01: McMillan Estates Date:Sunday, June 23, 2024 7:32:38 PM Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff, We want to sincerely thank you for all of your efforts and dedication with which each of you provide to our city. Mendota Heights has evolved into its present state because of your leadership and guidance. I am writing to provide public comment on planning case number 2024-01: consideration of the McMillan Estates proposal. 1. City staff already recommended denial of this proposal in March. The proposer then addressed those issues which resulted in a plan that doesn't even make sense. We need two cul de sac circles now? 2. The planning commission's chair owns land abutting the new proposed lots. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to weigh in in his official capacity. 3. This entire proposal commits the city to commit to an expensive, vague, and hypothetical transportation project without any clear goal or benefit. Obviously this is a very involved and difficult situation, involving a number of homes and property owners. We built our present home at 1760 Ridgewood Drive in Mendota Heights 48 years ago. We love this area and have very deep roots here. The land is extremely rich with wildlife, native plants, and water life. Several thousand trees Over a thousand mature trees, deer, raccoon, coyotes, pheasants, turkeys, fox, frogs, tadpoles and minnows to name just a few have all evolved into a place of conservation and protection. The land to our north has been threatened before. Over the past years, DNR has enacted wetlands surveys. At one time, the land was declared at a high percentage of wetlands. We were told it could never be built upon. But rules changed. Displacing wetlands is now permitted. Entities can even bank wetland points for placement in other areas. How does this possibly help the natural beauty of Mendota Heights, with the possibility of creating destroyed wetlands miles away? Our city has an unbelievable wildlife preserve in this unique property. A number of Page 276 of 312 environmentalists have commented that to have such a large, privately owned wetland complex, located in the inner metro area, is very rare and a remarkably precious find. Please weigh your choices very carefully. Destroying our environment will not add to our beauty. Please continue to preserve and protect the natural environment of the Super Block and Mendota Heights. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Linda R. Pontinen Page 277 of 312 From:Linda Pontinen To:Andrew Katz; Brian Petschel; Brian Udell; Cheryl Jacobson; Cindy Johnson; Jason Stone; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Kelly Torkelson; Krista Spreiter; Litton Field; Lucas Ritchie; Patrick Corbett; Ryan Ruzek; Sally Lorberbaum; Sarah Madden; Stephanie Levine Subject:McMillan Estates Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 7:41:55 PM Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission, City Council, and City Staff, We want to sincerely thank you for all of your efforts and dedication with which each of you provide to our city. Mendota Heights has evolved into its present state because of your leadership and guidance. I am writing to provide public comment on planning case number 2024-01: consideration of the McMillan Estates proposal. 1. City staff already recommended denial of this proposal in March. The proposer then addressed those issues which resulted in a plan that doesn't even make sense. We need two cul de sac circles now? 2. The planning commission's chair owns land abutting the new proposed lots. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to weigh in in his official capacity. 3. This entire proposal commits the city to commit to an expensive, vague, and hypothetical transportation project without any clear goal or benefit. Obviously this is a very involved and difficult situation, involving a number of homes and property owners. We built our present home at 1760 Ridgewood Drive in Mendota Heights 48 years ago. We love this area and have very deep roots here. The land is extremely rich with wildlife, native plants, and water life. Several thousand trees Over a thousand mature trees, deer, raccoon, coyotes, pheasants, turkeys, fox, frogs, tadpoles and minnows to name just a few have all evolved into a place of conservation and protection. The land to our north has been threatened before. Over the past years, DNR has enacted wetlands surveys. At one time, the land was declared at a high percentage of wetlands. We were told it could never be built upon. But rules changed. Displacing wetlands is now permitted. Entities can even bank wetland points for placement in other areas. How does this possibly help the natural beauty of Mendota Heights, with the possibility of creating destroyed wetlands miles away? Our city has an unbelievable wildlife preserve in this unique property. A number of Page 278 of 312 environmentalists have commented that to have such a large, privately owned wetland complex, located in the inner metro area, is very rare and a remarkably precious find. Please weigh your choices very carefully. Destroying our environment will not add to our beauty. Please continue to preserve and protect the natural environment of the Super Block and Mendota Heights. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Linda R. Pontinen Page 279 of 312 From:Linda Pontinen To:Brian Petschel; Brian Udell; Andrew Katz; Cheryl Jacobson; Cindy Johnson; Jason Stone; Jay Miller; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Kelly Torkelson; Krista Spreiter; Litton Field; Lucas Ritchie; Patrick Corbett; Ryan Ruzek; Sally Lorberbaum; Sarah Madden Subject:McMillan Estates Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 5:58:06 PM We wish to comment on the latest McMillan Estates plat submission and ask a number of questions. Sorry for being a bit late. First, we strongly support the McMillans' proposal to defer construction of a second cul-de-sac. We agree this cul-de-sac would have a negative impact on the trees, creek, and wetlands and degrade the character and beauty of the neighborhood. Having two cul-de-sacs 70 feet apart makes little sense and would reduce the original to an unsightly "bulge in the street." Property values of those homes on and adjacent to this "bulge" would be reduced. Second, we support the McMillan proposal to construct only two future homes, one on Lot 1 and the other on the eastern section of Lot 3. We understand the McMillans would build their future home on Lot 1 as their family gets older, perhaps in 10 years or so. Limiting the addition to two homes would minimize the number of mature trees cut down and again preserve the character and beauty of the neighborhood. Finally, we are very concerned about the potential driveway to the proposed home on Lot 3. Although the homes and driveways do not appear on your latest plat map, they were depicted on the earlier version presented at the March meeting. That driveway runs west to east, five feet from our property line with the estates. As Paul presented at the March meeting, we asked you and the planning commission to please move the driveway farther north 30-40 feet or more, starting along the southern edge of the wetland boundary and eventually crossing a wetland budge in the middle. Crossing a short length of wetlands to reach the proposed home location could be legally accomplished by creating new wetlands on Lot 3 somewhere else or contributing to the wetland bank. Moving the driveway farther north would save the many trees on and close to our property line. Please note the root systems of large trees extend 2 to 3 times the distance of the canopy radius. Since this radius could easily be 10-15 feet or more, the roots could extend 30-45 feet from the trunk, most within 1½ to 2 feet of the surface. Therefore, the roots of most of the trees not already cut down and on or near the property line would be damaged, including those on our side of the line, a few of which we planted. Many or most of these trees will die. That Page 280 of 312 would be tragic for obvious reasons! Here are a number of questions we have: 1, Can a variance be obtained to circumvent the 125-foot lot frontage requirement, thus allowing a future driveway to originate at the existing cul-de- sac and splitting into two to service the future homes? 2. Why are the two potential homes and their driveways not shown on your latest plat map? 3. What would happen to our current cul-de-sac if a second one is constructed? Would a budge in the street remain or would the city fill it in and create new straight curbs? 