Loading...
2024-08-07 City Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 7, 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 July 16, 2024, City Council Meeting b.Acknowledge Minutes from the June 25, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting c.Approve Massage License d.Acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report e.Resolution 2024-44 Accepting Donations to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby Page 1 of 312 f.Approve the Hiring of Firefighters g.Acknowledge June 2024 Fire Synopsis h.Resolution 2024-43 Approving a MRCCA Permit for Minor Development at 1901 Glenhill Road (Planning Case 2024-16) i.Approve a Professional Services Contract for the Fire Station Roof Replacement j.Approve Ivy Falls Retaining Wall Repair k.Approval of the June 2024 Treasurer's Report l.Approval of Claims List 7.Presentations 8.Public Hearings 9.New and Unfinished Business a.Tabled - Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates [Planning Case 2024-01] b.Resolution 2024-45 Accepting Feasibility Report, Authorizing Preparation of Plans & Specifications, and Calling for a Public Hearing for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements c.Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) Tournament Fee Reduction Request d.Ordinance 589 Amending Title 8, Chapter 4 of the City Code Regulating Public Parks 10.Community / City Administrator Announcements 11.City Council Comments 12.Adjourn Next Regular Meeting August 20 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 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 16, 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. MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF OFFICER SCOTT PATRICK, EOW JULY 30, 2014 Mayor Levine asked the audience to observe the ten-year memorial of the loss of Officer Scott Patrick (July 30, 2014) with a moment of silence. She stated that there will be an annual memorial on the anniversary of his death on the corner of Dodd and Smith on July 30th. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved to add Item 7L, Resolution 2024-42, Approve Temporary Permit to Minnesota Department of Transportation for a Slope Repair on Highway 13 to the agenda. Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve the agenda as amended. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. 6.a Page 3 of 312 July 16, 2024 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 4 CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Miller moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items C and L. a. Approval of July 2, 2024 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge June 11, 2024, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes c. Authorize Hiring of Police Cadets d. Award Contract for the Marie Avenue Bridge Repair e. Approve Massage Therapist Licenses f. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License – Holy Family Maronite Catholic Church g. Approve Out of the Metro Travel Authorization – Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Conference h. Acknowledge May 2024 Fire Synopsis i. Approve the Purchase of a Rhan Groomer PH1200 Infield Groomer j. Set City Council Budget Workshop Dates k. Approval of Claims List l. Resolution 2024-42, Approve Temporary Permit to Minnesota Department of Transportation for Slope Repair on Highway 13 Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVE HIRING OF POLICE CADETS Councilor Miller commented that among the two candidates is someone who has been a member of the Fire Department for the past two years and is a member of his squad. He commented that David is a high- quality human being, and the Police Department is getting a top-notch person. He acknowledged that the Police Department continues to hire high quality candidates, which is a testimony to its leadership. Mayor Levine commented that she is also excited to see both candidates joining the department. Councilor Miller moved to approve HIRING OF POLICE CADETS. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 L) RESOLUTION 2024-42, APPROVE TEMPORARY PERMIT TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SLOPE REPAIR ON HIGHWAY 13 Councilor Lorberbaum asked for details on the definition of real property in the draft resolution. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that real property is actual land that the City is the deed holder of. Councilor Paper asked when this work would start. Page 4 of 312 July 16, 2024 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 4 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he did not yet receive that date. He stated that it sounds like a contractor has been hired and they would like to begin work right away. He noted that the original paperwork stated that the work would be completed by August 3rd but anticipated that date could be extended. He stated that the permit would expire at the end of 2024. Councilor Lorberbaum moved to approve RESOLUTION 2024-42 APPROVING TEMPORARY PERMIT TO MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SLOPE REPAIR ON HIGHWAY 13. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FY2023 AUDIT REPORT Caroline Stutsman, BerganKDV, presented the Annual Audit Review for 2023. Councilor Mazzitello expressed thanks and appreciation for the great work of Finance Director Kristen Schabacker. Mayor Levine thanked Ms. Stutsman and echoed the comments of appreciation for Finance Director Kristen Schabacker and her staff. Councilor Miller moved to accept the FY2023 AUDIT REPORT. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper commented that he had the opportunity to enjoy the fireworks this year and received many comments of appreciation for the fireworks. He stated that he also received feedback on the Par 3, noting that it is in great condition and people are enjoying the course. Councilor Lorberbaum noted the recent discussions related to Aspen House. She stated that the next community advisory quarterly meeting will be held the following day at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall. She stated Page 5 of 312 July 16, 2024 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 4 that the Primary Election will be held on August 13th and also provided information on how residents can vote early at City Hall. Councilor Miller commented that residents hosting a party for Night to Unite should register the party with the City if they would like representation from the City/Council at the party. Councilor Mazzitello provided details on the tenth anniversary memorial that will take place on July 30th for Scott Patrick. He encouraged residents to attend if possible. He stated that nine years ago yesterday, there was a backup in the sewer line on Decorah Lane and the road collapsed. He stated that thanks to the work of the Public Works staff and assistance from neighboring communities, they were able to address the situation without causing any sewer backups into homes. Mayor Levine stated that she recently attended the end of training ceremony for probationary firefighters, noting that it is an amazing ceremony and had the opportunity to meet the firefighters. She commented that they are the most interesting people that truly have public service at their core. She congratulated DARTS, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, serving older adults and their families. She stated that there will be a 50th anniversary celebration on August 1st and more information can be found on the DARTS website. ADJOURN Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 6 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 25, 2024 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2024 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:04 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 28, 2024 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2024. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field commented that there is a full agenda and because of the straightforward nature of most of the cases, the Commission has agreed to reorganize the agenda, taking the cases in reverse order beginning with case #2024-12 and working backward. Commissioner Johnson arrived. Hearings 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. Page 7 of 312 6.b June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 26 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. 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. Page 8 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 26 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 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. 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 Page 9 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 26 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 building 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. 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 Page 10 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 26 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. 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. Page 11 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 26 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. 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. Page 12 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 26 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. 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 ASSOCIATE EASEMENTS, SUGJECT 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 AN/OR ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. Page 13 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 26 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 Beebe 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. 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. Page 14 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 26 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. 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 Page 15 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 26 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. 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 2021 as part of the wetland delineation. 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. Page 16 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 26 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. 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. Page 17 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 26 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. 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. Page 18 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 26 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. 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. Page 19 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 26 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. 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 Page 20 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 26 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. 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 Page 21 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 26 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 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. Page 22 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 26 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 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. Page 23 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 26 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. 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 Page 24 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 26 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. 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. Page 25 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 26 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. 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. Page 26 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 26 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. 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. Page 27 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 26 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. 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. Page 28 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 26 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. 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. Page 29 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 26 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 by 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. 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. Page 30 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 26 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 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 Page 31 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 26 NAYS: 2 (Corbett and Stone) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted the fireworks that will take place on July 4th at Mendakota Park. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a verbal update on recent City Council actions on planning related cases. She also noted upcoming items the Commission may consider including the zoning code update. Adjournment COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:17 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 32 of 312 6.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Massage License ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk ACTION REQUEST: Approve a massage therapist license. BACKGROUND: Natalia Logodko has applied for a massage therapist license at Green Lotus Yoga and Healing Center. She paid the fees, completed the application requirements, and passed a background investigation. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 33 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 6.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the May Par 3 Financial Report. BACKGROUND: In the month of May, the course had a total of 3,395 rounds of golf played and a total of $43,759 in monthly revenue. The 2024 year-to-date revenue total including May is $107,972. The course's May expenditures totaled $43,174. The year-to-date expenditure total is $95,093. As of now the course is showing a $12,879 operating surplus. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Monthly Expenditure Report-May 2024 is attached. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Monthly Expenditure Report-May 2024 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 34 of 312 MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT MAY 2024 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT May 2024 (42% OF YEAR) May REVENUES May YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2024 2024 % 2023 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $177,000 $34,141 $61,454 34.72% $49,113 RECREATION PROGRAMS $54,000 $3,345 $36,723 68.00% $43,370 CONCESSIONS $34,000 $6,222 $9,695 28.52% $5,649 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $51 $100 100.00% $113 INTEREST $450 $0 $0 0.00% $0 INSURANCE CLAIM $0 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $265,450 $43,759 $107,972 40.67% $98,245 EXPENDITURES May YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2024 2024 % 2023 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $47,600 $5,627 $12,009 25.23% $7,463 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $34,358 $2,788 $14,715 42.83% $12,574 FICA/PERA $14,362 $1,440 $3,452 24.03% $2,393 MEDICAL INSURANCE $7,544 $629 $3,143 41.67% $2,995 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $3,420 $3,105 $4,928 144.08% $5,364 RENTALS $8,000 $1,427 $1,427 17.84% $1,350 UTILITIES $16,013 $1,201 $4,411 27.54% $4,393 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $3,080 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $1,100 $664 $664 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $7,250 $0 $0 0.00% $0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $27,000 $3,153 $5,217 19.32% $4,430 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $5,000 $0 $0 0.00% $2,779 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,800 $0 $4,100 85.41% $3,365 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $11,300 $4,202 $4,576 40.50% $4,824 FUEL $3,000 $329 $373 12.43% $365 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $58,750 $1,046 $13,607 23.16% $28,430 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $12,750 $104 $3,058 23.98% $3,258 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $10,000 $1,266 $3,222 32.22% $2,706 GREENS ROLLER $0 $16,191 $16,191 $0 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $275,327 $43,174 $95,093 34.54% $86,689 Page 35 of 312 6.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-44 Accepting Donations to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation Program Coordinator ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2024-44 Accepting Donations to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby. BACKGROUND: By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the Council Council by means of a resolution. On July 18, the annual Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby was held at Rogers Lake Park. This event has been a community favorite for many years and has been made possible by donations received from the community. Donations received include the following: •Cliff Timm Memorial Fund: $1,000 Cash •Helen and Dave Lucentee: 10 Fishing Poles ($500 value) •Ira Kipp: $75 Cash The City is grateful for the generosity of these donations. Staff will send out thank you notes to the donors. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. Page 36 of 312 ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2024-44 Formally Accepting Donations to the Cliff Timm Memorial Fishing Derby CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Inclusive and Responsive Government, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 37 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-44 FORMALLY ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE CLIFF TIMM MEMORIAL FISHING DERBY 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 wish 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 accept the following donations: •Cliff Timm Memorial Fund: $1,000 Cash •Helen and Dave Lucentee: 10 Fishing Poles ($500 value) •Ira Kipp: $75 Cash Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 38 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 6.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Approve the Hiring of Firefighters ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief ACTION REQUEST: Approve the hiring of Joseph Fabiano, Pete Johnson, Brandon Rebhan as Mendota Heights probationary firefighters with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. BACKGROUND: Staff has completed the recruitment process to fill vacant firefighter positions within the Mendota Heights Fire Department. A conditional offer has been extended, contingent upon the successful completion of a pre-employment physical, background check, psychological assessment and approval of the City Council to the following candidates: Joseph Fabiano, Peter Johnson, and Brandon Rebhan. Once hired, the new firefighters will complete a year of intensive and in-depth training by the Mendota Heights Fire Department training officers through which they will learn the skills, procedures, and practices necessary to serve on the Mendota Heights Fire Department. Once they complete their training, they will be sworn in as Mendota Heights Firefighters. With the approval of the City Council, candidates will begin their classroom training on August 8. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: With the addition of these firefighters, the Mendota Heights Fire Department will have a total of 35 firefighters. These firefighter positions are included in the city budget. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 39 of 312 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 40 of 312 6.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge June 2024 Fire Synopsis ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Fire CONTACT: Assistant Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein ACTION REQUEST: Acknowledge the June 2024 Fire Synopsis. BACKGROUND: The Fire Synopsis is for your information. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1.June 2024 Fire Synopsis CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 41 of 312 June 2024 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls: 29 For June 2024, the Fire Department paged for service a total of 29 times. Mendota Heights 24 calls Lilydale 1 call Mendota 3 calls Sunfish Lake 1 call Other 0 calls Types of calls: Medical/Extrication: 8 In June the Fire Department responded to two vehicle accidents and six other calls that were medical in nature. Hazardous Situations: 8 Eight calls for service had the fire department responding: Three instances of downed power lines, one to arcing power lines, two outdoor gas leaks, one gas leak in a home due to an unlit burner being left on, and one carbon monoxide call for a CO leak in a multi-tenant building. Service Calls: 1 The department responded to one unauthorized burning complaint. False Alarms/System Malfunctions: 8 For June, the MHFD recorded four unintentional trips of fire alarms, two trips due to system malfunctions, and two calls coded as false alarms. Good Intent: 1 One call was coded as a good intent; a person thought they had witnessed a person who’d collapsed from their bicycle, but upon arrival he was just resting. Dispatched and Cancelled En route: 2 Two calls were cancelled before our units arrived on scene in June. Mutual/Auto-Aid Other: 1 Only one call for auto aid came in June and that was for a call to West St. Paul. Page 42 of 312 June Trainings Monday, June 10 18:30 Mandatory Company Ops (Option 1) This drill had the department training on all large volume discharge devices including flowing water from the ladder truck nozzle, the nozzle of the aerial Squrt device and the deck gun mounted on Engine 10 and used in a portable manner as a ground monitor. Thursday, June 13 07:00 Mandatory Company Ops (Option 2) This drill had the department training on all large volume discharge devices including flowing water from the ladder truck nozzle, the nozzle of the aerial Squrt device and the deck gun mounted on Engine 10 and used in a portable manner as a ground monitor. Wednesday, June 19 18:30 Mandatory Company Ops (Option 3) This drill had the department training on all large volume discharge devices including flowing water from the ladder truck nozzle, the nozzle of the aerial Squrt device and the deck gun mounted on Engine 10 and used in a portable manner as a ground monitor. Monday, June 24 18:30 Mandatory Ice/Water Rescue (Option 4) This drill was intended to be dedicated to ice rescue but due to unseasonably warm temperatures became a modified ice/water rescue drill. It was held at Rogers Lake and multiple scenarios were performed with a person in the water requiring assistance. On shore skills were also practiced. Tuesday, June 25 7:00 Boat / Water Ops (Option 1) This drill was held in-house and went over driving and backing with the boat on the trailer, operation of the boat itself as well as quick deployment of the department’s inflatable watercraft for water bodies where we are unable to launch our rescue boat. Wednesday, June 26 18:30 Boat / Water Ops (Option 2) This drill was held in-house and went over driving and backing with the boat on the trailer, operation of the boat itself as well as quick deployment of the department’s inflatable watercraft for water bodies where we are unable to launch our rescue boat. Thursday, June 27 18:30 Mandatory Ladder Company Ops (Option 4) This drill was dedicated to multiple stations focused on proper deployment and usage of both ground ladders and working from and with the aerial on the ladder truck. It also covered proper roof firefighting procedures. Page 43 of 312 Number of Calls 29 Total Calls for the Year 173 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUM BER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $0 Structure - MH Residential $3,500 Structure - Contract Areas $0 Cooking Fire - confined $0 Vehicle - MH $46,124 Vehicle - Contract Areas $0 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES Other Fire OVERPRESSURE RUPTURE $0 $0 $0 Excessive heat, scorch burns MEDICAL Emergency Medical/Assist 6 Vehicle accident w/injuries 2 Extrication ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 Medical, other HAZARDOUS SITUATION $46,124 Spills/Leaks 3 Carbon Monoxide Incident 1 $0 Power line down 3 Arcing, shorting 1 $49,624 Hazardous, Other SERVICE CALL Smoke or odor removal $0 Assist Police or other agency Service Call, other 1 GOOD INTENT Good Intent 1 Dispatched & Cancelled 2 Current To Date Last Year Smoke Scare 23 127 151 HazMat release investigation 1 12 10 Good Intent, Other 3 7 4 FALSE ALARMS 1 8 17 False Alarm 2 1 19 19 Malfunction 2 entional 4 Total:29 173 201 False Alarm, other MUTUAL AID 1 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH otal Calls 29 Inspections Investigations WORK PERFORMED Hours To Date Last Year Re-Inspection Fire Calls 350.5 2189 2544.5 Meetings 11.5 471.25 307 Meetings Training 509.5 2419 1889.5 Special Activity 1.5 200.5 300 Administration Fire Marshal 0 0 Plan Review/Training TOTALS 873 5279.75 5041 TOTAL:0 Mendota Heights Only Structure/Contents Mendota Heights Only Miscellaneous Mendota Heights Total Loss to Date Contract Areas Loss to Date Mendota Heights Lilydale Mendota Sunfish Lake Mutual Aid MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT JUNE 2024 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE LOSS TOTALS LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS Page 44 of 312 6.h REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-43 Approving a MRCCA Permit for Minor Development at 1901 Glenhill Road (Planning Case 2024-16) ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2024-43 Approving an Administrative Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit for the property located at 1901 Glenhill Road. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to authorize the installation of a new privacy fence on the north property line of the subject site, replacing an existing segment of fence. The proposal is generally a replacement of the former wood privacy fence. The new fence is to be constructed as a 6-ft tall, framed batten wood privacy fence along an 80-ft long segment at the north property line. The subject property is located within the R-1 Residential Zoning district; and is situated within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area overlay district. According to the city’s MRCCA Mapping of this area, the subject property is located in the SR-Separated by River District. The MRCCA Map of the subject property shows the Bluff Impact Zone approximately 89-ft distanced from the proposed fence replacement project (at its closest point). No part of this proposed fence will impact or affect any adjacent bluff, steep slopes, or bluff impact zones (BIZ). The MRCCA Mapping system also identifies any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA), which include protected areas such as established Significant Existing Vegetative Stands or Native Plant Communities on properties inside the MRCCA district. The subject property is separated from any significant vegetative areas by a distance of greater than 100-ft. The location of this new fence does not impact any part(s) of the adjacent PCA’s in this area. Page 45 of 312 Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-12, no building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter (Miss. River Corridor Critical Area) until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Subpart D. of this section also includes an allowance for “Minor Developments”, which include minor improvements to a single-family property that can be approved directly by the City Council, without Planning Commission review or recommendation, and without a public hearing, but only if the minor project and plans conform to the general standards of this section. Eligible projects for an Administrative MRCCA Permit include small building additions, decks; fences; etc. All administrative approved projects must meet or comply with the following conditions (with Staff comments noted afterwards): 1.No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen percent (18%). Staff Comments: Staff has reviewed the contours on the property according to Dakota County’s GIS mapping and identified a slight slope running east to west along this property. The north property line where this fence segment is located has a minimal change in grade, with a drop of 4-ft and approximate slope grade of 8%. The property as a whole also does not contain any slopes greater than 18%. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 2.No part of the project shall impact, disturb or be situated in a bluff line setback area as defined by this chapter, whether on the same parcel or on an abutting parcel of land. Staff Comments: Although the subject property is situated in the MRCCA overlay district, there are no bluffs; bluff impact zones (BIZ’s); or any Primary Conservation Areas (PCA) on this property. At its closest point, the BIZ line is approximately 69-ft from the project area. The fence update project is minimal and minor enough to not pose any threat or negative impacts to the abutting or neighboring properties. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 3.The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than two hundred (200) square feet. Staff Comments: Not applicable; there is no addition proposed under this permit. Staff confirms this standard is being met. 4.The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. Staff Comments: Not applicable; there is no addition being made to any structure(s) under this permit. Staff confirms this standard will be met. 5.The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this Chapter, and any other applicable regulations. Staff Comments: The proposed fence project and all related grading work and any Page 46 of 312 restoration activities in and around this project site shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations, including the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. Staff confirms this standard is or will be met. 6.The proposed project shall not result in significant changes to the existing finished grade. Staff Comments: The proposed fence is intended to follow the existing grades of the subject property at the north property line, and replace the existing wood fence. There are no plans by the fence contractor or homeowner to change these grades as part of this fence project. Staff confirms this standard is or will be met. 7.The proposed project areas shall include native vegetation. Staff Comments: This is a typical fence installation project, in replacement of the existing north perimeter wooden fence, and there are no plans to remove any vegetation or trees to install this fence. Staff confirms this standard is being met. Based on staff’s interpretation of the intent of the Minor Development provisions of Title 12-3- 1, the scope of the project does not require Planning Commission recommendation and a public hearing; and therefore, may be given full consideration and approval by the City Council. Since there are no impacts to the Mississippi River Corridor’s bluff areas, bluff impact zone, or PCA’s in this district, and no impacts to the surrounding properties, staff recommends the City Council approve this Administrative MRCCA Permit to Midwest Fence, on behalf of John and Lauren Delaney of 1901 Glenhill Road, with the findings-of fact and conditions as noted in the attached resolution. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2024-43 2.Site Location and Aerial Map 3.MRCCA Map 4.1901 Glenhill Rd Fence Application Forms CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship Page 47 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-43 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) MINOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1901 GLENHILL ROAD (PLANNING CASE NO. 2024-16) WHEREAS, Midwest Fence (as “Applicant”) applied for an Administrative Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Minor Development Permit in order to install a segment of replacement privacy fence, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2024-16, and for the property located at 1901 Glenhill Road, legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District of the City of Mendota Heights, and the proposed project qualifies as a Minor Development under Title 12-3-12, Subpart D of the City Code provisions for those properties situated in the recognized MRCCA District; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is compliant with the required conditions for exemption from Planning Commission review and a public hearing, and can be considered and acted on directly by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit for property located at 1901 Glenhill Road, and proposed under Planning Case No. 2024-16, is hereby approved and supported by the following finding-of-facts: A) The proposed fence project poses no threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the public, or creates any negative impacts upon the MRCCA area, adjacent bluffs, bluff impact zones (BIZ’s), Primary Conservation Areas (PCA’s) or surrounding properties; B) The proposed fence project will not impact or change any grades or drainage ways on the subject property; C) The proposed fence project is in accordance with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines; D) The proposed fence project meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and City Code. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Administrative MRCCA Minor Development Permit as requested by Midwest Fence and for the Page 48 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-43 Page 2 of 3 property located at 1901 Glenhill Road, is further hereby approved with the following conditions of approval: 1.A separate fence permit must be approved by city staff prior to commencement of any installation work on the subject property. 2.If necessary, full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put into place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3.All disturbed areas impacted by new grading or construction work, both on the subject property shall be completely repaired and restored in a timely and expedited manner. 4.All 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.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of August, 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 49 of 312 Mendota Heights Res. 2024-43 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Address: 1901 Glenhill Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 PID: 27-81250-01-050 Legal Description: Lot Five (5), Block One (1) in Valley View Oak, according to the recorded plat thereof; Dakota County, Minnesota. Page 50 of 312 6666666666"" "( ! "" 6 6 66666666666FMF MFM FM66 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 666666666666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 CULLIGAN LNGLENHILL RDNearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Site Location/Aerial Map1901 Glenhill Road Date: 7/30/2024 City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 51 of 312 C U L L I G A N L N GLENHILL RDNearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN MRCCA Map1901 Glenhill Road Date: 7/30/2024 City of Mendota Heights080 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Legend MRCCA - Bluff Impact Zone DISTRICT CA-RN CA-ROS CA-RTC CA-SR CA-UC CA-UM Water Page 52 of 312 Page 53 of 312 Page 54 of 312 Page 55 of 312 Page 56 of 312 Page 57 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 6.i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Approve a Professional Services Contract for the Fire Station Roof Replacement ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Approve a professional services contract with RSI Building Envelope for the roof replacement project at the Fire Station. BACKGROUND: Based on estimated costs and the budget for the Fire Station roof replacement, the project is required to be competitively bid. State Statute requires any construction greater than $175,000 be competitively bid. For this process to occur, the city will need a bid package to solicit quotes from contractors. Staff solicited proposals from two professional consultants to develop a bid package and provide inspection services for the replacement. Both firms provided a quote for the service. Roof Spec, Inc. D/B/A RSI Building Envelope submitted a quote of $23,218 to provide this service. The quote is further broken down into a lump sum fee of $14,400 to develop plans and solicit bids, the inspection service is estimated at $8,818 and will be billed on a Time and Equipment basis. The second quote was for a lump sum of $67,312. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The city budgeted $300,000 for this project. Current estimates are exceeding the proposed budget. Based on more recent information, the project is estimated to cost around $500,000. The estimate is based on a $12,000 fee to remove and reinstall the solar panels, approximately $60,000 to remove the existing roofing, and $370,000 for the new roof system. There are also permitting and testing fees, and the consultant management fee above. Funding sources will Page 58 of 312 be further determined after the bidding phase prior to awarding a contract. ATTACHMENTS: 1.RSI Proposal CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 59 of 312 Page 60 of 312 Page 61 of 312 Page 62 of 312 Page 63 of 312 Page 64 of 312 Page 65 of 312 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 Page 75 of 312 Page 76 of 312 Page 77 of 312This page is intentionally left blank 6.j REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Ivy Falls Retaining Wall Repair ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Asssitant City Engineer ACTION REQUEST: Approve a quote from DreamScapes Landscaping & Design for the Ivy Falls Retaining Wall Repair project. BACKGROUND: The City of Mendota Heights constructed a retaining wall along Ivy Falls creek, just west of Sylvandale Road, in 1993 with improvements to the streambank along the creek and included additional storm sewer to minimize localized flooding. The wall has since partially collapsed and has been maintained in an interim condition. The existing wall is 72’ in length and 6’ in height, retaining soil directly adjacent to Ivy Falls Creek. City staff have had plans procured that would salvage the remaining block wall behind a newly constructed retaining wall requiring minimal impact to the soil currently still being held by the existing retaining wall. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Quotes were solicited from three qualified contractors including DreamScapes Landscaping & Design, Kirchner Contracting, and Sunram Construction. Quotes are summarized below: Contractor Total Quote DreamScapes Landscaping & Design, Inc. $37,131.96 Sunram Construction Inc $40,392.00 Kirchner Contracting, Inc. $43,750.00 Staff recommends approving the quote for the retaining wall repair from DreamScapes Landscaping & Design for a not to exceed amount of $37,131.96. The wall repair would be funded through the remaining water tower utility fund which has an adequate balance to Page 78 of 312 complete this repair. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Ivy Falls Retaining Wall Quote - DreamScapes Landscaping & Design 2.Ivy Falls Segmental Retaining Wall Plans CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Environmental Sustainability & Stewardship, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 79 of 312 Ivy Falls Big Block Retaining Wall Date: 1101 VICTORIA CURVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55118 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Jul-08-2024 Ivy Falls Retaining Wall 699 Sylvandale Court South Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 EST4754634Est ID: Jim KalkesSales: Thank you for the opportunity to bid the landscape work for your project. We at DreamScapes Landscaping & Design look forward to beautifying your property and exceeding your expectations. We take pride in providing quality customer service and standing behind all of our work. Therefore, the attached bid has been thoughtfully constructed to provide both value & quality. If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact me at anytime. Jim Kalkes, ASLA Direct: 612-638-7944 DreamScapes Landscaping and Design Office: 651-415-1000 Demolition of Existing Wall (Add Biorolls to Construction Area)$4,763.57 ·Remove existing wall ·Dispose of on-site wall ·Prep area for Proposed Wall ·We will do our best to save as many trees along the path, but we may need to remove some vegetation Bronco Block Ret Wall - 354sf $29,504.37 ·354 sf VERSA-LOK walls to be constructed on a compacted 3/4" clear rock leveling pad approximately 6" thick and 24" wide ·75 lf of Cap units to be secured to top of wall using concrete adhesive ·Base course of VERSA-LOK units to be embedded below grade ·12" of 3/4" clear drainage aggregate to be installed vertically behind wall units ·DreamScapes to place and compact backfil o *Excavation of Sub-cut to be done by DreamScapes o *Backfilling with onsite soil, Stockpile of soil must be within 100’ of retaining wall. Wall Engineering (Vickory 5/15/2023)$0.00 page 1 of 355038 Centerville, MN 7087 20th Ave S. Centerville JimK@DreamScapesMN.com DreamScapes Landscaping & Design, inc P.612-638-7944 www.DreamScapesMN.com |I| Page 80 of 312 All walls over 4' in height will require a structural design by a Structural Engineer. These designs shall include; ·Full Square footage of wall with amount of block needed to be buried, and lf of cap required. ·Type and location of geogrid reinforcement behind wall ·Soil backfill requirements to maintain longevity and drainage behind wall Not sure if Ron Vickory already charged the city directly? If not he typically has asked for payment from the Wall Contractor who used his design. That price would be ($1,851.00) Seed & Blanket Construction Trail $2,864.02 ·Dreamscapes will fine grade. ·Native seed shall get straw mat cover DreamScapes Warranty All hardscapes are warranty for 2 years, material and Labor. Warranty covers sinking, movement, defect, failure etc. Concrete is covered from crack separation. Hardscape warranty does not cover normal wear and tear, hairline cracks, stone weathering, movement in compliance with ICPI standards, or sub soils and environmental conditions out of DreamScapes control. Plant material: DreamScapes Landscaping & Design, Inc., guarantees all plant material, sodding, and seeding subject to the following conditions: ·All labor and material is warrantied for a period of one (1) year from the date of completion of work. ·DreamScapes will cover the cost of plant material, sod, seeded areas and labor that are irrigated 100%. ·DreamScapes is not responsible for watering of plant material, sod, or seeded areas that have been installed. Proper watering is the responsibility of owner or owner’s agent unless otherwise stated in the contract. ·Proper watering is specified as watering consistently and not overwatering to cause drowning of plant material. (DreamScapes will advise proper watering techniques upon request). If a water source is not available on site an additional charge will be incurred for a water truck, etc. ·Improper watering will be warrantied on a case by case basis to a maximum $ amount of 50% of original purchase cost, Customer is responsible for other 50% of cost. ·Watering Negligence: In the instance that no attempt for proper watering was taken, Dreamscapes will not warranty plant material. ·DreamScapes is not liable under this warranty for actual or consequential damages resulting from “acts of God,” excessive weather conditions (extreme cold/drought, etc.), soil conditions, abuse, vandalism, watering negligence, salt damage, herbivorous animals, insect damage or disease ·DreamScapes will NOT warranty Evergreen Trees After October 15. Contract DreamScapes Landscaping and Design herby proposes to furnish all materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of the landscape project in conjunction with, bid job description and specifications, and all drawings. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra cost, will be executed only upon written order, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. DreamScapes to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Workmen’s compensation and Public Liability insurance on above work to be taken out by DreamScapes. Payment schedule is to be made as follows: page 2 of 355038 Centerville, MN 7087 20th Ave S. Centerville JimK@DreamScapesMN.com DreamScapes Landscaping & Design, inc P.612-638-7944 www.DreamScapesMN.com |I| Page 81 of 312 -30 day Terms - *Credit card’s are accepted with a 3% surcharge Exclusions Electrical Work is to be done by a certified electrician only and is always additional to the Contract DreamScapes Landscaping and Design Inc. is not responsible for private utilities including, but not limited to low voltage lighting, irrigation, septic systems, energy lines etc. Damage to existing irrigation lines & heads during construction is considered to be an additional cost. Painting and Staining Access Driveways, and/or routes will be used as carefully as possible. DreamScapes Landscaping and Design is not liable for damage from deliveries and/or equipment to driveways, walks, roads etc. Site Unknowns may result in additional costs Drainage: Should the Owner's property be the lowest elevation in relation to surrounding property or buildings, DreamScapes Landscaping & Design Inc. reserves the right to retain a Soil Engineer to evaluate and propose drainage solutions. All costs for engineering services as well as the actual drainage work will be at the Owner's expense. Unless the Owner has a detailed Topographical survey completed, the above clause may come into effect. Construction Permits or any other Permits required to begin work Cancellation Dreamscapes may withdraw this proposal if not accepted within thirty (30) days of proposal date. Estimate Total $37,131.96 Subtotal Taxes $37,131.96 $0.00 Contract Payment Summary PO #Contract # Contractor: Signature Date: Jim Kalkes Client: Signature Date:07/09/2024 Email:JimK@DreamScapesMN.com |SNGT| |mm/dd/yyyy| page 3 of 355038 Centerville, MN 7087 20th Ave S. Centerville JimK@DreamScapesMN.com DreamScapes Landscaping & Design, inc P.612-638-7944 www.DreamScapesMN.com |I| Page 82 of 312 Page 83 of 312 Page 84 of 312 Page 85 of 312 Page 86 of 312 Page 87 of 3126.k This page is intentionally left blank Page 88 of 3126.l Page 89 of 312 Page 90 of 312 Page 91 of 312 Page 92 of 312 Page 93 of 312 Page 94 of 312 Page 95 of 312 Page 96 of 312 Page 97 of 312 Page 98 of 312 Page 99 of 312 Page 100 of 312 Page 101 of 312 Page 102 of 312 Page 103 of 312 Page 104 of 312 Page 105 of 312 9.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Tabled - Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates [Planning Case 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 applicant is seeking a Preliminary and Final Plat approval of a three-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates. The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels within the R-1A – One Family Residential District. All three parcels are owned in common by the applicant. 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. APPLICATION REVIEW TIMELINE: This Planning Case was first reviewed by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission at their March 26, 2024 regular meeting. Prior to the meeting, the applicant requested their proposal be tabled to the next available Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time to review the plans and details with City Staff and provide any revisions to the proposal as appropriate. A brief staff report was presented before the public hearing was opened, where four residents spoke to the application. The public hearing was tabled to April 30th, where the open application was acknowledged and then tabled again to no later than July - again at the Page 106 of 312 request of the applicant. The applicant prepared revised plans and application materials and new notices were posted for the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting a full planning report was presented and the public hearing was re-opened, held, and closed. Six members of the public spoke to the application. An excerpt from the minutes of all three Planning Commission meetings are included as an attachment to this report, as well as all of the written public comments received in relation to this application as of the submission of this report. 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 the right-of-way which is dedicated within this Plat request. 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. 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. Following their discussion, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Corbett and Stone against) in support of the Preliminary and Final Plat request with findings-of-fact and certain conditions, and forwarded the item on to the City Council with that recommendation. The City Council reviewed this request at their July 2, 2024 Regular Meeting. A staff report was presented on the request with a summary of the staff and Planning Commission review process. The applicant requested that the item be tabled to allow time to prepare quotes for the street extension of Ridgewood Drive and installation of the public improvements, and submitted an extension waiver to staff to extend the City’s statutory review period for the application request an additional 30 days to August 21, 2024. The City Council voted unanimously (4-0) to table the applicant’s Preliminary and Final Plat request to August 7, 2024. The staff report and minutes from the July 2, 2024 meeting are included as an attachment to this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed subdivision requested by the applicant will create three lots of record from the existing three parcels within a new Plat of McMillan Estates. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 3 are intended to be platted for future development of new single-family homes. The proposed Lot Page 107 of 312 2 would retain the existing dwelling and continue to be the applicant’s residence, , but would result in a smaller parcel than the existing 1707 Delaware site today. 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. The R-1A District also requires a minimum lot width of 125-ft along a City-approved street. The proposed Lot 2 (existing residence) will maintain its 329+ feet of frontage along Delaware Avenue. The proposed Lots 1 and 3 are situated within the plat with frontage along new dedicated right-of-way as an extension of Ridgewood Drive. The plans illustrate an additional dedication of right-of-way extending north of the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac by approximately 186-feet, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. The total Ridgewood Drive right-of-way dedication within the subdivision amounts to 15,522 s.f. (.36 acres) of land. Also included within this Plat is 19,751 s.f. (.45 acres) of right-of-way to be dedicated along Lot 2’s Delaware Avenue frontage, which accommodates Dakota County’s request for 60-ft of half right-of-way. 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, as 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. The full document from the 2021 Wetland Delineation is on file with the City and can be located on the City’s website under the Agendas and Minutes archive as an attachment to the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission agenda, beginning at pg. 43. (Link: https://mendotaheightsmn.gov/agendacenter) In addition to the subdivision’s layout within the Preliminary and Final Plat which have been prepared under this Planning Case, the applicant has requested that the City Council consider a phased approach to the installation of the public improvements associated with this subdivision. 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 Page 108 of 312 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 presented in the applicant’s preliminary plans. The applicant’s narrative letter and request to the City Council indicates that they would like to defer the installation of utilities until the time that a building permit is prepared to be submitted for the respective lots for a new single-family home. The applicant’s request is also to defer the construction of the right-of-way extension until such a time that its construction is required by the City, or until the proposed Lot 1 is further split or resubdivided into additional residential lots. It is the applicant’s preference to install the required utility improvements in phases as the two vacant lots develop over time, but to utilize the dedicated right-of-way as a private driveway as opposed to constructing the full extent of the cul-de-sac. The applicant has stated in his application materials and at the July 2, 2024 meeting that the construction of the cul-de-sac would have a greater impact on the adjacent wetlands than the existing 2021 approval for Wetland impacts for a driveway and culvert, and that the street construction costs would necessitate additional resubdivision of the larger Lot 1, which is not the preferred alternative to the applicant. The applicant continues to request that the City Council consider the request for phased and deferred installation of public improvements and has provided an additional letter to the City Council which is included as an attachment to 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. The City Council can choose to require a condition of approval on this Planning Case noting that the street improvements should be constructed prior to building permit issuance, along with the public utility improvements that the applicant is planning to complete. This would require the applicant/developer to procedurally go through the Wetland Conservation Act rules to determine their next steps forward for any wetland impact mitigation deviating from the previous driveway and culvert exemption. The arrangements for the installation of required improvements associated with the development would be included in the Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City, as required in the Subdivision Ordinance. As mentioned earlier in this report, this agreement must 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. RECOMMENDATION: The initial staff recommendation on this Planning Case application was for approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat request of McMillan Estates, subject to certain findings of fact and conditions as noted in the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission staff report. Following the public hearing comments at that meeting and during 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. Page 109 of 312 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 2024-38. The Resolution has been updated to reflect the current meeting date of August 7th. The City Council has the following alternative actions available as part of their review of Planning Case 2024-01: • Approve the Preliminary and Final Plat request as recommended by the Planning Commission in this staff report and Resolution 2024-38 • Approve the Preliminary and Final Plat request with the added condition that no building permits can be issued for private development and improvements until all public utility and infrastructure improvements be installed as required under Title 11 (and/or any other reasonable condition to address aspects of the proposal) • Deny the Preliminary and Final Plat request with revised findings-of-fact as determined by the City Council. State in the proceedings the reason for a motion to Deny the application request and direct staff to prepare findings-of-fact for denial for adoption at the next available City Council meeting (August 20) The statutory review period for this application expires on August 21, 2024. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not Applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2024-38 2.Excerpt from the 7/2/24 City Council Meeting Minutes 3.City Council Memo 7/2/24 4.Excerpt from the 6/25/24 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5.Planning Staff Report 6/25/24 6.Aerial Site Map 7.Existing and Proposed Parcel Boundaries graphic 8.Applicant Narrative Letter 9.Preliminary Plat 10.Final Plat 11.Site Plan and Title Sheet 12.Grading Drainage and Utility Plan - Sheets 2-5 13.Tree Inventory - Sheets 5-8 14.Dakota County Plat Commission Memo 15.Staff Memo Addendum 7/2/24 16.Applicant Memo on Undeveloped Right of Way, 7/31/24 Page 110 of 312 17.Applicant E-mail, 7/1/24 18.Excerpt from 3/26/24 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 19.Excerpt from 4/30/24 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 20.Public Comments Recieved as of 7/31/24 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 111 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 112 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 MCMILLAN ESTATES 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 113 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 7th day of August, 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 114 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 115 of 312 July 2, 2024 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 7 Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2024-41 APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, ALL PART OF ST. THOMAS ACADEMY’S BASEBALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (PLANNING CASE 2024-12). Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 D) RESOLUTION 2024-38 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF MCMILLAN ESTATES (PLANNING CASE NO. 2024-01) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided the background on this item. The Council was being asked to consider adoption of 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. She stated that the applicant agreed to an extension of the review period, to August 21, 2024, and is requesting that the item be tabled to allow them the ability to request quotes related to the installation of the cul-de- sac. Spencer McMillan, applicant, commented that this has been a long process and they have worked diligently with staff to meet City Code. He stated that they reviewed a number of different iterations for the 16 acres, but noted the challenge in that there is only 60 feet of frontage on Ridgewood Drive for the entire area, which is below the required frontage for even one lot. He stated that they reviewed alternative options for access off Delaware Avenue but under any scenario there is not enough frontage for future subdivision, which is required by City Code. He stated that it would seem that the only option to subdivide would be to create new frontage, which would be done through the creation of a cul-de-sac. He stated that it was never their intention to have a cul-de-sac, nor did he believe that the neighboring property owners want a cul-de-sac. He stated that he reached out to a company to obtain a rough estimate on a cul- de-sac and was given an estimate of $750,000, which makes it prohibitively expensive to create one extra lot. He noted that a cul-de-sac would also impact the adjacent wetlands. He stated that in order to recoup the cost of a cul-de-sac, there would need to be more lots. He commented that it would not be feasible to build a cul-de-sac for the desired use of the lot, to have a home. He stated that if the cul-de-sac were required, he would most likely sell the properties to a developer as there could then be seven buildable lots. He stated that his desire is to dedicate the cul-de-sac which would provide the frontage for them to use the lot as they desire. He asked the Council that he not be required to construct the cul-de-sac which would allow him to build his home and one additional lot as an interim step, noting that future subdivision could occur on the larger lot and the cul-de-sac would be triggered at that time. He provided details on his timeline, noting that he would sell the other lot and then would not plan to build his home on the larger lot for about ten years. He believed that this could be a step towards developing on a small scale without fully developing on a larger scale. He believed the biggest concern of the neighbors is lot three as neighbors do not want a home near them. He commented that it will still be a private home with vegetation and did not believe that would cause issues. He noted that the alternative would be seven lots, one of which still being lot three, and did not believe the neighbors would like that better. Mayor Levine commented that she believed the request from the applicant was to table the request. Page 116 of 312 July 2, 2024 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 7 Mr. McMillan acknowledged that he requested a preliminary quote on the cul-de-sac, which he provided in his statement. He stated that in speaking to staff, the consensus was that he would have to construct the cul-de-sac and therefore he would like to complete due diligence with a more formalized quote to make an informed decision. Mayor Levine stated that if the Council were going to table the item, she would prefer to hold off on discussion until the future meeting when the item would be considered, or the Council could choose not to table this and vote tonight. Mr. McMillan commented that if the Council is open to not requiring construction of the cul-de-sac, he would be okay with the Council voting tonight. Councilor Mazzitello moved to TABLE ITEM 9D TO THE AUGUST 7, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Mayor Levine seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Mazzitello commented that this is a bizarre application and nothing he has seen before, therefore he believes that they owe it to the applicant to provide them with an application that would be compliant with meeting Code requirements, the Comprehensive Plan, and general way of doing business. He commented that a lot must front on a public street, which is defined as a transportation facility. He commented that if the standard were to plat cul-de-sacs, there would be many undeveloped cul-de-sacs in the community. He believed that it would only be fair to allow the applicant the time to complete his due diligence to provide the Council with as much information as possible. Mayor Levine commented that when an applicant requests more time, she is inclined to grant it. Councilor Lorberbaum commented that while she agrees with both the statements made, postponing this would not provide the opportunity for another public hearing. Mayor Levine clarified that there was not a public hearing tonight either as that was held at the Planning Commission. She stated that the Council does generally still accept public comments at its meeting, even though it is not a public hearing. Councilor Miller agreed that it is pragmatic for both sides to have additional time to digest this as this is a very unique case. He commented that he has never seen a cul-de-sac into another cul-de-sac in his life. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the existing cul-de-sac would be removed and turned into a straight roadway. Councilor Miller commented that he appreciates the additional time for everyone to review this request. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page 117 of 312 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 118 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 119 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 120 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 121 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 26 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 Beebe 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. 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. Page 122 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 26 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. 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 Page 123 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 26 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. 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 2021 as part of the wetland delineation. 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. Page 124 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 26 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. 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. Page 125 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 26 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. 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. Page 126 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 26 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. 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. Page 127 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 26 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. 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 Page 128 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 26 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. 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 Page 129 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 26 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 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. Page 130 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 26 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 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. Page 131 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 26 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. 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 Page 132 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 26 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. 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. Page 133 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 26 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. 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. Page 134 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 26 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. 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. Page 135 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 26 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. 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. Page 136 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 26 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. 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. Page 137 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 26 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 by 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. 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. Page 138 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 26 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 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 Page 139 of 312 June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 26 NAYS: 2 (Corbett and Stone) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted the fireworks that will take place on July 4th at Mendakota Park. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a verbal update on recent City Council actions on planning related cases. She also noted upcoming items the Commission may consider including the zoning code update. Adjournment COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:17 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Page 140 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 1 of 14 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:June 25, 2024 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager SUBJECT:Planning Case 2024-01 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT of MCMILLAN ESTATES APPLICANT:Spencer McMillan PROPERTY ADDRESS:1707 Delaware Avenue ZONING/GUIDED:R-1A One Family Residential / RR-Rural Residential ACTION DEADLINE:July 22, 2024 (Extension granted through written waiver; Any further extension to require written consent of the applicant) INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the properties located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. The residential property and the two vacant parcels are all owned by Spencer McMillan, the applicant in this Planning Case. The proposed plat is titled McMillan Estates and the subdivision would divide and redistribute the existing land within the three parcels into three new lots of record. In 2021, an application was submitted to the City for the subject site (by a different applicant and property owner) with a very similar proposal for subdivision of the existing three parcels into three new lots of record (Planning Case No. 2021-19). That prior application was withdrawn before the public hearing at the Planning Commission. Within the prior applicant’s written notice of withdrawal, they indicated that the applicant team was unable to come to an agreement with the Seller and property owner regarding a request for dedicated right-of-way along Delaware Avenue for Dakota County. The property sold following this withdrawn application, and the item in this planning case is a separate application by the current applicant and property owner. This Planning Case was reviewed by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission at their March 26, 2024 regular meeting. The background report associated with the meeting is on file with the City and can be Page 141 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 2 of 14 located on the City’s website under the Agendas and Minutes archive (link: https://mendotaheightsmn.gov/agendacenter). Prior to the meeting, but following the publication of the agenda packet for the March meeting, the applicant requested a continuance of the application to the next available Planning Commission meeting on April 30 in order to allow additional time to review the application details with City Staff and provide revisions to the plans and application materials. The tabled Public Hearing was acknowledged at the April 30 meeting, and an additional request to table the application was granted to continue the application’s review to no later than the July Planning Commission meeting, with staff to re-publish notices for the future hearing in accordance with City procedures. The minutes from both the March 26 and the April 30 Planning Commission meeting are included as an attachment to this report. Following additional discussion with staff and the applicant team, the applicant has provided revised application materials and has requested the City review the subject application at the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The prepared and updated application materials are described in the analysis section of this report and included as an attachment. This item is being presented under a fully noticed public hearing process, with notices published in the Pioneer Press newspaper and notice letters mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject parcels. Written public comments have been received for this item and are included as an attachment to this report. As of the submittal of this report, there were five instances of public comment. Any additional comments received prior to the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and made part of the public record. BACKGROUND The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels (see aerial image – right). The primary property addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is a long, rectangular, unplatted parcel consisting of 10.06 acres, measuring 329.18-ft. in width along Delaware Avenue to the east. This parcel contains an existing single- family home. The remaining two parcels are known as Outlots A and B of Grappendorf Addition, which was approved in 1984. The two Outlots are situated at the end of Ridgewood Drive and consist of 4.5 acres (Outlot A) and 2 acres (Outlot B). Both outlots are vacant. The proposed subdivision requested by the applicant will create three new lots from these parcels. Lot 1 and Lot 3 are intended to be platted for future development of new single-family homes. The proposed Lot 2 would remain as the applicant’s residence but would be subdivided into a smaller parcel. Page 142 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 3 of 14 In order to establish the required 125-foot of frontage on a city approved street for new platted lots in an R-1A District, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 15,522 s.f. (.36 acres) of right-of-way extending north from the existing Ridgewood Drive right-of-way. The dedicated right-of-way would consist of an approximately 186-ft extension northward into the proposed subdivision. In the applicant’s revised plans (dated June 12, 2024), the right-of-way extension concludes in a new cul-de-sac as opposed to the previously drawn stub and dead-end right-of-way. More information on this request will be provided in the Analysis section of this report. Additionally, 19,751 s.f. (.45 acres) of right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along Delaware Avenue, to accommodate Dakota County’s request for 60-ft of half right-of- way. A large portion of the subject site is encumbered by wetlands. Prior to this application, the previous property owner hired an environmental specialist to study, identify, and map out these wetlands on the property; an official Wetland Delineation Report dated 06/22/2021 was submitted to the City for review and was later accepted by the City Council on September 9, 2021. This report is valid for five years. In addition to the Wetland Delineation Report on file and those standards for wetland impacts as outlined under the Wetland Conservation Act, future development on the new lots may require a separate application and review of a City wetlands permit. The application under review as part of this planning case is solely for the subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, as outlined in the applicant’s proposal and Preliminary and Final Plat documents attached to this report. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided RR-Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Plan includes the following general description for said uses in this land use category: RR – Rural Residential (0.1 - 1.45 DU/Acre) This land use is generally located in the east central part of the city. This designation is intended for large lot single-family residences and includes properties with and without city sewer. The Rural Residential areas are planned with a density not to exceed 1.45 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classification is R- 1A (One Family Residential). The overall site consists of 16.63 acres, and of that approximately 5.6 acres are encumbered by wetlands, leaving a net acreage value of 11.03 acres. The overall density created by the potential two new residences plus the existing residential unit calculates to a density of 0.27 units/acre, which is under the maximum outlined within the RR – Rural Residential land use category. In the 2040 Plan, the city also identified (based upon previous 2030 Plan and others) a number of specific properties in the city that were or are vacant, under-developed, under-utilized or identified as either potential infill or redevelopment areas. These sites or areas are referred to as “Focus Areas”. Infill means that the property has the opportunity to develop or redevelop beyond its current level. One of these focus areas is the Somerset Area, or #21 on Map 2-5: Focus Areas with Future Land Use Overlay Map (see map – Pg. 4). Page 143 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 4 of 14 21.Somerset Area: This area has been referred to as the “Superblock” due to its collection of large residential lots. It consists of over 20 separate parcels on approximately 90 acres located directly south of Somerset Country Club and Golf Course. The area is developed with single- family homes on large lots with private septic systems. The neighborhood is bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north by Wentworth Avenue, and the south and west by smaller single-family lots. The neighborhood contains significant wetlands and woodlands. The area is guided RR - Rural Residential use. Due to the existing large lot configuration, the area has the potential to be further subdivided, provided public sewer, water and road systems would be extended to the area. Plat Standards Under Title 11, Subdivision Regulations, the intent and purpose of this section is to “safeguard the best interests of the city, and to assist the subdivider in harmonizing [their] interests with those of the city at large, this title is adopted in order that adherence to same will bring results beneficial to both parties. It is the purpose of this title to make certain regulations and requirements for the platting of land within the city pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota statutes, which regulations the city council deems necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of this community.” City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-2 allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district, and meets the following standards: A. Lot Area, Width and Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. B. Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning ordinance. C. Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. D. Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved street other than an alley. E. Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business use, the setback shall be at least that required by the zoning ordinance. For the R-1A District, all new lots must have a minimum of 30,000-sf. of lot area. All three lots significantly exceed the size minimum requirement with 9.77 acres, 3.52 acres and 2.53 acres respectively. Page 144 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 5 of 14 The proposed Preliminary Plat and preliminary plans provided by the applicant illustrate outlines of potential building areas on Lot 1 and Lot 3. In reviewing these outlined layouts, setbacks to front, side, and rear lot lines can be met due to the large acreage on both parcels. For the R-1A District, all new lots require a minimum of 125-ft. of lot width along a city approved street. Lot 2 (existing residence) will maintain its 329+ feet of frontage along Delaware Avenue. Lots 1 and 3 are being proposed to have their frontage and lot width met by the Applicant dedicating an extension of Ridgewood Drive right-of-way by approximately 186-feet, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. The Applicant indicates that they do not plan to develop a full roadway extension in the dedicated right- of-way at this time, and are only intending to provide a shared driveway in this added section of right- of-way. A potential future drive would be installed directly north to access the potential home on Lot 1, and an additional split access point on the undeveloped right-of-way would provide a single lane driveway to a home on Lot 3. The proposed lots 1 and 3 would gain the appropriate frontage on a city approved street through their frontage and access onto the undeveloped right-of-way within the cul-de- sac. Because this request and proposed right-of-way extension does not include installation of a standard city street within the roadway section, the city must consider if this extended cul-de-sac is consistent with the City Subdivision and Zoning Code provisions for frontage and lot width, and for street dedication within plats. The applicant is requesting that the construction of the cul-de-sac be deferred until such time that a future re-subdivision of the proposed Lot 1 occurs. This topic is addressed later in the “Street Design” section of this report. Dakota County Review Because this property fronts on a Dakota County road system (CSAH 63 – Delaware Avenue), this plat requires county review and approval. As mentioned in the “Introduction” section of this report, a previous plat of the subject site was reviewed in 2021, and right-of-way dedication along Delaware Avenue was required by Dakota County at that time. The former application did not move forward and cited the right- of-way dedication as the reason for their withdrawal. This current application has been reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission, and the proposed plat provides the requested right-of-way of 60-ft of half right-of-way, in accordance with their review procedures. The Plat Commission approved the Preliminary and Final Plat with conditions. The memo from the Dakota County Surveyor’s Office is included as an attachment to this report. Utility and Grading Plan The applicant has provided a detailed Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan (Plan Sheets 2-4). The plan shows a joint driveway connection coming off the north end of the cul-de-sec roadway section of Ridgewood Drive. The driveways as proposed are preliminary, with the northern drive to Lot 1 measuring at 12’ in width, and the eastern drive to Lot measuring at 10’ in width. According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade. The staff review of the provided grading and contour elevation markings illustrated on the preliminary plans did not identify any steep slopes or bluffs on the property, or slopes over 25% in the areas where the potential dwellings, accessory structures, or driveways are being proposed. The house locations as Page 145 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 6 of 14 shown on the provided plans are potential, and final house locations, grading, and impacts will depend on a final design for the respective houses. These future developments will be evaluated at the time that those applications come forward and will be subject to the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements and any other applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. A condition has been included in the staff recommendation section of this report which reflects these requirements. There is an existing 6-inch watermain underneath Ridgewood Drive that was stubbed at the north end of the cul-de-sec roadway. The plans illustrate that the applicant will extend this watermain line approximately 180-ft into the proposed Ridgewood Drive right-of-way extension to a new fire hydrant, and from this extension, new 2-inch residential water service lines would lead off from the main, with new stubs at each front property line for each of the two new lots remaining for future development. The plans also show a 9-inch sanitary sewer line underneath Ridgewood Drive which is currently stubbed approximately 11-ft north of the existing cul-de-sac. The sanitary sewer line improvements include an extension from the manhole north of the existing cul-de-sac to a new manhole in the center of the proposed cul-de-sac which aligns with the northern property line of the proposed Lot 3. From this sanitary sewer service extension, two 6” sewer service lines are proposed to be provided to the two new lots remaining for future development. The plans show the ability for future service connections to be made into the provided stubs for any future construction of homes on the two respective lots. All new lots will have perimeter drainage and utility easements provided, noted at 5’ in width at side and rear lot lines, and 10’ in width at front lot lines. All wetlands will be covered by similar drainage and utility easements for added protection. Those easements will be provided and officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording, if approved. Wetland Impacts The proposed plat identifies a number of large and smaller wetlands throughout the site, which are proposed to be dedicated as drainage and utility easements on the plat. The applicant’s plans also indicate a 20’ wetland buffer area (illustrated on the plans as hatching around wetlands). The Subdivision Title notes that the City shall review the subdivision proposal and design with respect to the limitations presented by wet soils, and that the approval of the subdivision will require an engineering analysis of the delineated areas, and that a permit is required to alter ditches, streams, and associated drainage path. It should be noted that the City Council approved a Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption, submitted by this property’s previous Developer/Applicant, on November 3, 2021, whereby approval was granted to remove up to 1,000 sq.ft. of wetlands for the driveway and the structure improvements which were proposed at that time. The extent of the previous structure improvements from the previous application are not outlined in this planning case, however 369 square feet of wetland impact and fill area included in that 2021 approval is still illustrated in this subject application’s plans as the 364 sq.ft. impact area which would accommodate a future culvert under the northern driveway to Lot 1. This decision of approval is valid for five years. The Notice of Decision and supporting documents are included as an attachment to this report The proposed driveway leading back to the Lot 1 site would begin at the north end of Ridgewood Drive, and would cross over a future culvert (as indicated in the Exempt wetland impact area). This driveway would then continue northward and curve slightly and between the two larger wetlands situated south Page 146 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 7 of 14 of the buildable area for a home. Exclusive of the existing approval for wetland impacts exemption on the subject site, no additional part of the wetlands may be impacted unless it is part of an approved construction project, which may or may not come after plat approvals on the property. The applicant has indicated that the intent is to defer the construction of the cul-de-sac until such a time that future re-subdivision of the proposed Lot 1 occurs in order to limit the impact on the wetlands and maintain the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has also indicated that the proposed Lot 1 is planned to remain under its current ownership following approval of the subdivision, and held until the applicant/owner is able to construct a new single-family home on the property in the future. As the Wetland Delineation and Notice of Decision is only valid for 5 years, the proposed driveway and culvert improvements which were previously granted an exemption through state wetlands permitting processes will need to be resubmitted for approval following their expiration and prior to any City permits for authorization of construction. On the preliminary plans, the two new home sites will be placed in areas in dry, non-wetland areas of each parcel, according to the wetland mapping provided by Jacobson Environmental. The applicant does not have a finalized construction and development plan for homes on either of the two vacant properties, and those plans are not under the review of the City at this time. Current zoning ordinance standards require a Wetlands Permit for any work or improvements within 100’ of wetlands or water resource areas. The full extent of a wetlands review under the zoning ordinance and other local city codes and ordinances will be evaluated at the time a developer or applicant comes forward with realized final plans for each site. If no work has been conducted prior to the expiration of the Wetland Delineation and Notice of Decision, an updated Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption would need to be filed in accordance with state statute. Tree Inventory The Developer/Applicant has included a Tree Inventory of the site, which is included as an attachment to this report. The inventory outlines the species and diameter of the 464 trees within the anticipated development area, out of approximately 1,900 or more trees which exist on the property today. Potential future removal of trees are illustrated on the inventory plans which could be removed as part of any construction activities for the future building and driveway improvements. Final tree impacts are to be determined with the full construction and building permit plan sets at the time an application and final site plan design comes forward for review. Street Design City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easements, etc. When Breckenridge Estates, the plat to the south of the subject site, was approved in 1969, it contained a variance request to allow lots less than 40,000-sq. ft. in area (required for R-1A district at that time), but did not include any variance or allowance for an over-length cul- Page 147 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 8 of 14 de-sac. The plat was presented with the Ridgewood Drive roadway that exists today, and also included a small “nub” extension of 60-ft in width at the top of the road right-of-way circle (see plat image –right). This nub was likely created or called for based on the assumption that the properties to the north could be or would be similarly platted, and any future roadway extension would have likely come off the end of Ridgewood Drive and run northward into these properties. The Subdivision ordinance does require in Section 11-3-3: Streets and Alleys, that a tentative plan of a proposed future street system should be provided when reviewing a new Plat. Specifically, the general requirements provide guidelines for a proposed future street system, and alignment and availability of utilities. The approved Grappendorf Addition (see plat image – below) did not show or provide any plans for extending Ridgewood Drive into the plat or outlots, nor provided any plans for any other roadway inside this plat as well. However, it was noted within the City Council minutes of the review of that Plat application that access and utility extensions were only available to Outlot A from Ridgewood Drive. Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: (A) 3. When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. The expectation within the City’s review of a subdivision on larger than normal lots or parcels, is that the applicant/developer is responsible for arranging lots and parcels in such a way that would permit future and smaller subdivision of lots, as well as leaving space “open” for a future potential street, and potential future utility connections. This applies to making those connections only on the subject site, and does not specifically address neighboring land owners. The City must evaluate the ability for the new parcels to be subdivided again in the future, and evaluate if the infrastructure planned will be able to accommodate that potential future split. The applicant has provided within their Letter of Intent an alternative option which was considered for the subject site which may provide for the creation of Page 148 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 9 of 14 additional lots. The applicant has indicated that this availability of land and future resubdivision is not in line with how they intend for the property to be developed in the long term, but that it is a possibility based on the available square footage within the proposed Lot 1. Staff agrees that the arrangement of the proposed lots within the subdivision and the overall acreage of the proposed Lot 1 (9.77 acres) has the potential to be resubdivided in accordance with the above standard. The applicant’s preliminary drawings also illustrate the proposed building pad in such a location which would not prohibit additional home pads if that was the future wish of the owner following any lot split applications. Under this plat request, the Applicant is seeking to provide an extension of this right-of-way at least 60- feet in width, and approx. 186-ft in length, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. This extension is proposed as right-of-way only; and no physical street is proposed to be built in this extension, just private driveways and public utility improvements. The applicant is requesting that the City Council defer the construction of the right-of-way and extended cul-de-sac until such a time that the proposed Lot 1 is re- subdivided, in addition to deferring the timing of the public utility improvements. Ridgewood Drive measures from the point coming off Marie Avenue to the end of the cul-de-sac as 649.58-feet in total length. From earlier [known] records of the City Code, the Subdivision Code of 1956 indicated “dead-end streets shall not be longer than 400-feet…” while the Code of 1975 included: “…cul- de-sacs shall normally not be longer than 500-feet….” as seen today in the current Subdivision Code (noted below). Per current City Subdivision Code Section 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys: D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than 60-ft. Some of the commissioners may recall giving consideration to a variance related to a cul-de-sac roadway, which was presented under the Orchard Heights plat in 2017. Under that case, the developers requested a variance to exceed the “normally not longer than 500-ft.” standard to allow a new cul-de-sac of 950- feet in length. As part of the report on that case, it was noted that the city allowed a number of other subdivision developments throughout the city with over-length dead end and cul-de-sac streets (approximately 19 at that time); and it was unclear from research if the 500-foot standard was in places at the time of these various plat approvals or developments; or if variances were approved for these separate developments. Nevertheless, the city required the developer to submit and request a variance to exceed this 500-ft. standard, and although the planning commission and city council rejected this variance request, the development (and new roadway) was ultimately allowed by a Dakota County District Court ruling. In that ruling, it is noted that there was dispute on whether or not a Variance was required for the length of the cul-de-sac, as the City’s subdivision ordinance only states that cul-de-sacs “shall normally not” be longer than 500 feet. Existing Minnesota case law states that “Regulatory standards must be sufficiently precise to ensure the application of objective standards to similarly situated property, to adequately inform landowners of the requirements that they must satisfy to gain subdivision approval, and to allow a reviewing court to evaluate noncompliance” When interpreting language in a zoning ordinance, the Page 149 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 10 of 14 plain and ordinary meaning of the terms has generally been more favorable in court procedures. Because of the imprecise language within the subdivision ordinance regarding cul-de-sac length that “shall not normally” be longer than 500-ft, and because the existing length of Ridgewood Drive has already been approved through a prior subdivision, staff did not request the applicant to revise their application and incorporate a Variance request to the cul-de-sac length standard. The Applicant’s plans indicate that they do not intend to physically construct the extension of right-of- way and newly dedicated cul-de-sac bulb at this time, but only request to plat out the right-of-way extension in order to provide the appropriate 125-feet of minimum lot width and frontage along a city street for Lots 1 and 3 of this plat. The proposed right-of-way dedication to the City would add an additional 186-ft of right-of-way to the roadway, with a deferred construction of a developed public street being requested by the applicant. The applicant has indicated that the right-of-way is proposed to be utilized by a shared driveway access point, which would then separate into two separate private drives for the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the plat. The developed portion of Ridgewood Drive would remain as it is currently constructed, with a new curb cut for the proposed driveway extension approximately 26-ft in width, reducing to 22-ft in width at what is currently the south property line of the existing parcel. The applicant is requesting that the installation of the public utility improvements and the construction of the street and cul-de-sac extension be deferred until the appropriate time. For the utility improvements, the applicant is illustrating a plan to extend the service lines within the dedicated right- of-way, to be installed prior to or concurrently with any building permit for construction of a single family home. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that if there is a requirement to extend sanitary sewer service to the existing home on the proposed Lot 2, that the connection be deferred within the development agreement to the date which a building permit is requested for the proposed Lot 1. The applicant also requests that the City not require the construction of the cul-de-sac in the immediate future with any Final Plat approvals, but instead to defer such improvements until such a time that future resubdivision of the proposed Lot 1 occurs. This deferral is requested in order to maintain the neighborhood character and not expand beyond the current level of wetland impacts as proposed on the current plans and the previously approved Notice of Decision detailed in the Wetland Impacts section of this report. The Final Plat will be subject to a Development Agreement between the Owner/Developer and the City, which would outline the timing and details of the installation of required improvements associated with the development. The subdivision ordinance requires that no application for building permits be filed for the private construction associated with this plat until all improvements required have been made or arranged for within the Development Agreement. A condition has been included in the recommendation section of this report that a Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. This includes the improvements to the street and cul-de- sac, as well as the required utility connections and extensions as outlined in the Utility and Grading Plan section of this report. While the City currently performs street and utility distribution improvements, they do reserve the right to request that developers make all necessary improvements at any time. The City should consider if the deferral of constructing the street improvements to a future development proposal or lot split is appropriate. The applicant has provided the dedicated right-of-way to the City within this Plat to accommodate a minimum of 125’ of lot width on a City-approved street and the proposed lots within the Plat of McMillan Page 150 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 11 of 14 Estates exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 30,000 sq.ft. The lot configuration of Lot 1 of the proposed plat can lend itself to future resubdivision and construction of the cul-de-sac extension, provided the utility connections set aside with the Plat of McMillan Estates in this application are installed in accordance with City Code requirements and upon approval of a development agreement for the public improvements. The applicant’s revised plans have illustrated an intent to comply with the City’s Subdivision Code by providing adequate extension of utilities into the dedicated right-of-way, and by arranging the lots and dedicated right-of-way in such a manner that adequate lot width or frontage could be obtained in the event of a future resubdivision of the overlarge lot. Staff and the applicant did discuss the potential for a more intense subdivision of land with a projection of a city street northward through the property to provide an opening for future street connections as referenced in the Somerset Area within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan - however the applicant has indicated that the subdivision as proposed meets their development needs at this time. The applicant has stated that the intent of the current development proposal and the deferral of the construction of the cul-de-sac extension would meet neighborhood goals of reducing wetlands impacts, as well as comply with the existing wetland impacts which were evaluated in 2021 with the approved Wetland Delineation. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed Plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates, based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of approval as included herein; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates, based on revised findings-of-fact and conditions as determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council; or 3. Table the plat application and extend the application review schedule. There is not adequate time remaining in the statutory review schedule for an additional Planning Commission meeting on this item. Further extension of the review timeline must be consented to by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Spencer McMillan for the Preliminary and Final Plat of a three-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. A wetlands permit must be submitted for review and obtained prior to any proposed/new single family development is allowed on each new lot. Page 151 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 12 of 14 2. The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-1A Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 3. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City prior to any new construction work. 4. The parcels known as Lots 1 and 3, Block 1, McMillan Estates, created under this Plat, must have their access granted under an executed License Agreement with the city; and also must submit to the City a Shared Driveway Agreement between the residential properties utilizing this undeveloped ROW for their own driveways and access at the time of building permit. 5. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 6. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 7. All wetland impacts shall be in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, including Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 2: Wetlands Systems ordinance. 8. In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (3 lots – 1 existing dwelling = 2 x $4,000/unit, or $8,000) is to be collected after City Council approval and before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. 9. Any new or existing sanitary or water service lines will have to be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to issuance of any building permit. 10. The Applicant/Developer must provide a Best Management Practices (Stormwater Management) Agreement to the City as part of the building permit submittal and review process for each new home and new impervious surface. 11. A Development Agreement for the public improvements and utilities shall be executed to the satisfaction of the City Council before the Final Plat is released for recording with Dakota County, and before the issuance of any permits. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location/Aerial Map 2. Narrative Letter 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Final Plat Page 152 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 13 of 14 5. Site Plan & Title Sheet 6. Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan (Sheets 2-4) 7. Tree Inventory (Sheets 5-8) 8. Dakota County Plat Commission Memo 9. Minnesota WCA Notice of Decision 10. 1707 Delaware Avenue Notice of Decision 11. Excerpt from the Minutes of the March 26, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting 12. Excerpt from the Minutes of the April 30, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting 13. Public Comments Received (as of the submittal of this report) Page 153 of 312 Planning Case 2024-01 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 14 of 14 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates 1707 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with and supported by a number of goals and policy statements in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1A One Family Residential District. 4. A Wetlands Permit for future construction on each lot will require and ensure compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. Page 154 of 312 G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.666666 666666666666 6666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERI DGEWOOD DRMARIE AVE W Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Location Aerial Map1707 Delaware Ave/McM illan Estat es Date: 3/21/2024 City of Mendota Heights0340 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 155 of 312 Existing Parcel Boundaries: Proposed Parcel Boundaries: Page 156 of 312 Existing Parcel Boundaries: Proposed Parcel Boundaries (Sketched Estimate): 1707 DELAWAR E OUTLOT AOUTLOT B PROPOSED LOT 1 1707 DELAWARE PROPOSED LOT 2 PROPOSED LOT 3 Page 157 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 158 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 159 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 160 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 161 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 162 of 312 6 Spencer McMillan Page 163 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 164 of 312 SITE2460149MARIE AVE.8DODD RD.WENTWORTH AVE.DELAWARE AVE.WACHTLER AVE.123BLOCK 1MCMILLAN ESTATESLOCATION MAPSHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETSSISU LAND SURVEYINGKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, owners of the following described property: Outlot A in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And Outlot B in Grappendorf First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. And the North Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MCMILLAN ESTATES, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the public ways and drainage and utility easements as created herewith. In witness whereof said Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this day of , 20 . Spencer McMillan Breanna McMillan STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Spencer McMillan and Breanna McMillan. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires 551010I Curtiss Kallio do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Curtiss Kallio, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 26909 STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on by Curtiss Kallio. Signature Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA This plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES was approved and accepted by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By Mayor Clerk COUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . By Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA We do hereby certify that on the day of , the Board of Commissioners of Dakota County, Minnesota approved this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2 and pursuant to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. Attest Chair, County Board County Treasurer - Auditor DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . , Amy A. Koethe, Director Department of Property Taxation and Records REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES, was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for public record on this day of , 20 at o’clock M., and was duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number . , Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of Titles OFFICIAL PLATPage 165 of 312 Page 166 of 312 Page 167 of 312 Page 168 of 312 Page 169 of 312 Page 170 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 McMillanSEE SHEET 5LEGENDTREE INVENTORY NOTEPage 171 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 McMillanSEE SHEET 5LEGENDTREE INVENTORY NOTEPage 172 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 Buckthorn Save 1750 10 Black Cherry Save 1837 12 Red OakSave2 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 82 7 Black Cherry Save 337 13 Box Elder Save 417 9 Buckthorn Remove 1751 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1838 7 Black Cherry Save3 7 Black Cherry Remove 83 8 Box Elder poor Save 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White Ash Remove 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1839 6 Red Oak Save4 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Save 339 10 Buckthorn Save 419 23.5 White Ash Remove 1753 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1840 7 Black Cherry Save5 6 Green Ash Remove 85 10 Black Cherry Remove 340 10.5 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 420 13 White Ash Save 1754 7 Quaking Aspen Save 1841 7 Red Oak Save6 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 86 7 Box Elder Remove 341 17 Cottonwood Save 421 18 Green Ash Save 1755 6 Green Ash Remove 1842 6 Red Oak Save7 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 87 7 Black Cherry Remove 342 16 White Ash Save 422 12 Green Ash Save 1756 7 Green Ash Remove 1843 6 Red Oak poor Save8 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 88 6 Bur Oak Remove 343 6.5 White Ash Remove 423 8.5 Green Ash Save 1757 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1844 7 Red Oak poor Save9 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 89 8 Black Cherry Remove 344 12 White Ash Remove 424 13 White Ash Remove 1758 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1845 7 Red Oak Save10 7 Quaking Aspen Save 90 15 Red Oak Save 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Remove 425 7 Buckthorn Remove 1759 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1846 10 BasswoodSave11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 91 12 Red Oak Remove 346 13 American Elm Remove 426 6Swamp White Oak Remove 1760 6 Quaking Aspen Save 1847 10 Red Oak Save12 8 Black Cherry poor Save 92 8 Black Cherry Remove 347 8 White Ash Save 427 16 White Ash Remove 1761 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1848 11 Red Oak Save13 7 Green Ash poor Save 93 6 American Elm Remove 348 6 White Ash Save 428 9 White Ash Remove 1762 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1849 6 Quaking Aspen Save14 7 Black Cherry Save 94 9 Black Cherry Remove 349 10 Box Elder Remove 429 17 White Ash Remove 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking AspenSave15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black Cherry Remove 350 9 Box Elder Remove 430 6 Buckthorn Remove 1764 8 Green Ash Remove 1851 7 Quaking Aspen Save16 12 Black Cherry Save 96 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Remove 431 16 White Ash Remove 1765 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1852 8 Quaking Aspen Save17 6 Green Ash Save 97 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 352 9.5 Box Elder Remove 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking Aspen Save18 10 Black Cherry Save 98 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 353 12 Box Elder Remove 433 23 Green Ash Save 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1854 6 Quaking Aspen Save19 6 Apple Save 99 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 354 10 Box Elder Remove 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1768 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove20 6 Apple Save 100 7 Black Cherry Remove 355 10 White Ash Remove 435 14 Cottonwood Remove 1769 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1856 7 Quaking Aspen Remove21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green Ash Remove 436 18.5 Box Elder Remove 1770 11 Quaking Aspen Save 1857 7 Red Oak Save22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black Cherry Save 357 14 Black Oak Remove 437 13 Box Elder Save 1771 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1858 7 Red Oak Save23 9 Box Elder Save 103 8 Amur Maple Save 358 20.5 White Ash Remove 438 10 White Ash Save 1772 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black Cherry Save 104 8 Black Cherry Save 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Remove 439 11 Black Cherry Remove 1773 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red Oak Save 360 8 White Ash Remove 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Remove26 8 Black Cherry Save 106 10 American Elm Save 361 8 White Ash Remove 441 16 Box Elder Save 1775 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1862 8 Quaking Aspen Remove27 6 Green Ash Save 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White Ash Remove 442 14 White Ash Save 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1863 6 Quaking Aspen Remove28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 Cottonwood Save 363 9 White Ash Remove 443 8 Buckthorn Save 1777 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1864 6 Quaking Aspen Remove29 7 Black Cherry Save 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American Elm Remove 444 18 White Ash Save 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking Aspen Remove30 8 Box Elder Save 110 8 Quaking Aspen Save 365 12 White Ash Remove 445 16.5 Hophornbeam Save 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1866 7 Quaking AspenRemove31 7 Black Cherry Save 111 9 Red Oak Save 366 8 White Ash Remove 446 9 Green Ash Save 1780 15 Quaking Aspen Remove 1867 6 Quaking Aspen Remove32 8 Black Cherry Save 112 13 Red Oak Save 367 11 White Ash Remove 1701 21 Cottonwood Remove 1781 6 Green Ash Remove 1868 6 Quaking Aspen Remove33 12 Black Cherry Save 113 12 Red Oak Save 368 10 White Ash Remove 1702 7 Black Cherry Save 1782 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 1869 8 Quaking Aspen Remove34 6 Apple Save 114 6 Bur Oak Save 369 6 White Ash Remove 1703 13 Green Ash Save 1783 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1870 10 Red Oak Remove35 8 Black Cherry Save 115 8 American Elm Save 370 10 White Ash Remove 1704 7 Green Ash Remove 1784 10 Black Walnut Remove 1871 6 Red Oak Remove36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green Ash Remove 1705 7 Green Ash Remove 1786 8 Box Elder Remove 1872 7 Red Oak Remove37 6 Black Cherry Save 117 19 Red Oak Save 372 9.5 White Ash Remove 1706 12 Box Elder Remove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking Aspen Remove38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 Cottonwood Save 373 15 White Ash Remove 1707 19 Cottonwood Remove 1788 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1874 6 Black Cherrypoor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green Ash Save 374 15 Green Ash Remove 1708 7 Cottonwood Save 1789 10 Box Elder Remove 1875 25 Cottonwood Remove40 8 Black Cherry Save 120 7 Green Ash Save 375 10.5 White Ash Save 1709 6 Cottonwood Save 1790 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black Cherry Save 121 6 Green Ash Save 376 12 White Ash Save 1710 7 American Elm Save 1791 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American Elm Remove 377 8.5 White Ash Save 1711 30 Cottonwood Save 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1878 6 Quaking Aspen Remove43 10 (25') Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green Ash Save 378 8.5 White Ash Remove 1712 35 Cottonwood Save 1793 11 Green Ash Save 1879 7 Quaking Aspen Remove44 8 Black Cherry Save 124 12 Red Oak Save 379 15.5 Green Ash Remove 1713 6 Box Elder Save 1794 11 Black Walnut Save 1880 7 Quaking Aspen Remove45 6 Bur Oak Save 125 11 Red Oak Save 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box Elder Save 1795 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1881 7 Quaking Aspen Remove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur Oak Remove 381 11.5 Green Ash Save 1715 18 Cottonwood Save 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking Aspen Remove47 6 Green Ash Save 302 16 Cottonwood Remove 382 14.5 Green Ash Save 1716 12 Box Elder Save 1797 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1883 9 Quaking Aspen Remove48 6 Green Ash Save 303 20.5 White Ash Remove 383 16 White Ash Save 1717 10 Siberian Elm Save 1798 12 Red Oak Remove 1884 6 Quaking Aspen Remove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Remove 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking Aspen Remove 1885 6 Quaking Aspen Remove50 7 Green Ash Save 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box Elder Remove 1800 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1886 7 Quaking Aspen Remove51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green Ash Save 386 17.5 White Ash Save 1720 6 Black Cherry Remove 1807 10 American Elm poor Remove 1887 7 Quaking Aspen Remove52 6 Bur Oak Save 307 17.5 Green Ash Save 387 10 White Ash Save 1721 7 Black Cherry Save 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Remove 1888 12 Red Oak Remove53 6 Black Cherry Save 308 6 Black Cherry Save 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black Cherry Save 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 1889 13 Black Cherry Remove54 6 Bur Oak Save 309 10 American Elm Save 389 7 White Ash Save 1723 13 Box Elder Save 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1890 6 Red Oak Remove55 6 Green Ash Save 310 42 Cottonwood Save 390 13.5 White Ash Save 1724 7 Black Cherry Save 1811 12 Quaking Aspen Remove 1891 12 Red Oak Remove56 6 Black Cherry Save 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White Ash Save 1725 9 Black Cherry Save 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1892 7 Red Oak Remove57 14 Red Oak Save 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Save 392 18 White Ash Save 1726 8 Box Elder Save 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1893 8 Quaking AspenRemove58 15 Red Oak Save 313 6 White Ash Save 393 22.5 White Ash Remove 1727 7 Black Cherry Save 1814 28 Red Oak Save 1894 7 Quaking Aspen Remove59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White Ash Save 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1728 6 Black Cherry Save 1815 24 Red Oak Save 1895 7 Quaking Aspen Remove60 7 Black Willow Save 315 22 Cottonwood