4. Who would pay for a second cul-de-sac, or changes to the current one? 5. There is an existing creek the runs from the eastern edge of Lot 3 to a pond in its northwest section . Why are these not shown on the plat? they are very significant to the environment and to any driveway/cul-de-sac construction, especially considering the creek often overflows its banks and inundates adjacent land. 6. Can a new wetlands survey be ordered? The last one was apparently done in 2021 during drought conditions. One done this year would follow the second wettest spring we've encountered and more accurately reflect the wetland boundaries which no doubt have expanded. For example, we believe the true boundary touches our property line. It actually extended into our property years ago when a marsh with cattails existed in our backyard. Even now, standing water sometimes appears in a part of our lawn near the property line. Finally, the McMillans included a last resort through road, multi-lot alternative that would extend Ridgewood Drive to the northern property line and potentially allow the creation of 7 more lots, which they definitely oppose. However, if the city declines to defer construction of the second cul-de-sac, they would seriously consider this plan and selling the land to a developer. Simply put, this would be our worst nightmare, as it probably would to all our neighbors! Thank you for your consideration, Page 281 of 312 Paul Pontinen 1760 Ridgewood Drive Page 282 of 312 From:monique buursema To:Sarah Madden Subject:Questions regarding McMilan proposal Date:Sunday, June 23, 2024 10:14:00 PM Hi Sarah I have a couple of questions in regards to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision as seen on page 107 of Case No. 2024-01 Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant Spenser McMilan 1. What does Exemption (l8420.0420) subpart 8 under WCA Decision Type mean? And how does that relate to building a house on lot 3? 2. Does this Notice of Decision still hold if the applicant was Mark Sullivan (a third party who originally interested in building on lot 1 and 3) instead of the current owner? 3. Does a house on lot 3 as proposed require a wetland permit? And if so, what requirements have to be met for approval of a wetland permit? 4. If the Planning Commission approves the McMilan lot proposal, and If the Planning Commission recommends approving the lot split as proposed by McMilans and it goes to the City Council and gets approved, does that suggest that a wetland permit if needed for building on lot 3 would be granted? 4. Would an Environmental Assessment worksheet of Environmental Impact Statement be applicable to this case no.? Thank you Monique Buursema 1737 Delaware Ave. Page 283 of 312 From:PATRICK WICKER To:Sarah Madden Subject:Notice of Public Hearing - Planning Case No. 2024-01 Date:Monday, June 24, 2024 8:12:17 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 new Notice of Public Hearing – Planning Case No. 2024-01 letter (for June 25, 2024 Planning Commission meeting) on Thursday June 13, 2024. We again discussed the Planning Case and attempted to decipher the included map. Again, we disagree with allowing 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 (as a side note, this feels like a misrepresentation as the letter lists McMillan Estates as 1707 Delaware Ave, but according to the included map, the two outlots are an extension of Ridgewood Drive). Our decision is based upon the same issues as we detailed in our email sent March 24, 2024, and which we have copied below. The only difference from our original email (bolded and italicized in paragraph two), is that we oppose the creation of a public road which would now serve as a private drive to two houses, instead of one: “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.” It appears that the Land Survey included on the back of the Notice of Public Hearing details some of our questions listed in paragraph three (above); however, this map Page 284 of 312 shows that the plan is for a semi-private driveway (it would be easy to use the original cul-de-sac to turn around in), thus allowing these two properties to have almost private use of a public road, and would require construction on wetlands, both of which we highly oppose. Sincerely, Patrick and Jennie Wicker ---------- Original Message ---------- From: PATRICK WICKER <pjkwicker@comcast.net> To: "SMadden@MendotaHeightsMN.gov" <SMadden@MendotaHeightsMN.gov> Date: 03/24/2024 6:18 PM CDT Subject: Notice of Public Hearing - Planning Case No. 2024-01 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 Page 285 of 312 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 286 of 312 Page 287 of 312 Page 288 of 312 From:Paul Pontinen To:Sarah Madden Cc:sean.fahnhorst@gmail.com; Dana Johnston; JSM; Jerry Petschen; Lawrence Fischer; Lindsey Jeans; Meghan Deering; Susan; deerinjr@gmail.com; johnweikert; jennyoujiri@gmail.com; toujiri@gmail.com; Linda Pontinen Subject:McMillan Estates Comments & Questions Date:Sunday, June 23, 2024 7:12:52 AM Hi Sarah, We wish to comment on the latest McMillan Estates plat submission and ask a number of questions. Sorry for being a bit late. First, we strongly support the McMillans' proposal to defer construction of a second cul-de- sac. We agree this cul-de-sac would have a negative impact on the trees, creek, and wetlands and degrade the character and beauty of the neighborhood. Having two cul-de-sacs 70 feet apart makes little sense and would reduce the original to an unsightly "bulge in the street." Property values of those homes on and adjacent to this "bulge" would be reduced. Second, we support the McMillan proposal to construct only two future homes, one on Lot 1 and the other on the eastern section of Lot 3. We understand the McMillans would build their future home on Lot 1 as their family gets older, perhaps in 10 years or so. Limiting the addition to two homes would minimize the number of mature trees cut down and again preserve the character and beauty of the neighborhood. Finally, we are very concerned about the potential driveway to the proposed home on Lot 3. Although the homes and driveways do not appear on your latest plat map, they were depicted on the earlier version presented at the March meeting. That driveway runs west to east, five feet from our property line with the estates. As Paul presented at the March meeting, we asked you and the planning commission to please move the driveway farther north 30-40 feet or more, starting along the southern edge of the wetland boundary and eventually crossing a wetland budge in the middle. Crossing a short length of wetlands to reach the proposed home location could be legally accomplished by creating new wetlands on Lot 3 somewhere else or contributing to the wetland bank. Moving the driveway farther north would save the many trees on and close to our property line. Please note the root systems of large trees extend 2 to 3 times the distance of the canopy radius. Since this radius could easily be 10-15 feet or more, the roots could extend 30- 45 feet from the trunk, most within 1½ to 2 feet of the surface. Therefore, the roots of most of the trees not already cut down and on or near the property line would be damaged, including those on our side of the line, a few of which we planted. Many or most of these trees will die. That would be tragic for obvious reasons! Page 289 of 312 Here are a number of questions we have: 1, Can a variance be obtained to circumvent the 125-foot lot frontage requirement, thus allowing a future driveway to originate at the existing cul-de-sac and splitting into two to service the future homes? 2. Why are the two potential homes and their driveways not shown on your latest plat map? 3. What would happen to our current cul-de-sac if a second one is constructed? Would a budge in the street remain or would the city fill it in and create new straight curbs? 4. Who would pay for a second cul-de-sac, or changes to the current one? 5. There is an existing creek the runs from the eastern edge of Lot 3 to a pond in its northwest section . Why are these not shown on the plat? they are very significant to the environment and to any driveway/cul-de-sac construction, especially considering the creek often overflows its banks and inundates adjacent land. 6. Can a new wetlands survey be ordered? The last one was apparently done in 2021 during drought conditions. One done this year would follow the second wettest spring we've encountered and more accurately reflect the wetland boundaries which no doubt have expanded. For example, we believe the true boundary touches our property line. It actually extended into our property years ago when a marsh with cattails existed in our backyard. Even now, standing water sometimes appears in a part of our lawn near the property line. Finally, the McMillans included a last resort through road, multi-lot alternative that would extend Ridgewood Drive to the northern property line and potentially allow the creation of 7 more lots, which they definitely oppose. However, if the city declines to defer construction of the second cul-de-sac, they would seriously consider this plan and selling the land to a developer. Simply put, this would be our worst nightmare, as it probably would to all our neighbors! Thank you for your consideration, Linda and Paul Pontinen 1760 Ridgewood Drive Page 290 of 312 Page 291 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 6/25/24 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES D) PLANNING CASE 2024-01 SPENCER MCMILLAN, 1707 DELAWARE AVENUE – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Chair Field stated that there was some correspondence which suggest that he may have a conflict of interest. He noted that he consulted with the City Attorney, and it was determined that he does not have a conflict of interest, therefore he will continue to act as Chair. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; public comments were received, have been provided to the Commission, and made part of the public record. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked if condition 11 would include the execution of the cul-de-sac. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that is included. Commissioner Petschel commented that it seemed confusing as the presentation made it seem that the intention would be to create a private drive without a cul-de-sac. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that is correct and explained that the Development Agreement can include timing on when the improvements are installed. She stated that the applicant would propose that the cul-de-sac construction be postponed until the time lot one was ever subdivided. Commissioner Petschel asked if the lot would have 125 feet of frontage on Ridgewood. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the lot would have 125 feet of frontage on the right-of-way. Page 292 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Petschel commented that his concern is that there is a contingent frontage, and a future owner could decide on a different plat which would create a legal nonconforming property if the cul-de-sac were never built. Commissioner Corbett asked if the triggering of the improvements would be the subdivision of lot one. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that is correct. She stated that the applicant is requesting that the cul-de-sac not be required unless there is an additional lot, or more, created in the future through additional subdivision. Commissioner Petschel used the scenario that the cul-de-sac is never built which would then create a lot that does not have conforming frontage. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that it would be correct that the lot would not have frontage on a City roadway but would have lot width on a City approved right-of- way. She stated that the right-of-way would be provided to the City with the dedication of the plat. She stated that the subdivision requires that the timing of the public improvements be negotiated in the Development Agreement. She stated that the requirement is for the width of the lot along a dedicated street. Commissioner Petschel commented that it is unique that a City street would not be constructed that would be required as part of the plat. Commissioner Katz used the scenario that this is approved and later the cul-de-sac is not fully extended because the end lot is divided differently in the future and asked for clarification. He stated that it appears that in the agreement it would be up to the homeowner decide when the cul- de-sac is installed. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden clarified that the applicant is requesting that the improvement be triggered upon the subdivision of lot one. She stated that regardless of the Development Agreement, the City reserves the right to install the improvements at any time because that would be public right-of-way. Commissioner Corbett used the scenario that lot one is not further subdivided and asked what the driveway would look like. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that there would be one curb cut off the existing road with the driveways branched off to the individual lots. Commissioner Petschel asked if lot three would also require the cul-de-sac. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that lot three would have driveway access just north from the existing stub. Page 293 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Corbett commented that this would seem to approve something on paper that has a noncommitment from the developer to make the proper improvements, which could never be done. He stated that in order to divide into three lots, the right-of-way is required to be dedicated and cul-de-sac would be required, therefore this would be an approval of the improvements on paper without a commitment to deliver those improvements. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that is correct as the applicant is requesting an indefinite deferral as there is no plan for the property to the north. Commissioner Corbett commented that he struggles to understand why that would be wanted, asking if the cul-de-sac could ultimately be located in another area. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she would defer that to the applicant but generally the request is to maintain minimal impact to the wetlands, and maintain the driveway exemption that was approved in 2020. Commissioner Corbett asked if it would be more appropriate to not propose two lots until they can commit to the improvement required for two lots. He asked if it would be more appropriate to allow the construction of one home and if a second home is constructed that would trigger the improvements. He commented that one lot would conform but two lots would not conform and therefore he is not comfortable not having a deadline for the required improvements. Commissioner Petschel commented that he likes the idea of minimal impact to the wetland and understands the concept of deferring that improvement. He thought that there was a previously existing Development Agreement which allowed the construction of one lot from Ridgewood. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there was not a Development Agreement but acknowledgement from the City that Outlot B could be a buildable lot. Commissioner Katz asked and received confirmation that Ridgewood is a Mendota Heights Road and that in theory would be extended with a cul-de-sac constructed. He asked what would occur if the property to the north also wanted to extend to Ridgewood. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the property owner would need to extend the right-of-way through that property to the property to the north in order for that request to be made. She stated that this proposal does not include extension to the northern property line and is proposed to end with the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Johnson commented that in previous discussions of the super block area, when that came forward for development it needed to be looked at as a whole to ensure that others are not left out of development opportunity. She asked how this would be approached moving forward. She acknowledged that this property has come forward first and asked how this decision would impact the other property owners, specifically whether this would create challenges for the other property owners to develop. Page 294 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Chair Field commented that there was some action on the north end of the block, Foxwood, where it was stipulated that one home could be constructed. Commissioner Petschel commented that unfortunately there is not a contiguous piece of property seeking to be developed as a larger project, and therefore they must consider the rights of the one property to develop. He commented that because there is not a right-of-way the City could not make a plan to connect other properties without that right-of-way being dedicated. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that coordination with other properties was discussed with this applicant. She stated that the applicant is proposing the cul- de-sac, which does not require future street connections to be shown to other properties. She stated that the applicant is showing the ability for the larger lot to potentially be subdivided again in the future, as required. She stated that the applicant has shown future street and utility connections as required. Commissioner Corbett asked if the cul-de-sac would be relocated upon future subdivision. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the applicant could be requested that cul-de-sac bulb be vacated and moved should lot one be further subdivided. Spencer McMillan, applicant, expressed appreciation for staff throughout this process. He referenced proposed lot three noting that currently has 57 feet of frontage, with outlot B having three feet of frontage. He noted that neither lot would have the required frontage. He stated that the extended cul-de-sac is proposed in order to meet the Code requirements while mitigating wetland impacts along with how they want to use the property long term. Chair Field asked if the cul-de-sac is merely to support the two lots because of the right-of-way. Mr. McMillan commented that no matter what you do there would not be enough frontage. He noted the Comprehensive Plan goal to subdivide the super block noting that this would be one step towards doing that while minimizing the impact on the wetlands. Commissioner Corbett asked what is preventing the applicant from deciding upon a final subdivision of the lots. Mr. McMillan commented that this is how they would like to use the land and would like the little less than 10 acres to build their home, but the Code requires that future subdivision opportunity be shown, so they have done that. He stated that this current configuration would allow future subdivision. Commissioner Corbett asked if the intention would be to have the two lots and pad sites as identified. Mr. McMillan confirmed that is their plan. Commissioner Corbett noted that would imply the cul-de-sac would then never be built. Page 295 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mr. McMillan commented that he does not know what the future holds, and it is possible that they could move and sell the lot which would provide the opportunity to subdivide. He stated that the City could also assess the benefited properties of the cul-de-sac if the City wanted to construct that. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the City would have a hard time challenging the cost-benefit ratio for constructing a new cul-de-sac to two lots therefore he would disagree with special assessment. Mr. McMillan asked the point of building the cul-de-sac if the benefit cannot be proven. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would be conformance to the ordinances. Commissioner Petschel commented that this would be a first for them to consider a shadow cul- de-sac. Mr. McMillan commented that there are undeveloped rights-of-way in Mendota Heights. Commissioner Petschel commented that none of those are used to achieve frontage, which is what is unique about this request. Mr. McMillan commented that there are eight homes currently on the cul-de-sac road so this would bring that number to ten and would not create an issue of safety concern. He stated that this would also preserve the ability to further subdivide in the future and consider the cul-de-sac at that time. Commissioner Corbett asked why a variance was not requested instead. Mr. McMillan replied that he originally requested a dead-end variance, and the recommendation was for denial. Commissioner Corbett commented that this seems like a very backwards way to get to the desired outcome. Mr. McMillan commented that he agrees and would have been happy to go forward with the variance for frontage, but staff felt that was a big ask. Commissioner Corbett commented that he has an issue with an open-ended improvement that is essentially on paper. Mr. McMillan commented that it is a request because of the smaller number of homes on the cul- de-sac and if the property were to further subdivide, the need would be demonstrated to construct the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Corbett commented that the need is there per ordinance. Page 296 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Mr. McMillan commented that it is not a requirement but part of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Corbett commented that the need is for the frontage and based on the reality that it may never happen as the current plan is not to subdivide. Commissioner Petschel commented that the City could construct the road/cul-de-sac whether the applicant wants to or not. Commissioner Corbett commented why the City would take on the financial burden to construct the improvement so that the homeowner can have conforming lots. Commissioner Petschel commented that the City forces the need for the paper creation of the cul- de-sac and ultimately makes the decision whether or not the cul-de-sac is constructed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the Planning Commission could add a condition that it would like to see the public improvements constructed before the first building permit is issued. He agreed that the City could choose to construct the cul-de-sac, but agreed that would not be likely for the City to make the investment for a private development. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant would agree to commit to the improvement, suggesting language that the improvement would be constructed within 12 months if further subdivision is not requested. Mc. McMillan commented that would be fairly cost prohibitive and would impact the wetlands, so he would not agree to that. Chair Field asked the amount of right-of-way that would be created off the cul-de-sac. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that he does not have that calculation. He explained that frontage is measured at the front yard setback, which is 40 feet back along with additional factors. Chair Field commented that it does not seem that anyone is excited about the cul-de-sac as the applicant does not want to do it, the City does not want to it, and most likely the neighbors do not want it. Commissioner Johnson acknowledged that is needed to provide the frontage. Commissioner Petschel commented that the frontage is being provided through the dedication without creating the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Udell noted the comment that the variance was discouraged because of the large gap between the frontage and required frontage. He commented that this seems creative and whether the variance would be the better option because the unique layout could be considered a hardship. He recognized they are between a rock and a hard place and therefore was wondering the most sensible solution. Page 297 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Petschel commented that this may be the most sensible solution. Chair Field opened the public hearing. John Weikert, 1737 Delaware Avenue, commented that he opposes the proposal as is and believed the Commission understands why. He commented that this is far more complicated than it needs to be. He commented that most of the community feels the same way and would oppose this proposal as it stands. He commented that environmentally this would be a disaster. He commented that this is about making money and developing a property. He asked what people would pay a premium for, trees, wildlife etc. or another home. He commented that this would be an impact on him and his property value. He stated that in order for lot three to be developed, which would purely be for money, that would impact his property negatively. He commented that any home placed on lot three would change the character of the neighborhood and the land to an enormous degree. He stated that this whole proposal would radically change this area. He asked why no one else has not developed this property in the last 100 years and believed this proposal shows why. He stated that the applicant does not have any hardships as they can come off the existing cul-de-sac with a road to their home and they do not need to subdivide the 17 acres. He stated that lot three seems to be the cause of the problem as it causes problems with frontage and a need for a mythical cul-de-sac. He stated that a single home could be created with a single driveway coming off the cul-de-sac. He asked if an easement could be put in on the property to satisfy getting to the neighbors to the north. Chair Field commented that a City street would be needed versus an easement in order to avoid the creation of a flag lot. Mr. Weikert commented that the applicant would not have a hardship if lot three were developed other than a loss of income. He stated that the cul-de-sac is already too long and did not agree with adding a second one, or mythical possible cul-de-sac. He asked that the proposal be denied as is, or tabled to provide more time for review. He stated that he understands the comments of staff but believes that to be disingenuous and unfair as the applicant had two chances to defer their request and now with the timing this will move forward to the City Council at a time when residents will be out of town for the holiday. He invited each member of the Commission to come to his property and view this from his perspective and the perspective of his neighbors on Delaware. John Torinus, 1770 Ridgewood Drive, commented that he has already provided extensive comments that were included in the packet. He commented that it is hard, or impossible, to make everyone happy. He commented that it seems that they are drifting into an area where this is going to move forward, and they will find a way. He stated that this was supposed to be a discussion about if, not how and there are very clear ordinances that stand in the way of this. He stated that one option would be that this is not developable property to this manner. He stated that he has a hard time understanding what this even is, whether this is a dream home, future subdivision, future cul-de-sac, or cul-de-sac on paper. He commented that there are so many unknowns that it is hard to judge the request and similarly asked that the Commission deny or table this request. Page 298 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Paul Pontinen, 1760 Ridgewood Drive, commented that he provided input months ago as well. He commented that lot three would have a driveway five feet from his property line before it would veer towards the home pad. He welcomed the Commission to come to his property and walk the property line, noting that there are numerous mature trees along the property line on both sides of the property line. He stated that if a driveway is constructed that close to the trees, it would require removal of a number of trees and damage the root system for a number of other trees. He stated that if this is to move forward, he would request that the driveway be moved further north. He commented that moving that 20 to 40 feet north would save many of the trees. He stated that if a new cul-de-sac is installed 70 feet from the existing cul-de-sac, his property would decrease in value. Jonathan Deering, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, commented that he provided input at the last consideration of this request and also provided written comments prior to the meeting. He stated that his letter noted the fact that there was no variance required for extension of the cul-de-sac using the Orchard Heights plot of 2017 as an example. He noted that a new development off a collector road. He reviewed the statement from the judge in that case, noting that a variance was required in that case. He asked that the City Attorney review that case to ensure there is not a precedence for the extension above the frontage ordinance. Jim Kolar, 1695 Delaware Avenue, commented that he and his wife own the property to the north of the proposed subdivision and enjoy the McMillans as their neighbors. He stated that he is generally supportive of the McMillans being able to do what they want with their property, understanding that the Commission must review the conditions that apply. He provided some historical context of the properties in that area, noting a property that was jointly owned for the purpose of controlling when/if that property would be developed. He stated that there were previous development plans which included his property and because they did not want to become landlocked, he and his wife supported development should it occur. He stated that his comments provided in his letter and by his legal team outline his concerns that he would become unintentionally landlocked if this were to pass. He stated that his only choice for access would become Delaware which would mean his only choice for development would be a single five-acre lot. He stated that he has reasonably asked for a comprehensive look, as Commissioner Johnson suggested, to ensure that he is not landlocked with a ten-acre lot. He stated that he would have access from Delaware but would not have utilities and therefore would ask for a utility easement to the north, to his property, when utilities are brought to this subject property. He commented that he is the only property that would not have utility access. He asked that the McMillans provide an easement for utilities to be stubbed to the north end of their lot so that if he were to subdivide a second lot, that lot would have access to utilities. He commented that the desire of the applicant is to enjoy the property as it is, noting that it is a wonderful property. He commented that no one is going to extend a cul-de-sac and therefore did not believe that should be a discussion. He stated that he would like more information on the location of a sport court and lighting, along with drainage to ensure that a wetland is not created on his property unintentionally. He stated that he is supportive of the McMillans being able to do what they want with their property but stressed that he does not want to become landlocked. Mike Bader, 1297 Knollwood Lane, commented that his mother owns 8.3 acres off Foxwood. He commented that they do not have sewer because there is no sewer on Wentworth, but water is Page 299 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES stubbed to Wentworth. He commented that they are supportive of the request but noted that one of their parcels is also landlocked given the issues with Foxwood. He stated that he would like to build his dream home on that land in the future and believed that a more comprehensive view is taken of the super block to ensure there is access and utility connections available for all properties. Mr. McMillan commented that he had considered the concerns of Mr. Kohler and developed plans with a utility easement to the north end of his property but had concern that the Kohlers would not connect from Ridgewood and would wait until he develops on lot one in order to bridge off that utility connection. He stated that he did not want to create an easement when they are unsure what the future home will look like and therefore felt it was premature. He stated that he would be happy to discuss that with the Kohlers and add a utility easement. Chair Field asked if the Development Agreement could contain that requirement. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that he was going to suggest that the plat shall provide a utility easement of 20 feet in width to the property to the north. Mr. McMillan agreed that would be reasonable. Chair Field commented that when he moved in the old Ritter farm was his frontage which is now Hidden Creek, and he did require access to utilities as part of that development. Mr. McMillan commented that he does not have any plans for a sport court. He recognized that this is a roundabout process in attempting to meet the Code requirements. He stated that they did meet all the Code requirement and Comprehensive Plan goals, although perhaps not in the most straight forward way. Commissioner Petschel asked if the applicant would agree with the utility easement for the property to the north. Mr. McMillan commented that he does agree with that, he just wanted to determine the home placement in order to provide that in the most logical way. Mr. Kohler commented that he is not asking for a specific location, just for utility access to be provided somewhere for his property. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 300 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Corbett commented that this is a really perverse approach to meeting requirements, noting that he does not think that is the fault of the applicant. He commented that the difficulty in building even one home would be the issue of frontage. He stated that if there is a commitment to doing the cul-de-sac that would make the lots conform, but would struggle to accept a dedication that would make this conform on paper. He commented that this seems to be breaking ordinances to get this to conform. Commissioner Petschel commented that he does not believe that they are breaking ordinances with the proposed plan. Commissioner Corbett commented that by accepting the proposed plan they would not break ordinances, but it is getting really creative to not break ordinances. Commissioner Petschel noted that this is the weird properties that are left in the city. Commissioner Stone commented that he is not against someone building a home on their property but would not want to approve something that would hurt the properties of others and therefore would not be opposed to tabling. Commissioner Petschel recognized that multiple residents requested that but noted that would result in an automatic approval. Chair Field agreed that if the City Council meeting were missed that would be the result. Commissioner Stone commented that he would then support denial of the request. Commissioner Petschel commented that the Commission is always confronted with property rights and the desire of a neighbor to keep the status quo. He recognized that everyone wants to maintain the status quo in their neighborhood, but the rules must be followed in order for people to develop their property in the manner allowed. He commented that it is clear that they cannot say that a legal and conforming development irritates the neighbors or impacts their property development and therefore the request is being denied. He noted that can be part of the reasoning but cannot be the sole reason. Commissioner Stone commented that he understands that and in listening to all the comments along with the cost to the City to ultimately construct the cul-de-sac, even though it sounds like that would be unlikely. Commissioner Petschel commented that it is not whether the Commission would want this to be done, but whether this could be allowed. He recognized that lot three may be purely for profit but if the City prevented the applicant from doing something they could do, they could sue and end up with something being approved that would be less desirable. Commissioner Corbett commented that this would not be allowed unless the City accepts the dedicated land, per this solution. Page 301 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Petschel asked if this is a viable solution. Commissioner Stone commented that this is not a straight shot and is more of a maze. Chair Field asked staff for additional input related to property rights and related staff recommendation for approval. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided some input on the last three months of working on revisions with the applicant. She noted that the utility easement to the north was a revised plan set that staff reviewed with the applicant and at that time the intention of the applicant was to work through the request that proper utility connections would be provided through future subdivision and the applicant determined that they would not provide that easement because it was premature to the plans to construct a home on lot one. He stated that their hope was that the easement could be negotiated privately between the two property owners. She stated that they also discussed moving the cul-de-sac further north towards the other property lines which could potentially provide access to other properties. She stated that staff believes that the dedicated right-of-way provides the lot width fronting a dedicated street. She stated that there is no requirement that a lot have the access off the required width for frontage, noting that there are other examples of that which exist in Mendota Heights. She stated that it is the perspective of staff that this would meet zoning requirements. She stated that this also shows availability of future subdivision as well. She stated that staff and the City Attorney reviewed the application and believes this to meet the minimum standards. Commissioner Stone asked who would pay for the utilities to be laid. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the applicant/developer would fund those extensions at the points where they are triggered. Commissioner Stone referenced an email which stated that staff had not evaluated the proposal of living street policy, existing stormwater runoff, design, etc. and did not believe that could be true. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that in terms of the living streets policy, this proposal would be more beneficial to that because a street is not proposed to be extended but the public would have access to the wetland areas through the platted right-of-way rather than trespassing on private property. Commissioner Corbett asked if he could park his car on the right-of-way. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he would disagree that could be done because it is not developed as a public street. Commissioner Katz recognized that it would be the responsibility of the McMillans to install the utilities when certain points are triggered. He used the scenario that that the McMillans have not run the utilities but there is an easement to the north for utilities and that neighbor wanted to connect. He asked how that would be done. Page 302 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that would be a situation where a private property owner would petition the City to install those improvements. She stated that if there was an easement in alignment with the current cul-de-sac, the utility extension could be installed at the responsibility of the property owner to the north and the cost would not be solely on this developer. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the City will not issue a building permit until the utilities are installed, therefore a building permit would not be issued for lot three or lot one until utilities are provided. Commissioner Udell used the scenario that this home is never built but there is an agreement for a utility easement to the north and asked how that would be addressed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that lot one would have to go forward first, and an easement could not be dedicated without a plan for lot one. Chair Field used the scenario that lot three is purchased for preservation and asked if the cul-de- sac could then be abandoned. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that if it is going to remain a developable parcel that is not going to be combined with another parcel, it would still count towards the utility and cul-de-sac construction. Commissioner Johnson asked if multiple people could divide lot three to combine with their existing properties. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that would need to be considered as a separate plat application and it was noted that would be unlikely to occur. Commissioner Corbett commented that it seems that the City is doing a lot to alleviate the applicant from nonconformance. He believes that this would be much clearer as a variance, and this is a perverse way to create frontage. Commissioner Petschel agreed. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would seem that the only benefit would be to create two lots. Chair Field commented that this would not be dissimilar to an abandoned right-of-way that was recently given up as part of the Norton case. Commissioner Corbett commented that was given up a year ago with the knowledge that there would be future development. Chair Field noted that it had the same intention for future development. Page 303 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Corbett commented that this seems very convenient and backwards. Commissioner Petschel stated that he does not disagree, but it is a consequence of the City’s own zoning rules. He stated that it is not that he wants to do this, but this is a conforming application that follows the City rules. He stated that if the City does not want to do it, and that is the only reason why, the applicant would have an easy case in court because they followed the City rules. Commissioner Corbett commented that only by accepting land does this conform. Commissioner Petschel commented that in every subdivision the City takes land. Commissioner Corbett commented that on paper there will be right-of-way but in practice it will just be flag lots. Commissioner Petschel asked if construction of the cul-de-sac would make it different for Commissioner Corbett. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would conform in that scenario. Commissioner Petschel commented that what if the City decides it does not want to construct a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Johnson commented that the developer would construct the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Udell commented that is not normally how that works, as the developer dedicates the land until the point the street actually is constructed. Commissioner Corbett commented that it seems that the variance is the tool that should be considered in this case. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that the variance was the first request but was a worse legal position. Commissioner Corbett commented that physically looking at this there is no difference than what is presented here. Chair Field commented that the Commission did not even hear the case for the variance. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the previous case did not include a variance request and the recommendation for denial was based on the dead-end street right-of-way not constituting a right-of-way the City would have accepted as it did not plan for future subdivision. Commissioner Corbett commented that would seem to further support that this is just a work around for something that would not be allowed. He stated that by defining this right-of-way and cul-de-sac it would seem that everything would then conform. Page 304 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Chair Field commented that the applicant dedicated the right-of-way in order to get there. He reminded the Commission that this does not include house pads and is merely a lot split. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF A THREE-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS MCMILLAN ESTATES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THIS IS A BACKWARDS APPRAOCH TO CIRCUMVENT A PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL, THAT WOULD DEFINE AN IMPROVEMENT THAT IS NEVER INTENDED TO BE COMPLETED, AND THAT THE DEFERRMENT OF THE IMPROVEMENT WITH NO DATE IS BAD PRACTICE. Further discussion: Commissioner Corbett commented that he is not against the development of this property but believes that this is the wrong way to consider this. Commissioner Petschel stated that he will be voting against this motion purely because it would save the City the cost of a lawsuit that the applicant would be very likely to win. He stated that if the applicant is presenting something that is deemed valid by City staff, there would need to be something to point to that is not valid. He stated that this is not a matter of opinion or what they think is the best use of the property. Commissioner Corbett commented that he disagrees that this is the way. Commissioner Stone disagreed as well, noting that if the basis is just on the recommendation of staff, then there would be no point for the Planning Commission to hold a three-hour meeting. Commissioner Petschel commented that there are certain aspects of the Commission where they are simply “calling balls and strikes” and this is one of those cases. Commissioner Stone disagreed noting that this case has a lot of grey area. He stated that if it were clearer, it would be an easy strike, but there has been a reason that this has continued to be tabled. Commissioner Petschel commented that Commissioner Stone is welcome to his opinion. He commented that this is a valid project, and no one has provided a valid argument as to why it could be denied other than it looks bad. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would not meet the requirements. Commissioner Petschel commented that it does meet the requirements. Commissioner Corbett commented that it would only meet the requirement if the City takes this land. Commissioner Petschel stated that is not how subdivisions rule work, the City cannot say that it does not want to accept land to prevent someone from subdividing. Page 305 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Corbett asked if he could provide a proposal to subdivide 15 lots, dedicate land and never build the street. Commissioner Petschel commented that could potentially happen as there are tons of lots that exist like that in the city. Chair Field commented that there is a condition that would trigger when the road would need to be built. Commissioner Corbett commented that this is a flag lot with a variance and that is what it would be at the end of the day. Commissioner Johnson stated that she struggles with the ghost cul-de-sac and how that would meet all the requirements. She stated that even though she agrees that building a cul-de-sac would not be great for the environment, she does not understand having the cul-de-sac on paper and not in reality. Chair Field commented that there was a ghost easement for a street that was platted and never developed in another case tonight. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the City has every right to demand public improvements. He stated that this is a plat request, and the City would have every right to demand that the cul-de-sac be constructed before a building permit is issued. He stated that if the City agreed to the request of the applicant, that would essentially go away, and the trigger would become further subdivision of lot one. Commissioner Corbett commented that the deferment would seem appropriate if only one home were being built on the property, but in his opinion the cul-de-sac should be constructed if there is a second home built. Commissioner Petschel commented that while he would agree, it sounded like the City was not going to build the cul-de-sac even if there are two homes. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that there is only 15 feet of shared driveway as the first driveway goes to the east far before the cul-de-sac, so there is only one driveway going back. He clarified that lot three requires the right-of-way, not an actual curb and gutter street. Commissioner Petschel asked and received confirmation that the plat receives its frontage because of the cul-de-sac. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the City would not construct the cul-de-sac and it is up to the Commission to recommend whether the City require the developer to construct the cul-de-sac, noting that would ultimately be a decision of the City Council. Page 306 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Petschel commented that the conditions could be amended to require the cul-de- sac construction be triggered when the second home is constructed. Commissioner Corbett commented that he still believes that this is the wrong approach. Commissioner Johnson commented that perhaps this could become the right approach through that condition. Commissioner Corbett stated that it did not sound like neither the applicant nor the City want to construct the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Corbett commented that he is not attempting to push a vote against the denial, but simply explaining that denying this project would deny a valid plat that meets the City requirements. Commissioner Corbett commented that this is a very backwards way of working around a denied variance. Chair Field clarified that there never was a denied variance. AYES: 2 (Corbett and Stone) NAYS: 5 Motion failed. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any change in the language of the conditions that Commissioner Corbett would agree to. Commissioner Corbett commented that if there is a commitment to building the cul-de-sac he could get on board, otherwise that stipulation seems to be having your cake and eating it too. Chair Field acknowledged the frustration of Commissioner Corbett. Commissioner Katz stated that he understands the frustration but if everything in the application meets the zoning requirements and legal counsel has reviewed this as well, there has to be some faith that everything has been reviewed correctly be staff and legal counsel. He noted that this will still go forward to the City Council for the final decision. Commissioner Udell stated that as the plat stands on its own it answers the mail as to what is asked of it. Chair Field stated that trees, wetlands, and building permits will still come forward and require additional review. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is typical expectation that a developer will do what they say when it comes to an improvement. Page 307 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Chair Field commented that the entitlement of the City to request the cul-de-sac would stand until the time when further development was to occur. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that typically public improvements are required prior to the issuance of building permits, but in this particular case the applicant is requesting deferral of that requirement; with the utility improvements to occur with the construction of the two lots and that the fully developed right-of-way, street and cul-de-sac be deferred until the time when resubdivision were to occur as with the current proposal the cul-de- sac would only serve one lot. She stated that the deferral is being requested through the Development Agreement which is a separate agreement between the City and developer and therefore those elements are not included in the conditions for the plat. She noted that is a separate action that will go before the City Council. Commissioner Petschel commented that the City Council could then decide to require the cul-de- sac. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND 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 AND 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. 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 UTILTIZING 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 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 Page 308 of 312 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES 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 OT THE CITY AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW PROCESS FOR EACH NEW HOME AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. 11. A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES SHALL BE EXCUTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED FOR RECORDING WITH DAKOTA COUNTY, AND BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS. 12. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER TO DEFINE A UTILITY EASEMENT. Further discussion: Commissioner Petschel commented that it is not about whether he wants the project and is sympathetic to neighbors that are used to something being a certain way. He commented that it is not the place of the City to deny plats based on what people want others to do with their own property. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Corbett and Stone) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. Page 309 of 312 From:Sarah Madden To:Sarah Madden Subject:FW: Case 2024-01: McMillan Estates Date:Thursday, June 27, 2024 8:42:00 AM From: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2024 7:22 AM To: Cheryl Jacobson <CJacobson@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Fwd: Case 2024-01: McMillan Estates From: Linda Pontinen <lindapontinen@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:38:40 PM To: Jay Miller <JMiller@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Case 2024-01: McMillan Estates Good Evening Mayor and City Council Members, We appeal to you with deep emotions and ask you to please listen and act upon our plea. We built our home at 1760 Ridgewood Drive in Mendota Heights almost 50 years ago. The property to our immediate north has had several proposals over a number of years presented to the planning commission and city council. We left last night’s planning commission meeting very confused. Rather than focus on the neighbors’ concerns the discussion focused mainly on the newly created ghost cul de sac. Several of our neighbors feel that while we were allowed time to publicly speak, most of the commissioners did not really listen to us. They politely listened but did not attempt to address our concerns. The discussion at the meeting revolved around the ghost cul de sac. It became our understanding that the owner never really plans to build the second cul de sac. This proposal is on paper only to pacify the city’s requirement of 125’street frontage when building a new home. A variance was mentioned but not really pursued. The people were crying out for environmental protection and conservation. One commissioner was supportive of our neighborhood and tried frantically to encourage the Page 310 of 312 others to listen to us but to no avail. Our hopes and concerns were very minimally addressed. When considering this proposal next Tuesday, please consider the thoughts of the people you represent. Our neighborhood felt very strongly that the planning commission was not listening to the people. We agree that Mr. McMillan has every right to build his dream home. He has chosen to build it on the hill in lot 1, per submitted with his original proposal. There are no wetlands on the hill in that area. All of us are mostly concerned with lot 3. Lot 3 affects both Ridgewood Drive and Delaware homes. We are asking that the proposed driveway for the smaller home on lot 3 be moved to the north slightly. It is presently 5 feet from our boundary. Many mature trees will be affected with this construction. Even if they survive being chopped or destroyed during construction, their root system could easily be affected. They could well die within a few years. The Delaware neighbors are concerned also. There are some wetlands on lot 3. This raises more confusion. On the most recent proposal, no homes or driveways were included. The original proposal has homes and driveways. The verbalization from Mr McMillan eluded that the homes and driveways, though not included on the present map, are indeed planned per the earlier map. In the 1990’s the property in question received a wetlands survey. Because of the large amount of wetlands, it was determined that this land would never be built upon. Later, rules changed. Now wetlands can be filled in but a contract must be signed. The owner must agree to a 2 to 1 contract or higher. Or the owner can opt to donate toward wetland points. He/she can donate to creating more wetlands outside of Mendota Heights. I was told that a popular wetlands to donate to now is on the North Shore. Why are we encouraging/permitting people to expand wetlands on the north shore versus right here in Mendota Heights? Is that helping our community? We should keep wetlands and points within our city! I was told by an environmental conservationalist that it would be very helpful to seek a new wetlands survey. Upon further investigation, I discovered that the surveys are honored through the city only once every 5 years. The Super Block land last had a wetlands survey in 2021. Could we possibly seek an exemption to the 5 year rule? The environmental specialist stressed that the neighborhood should pursue a wetlands survey before any land intrusion occurs if possible. Animals and soil are also considered as well as water. Perhaps the wetland boundaries have changed and increased knowledge could prove invaluable. Page 311 of 312 Thank you for all of your sincere interest and support of our community. We commend each of for all of your efforts in representing us. I have read the introduction to our beautiful city many times. This is copied from Mendota Heights’ website online. The City of Mendota Heights is dedicated to restoring its natural areas to native vegetation and ecosystems. The City is fortunate in having numerous natural areas and open spaces that encompass a variety of vegetative communities, including but not limited to: floodplain forest, upland forest, mesic prairie, oak savanna, and wetland communities. Mendota Heights is dedicated to this goal. The land on our northern boarder, called the Super Block was labeled wet lands years ago. The Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan states that “ Natural resources are the basis of Mendota Heights’quality of life, beloved by residents, appreciated by visitors, and stewarded by private landowners. . . most of the city’s (natural areas) are on private land “ These areas must be protected. This dedication to wildlife and protecting our wetlands is repeated often in the Natural Resources Management Plan. Striving to protect our environment is paramount for our city. It is estimated that over 1500 mature trees will be destroyed if the present proposal for Super Block is accepted. Inmumerable animals, water life, plants and birds will be destroyed or lose their homes. Never to return. Please join us in striving to protect our beautiful community. Once it is destroyed it will never return. All of us are depending upon you. Please help. Sincerely, Linda R. Pontinen Page 312 of 312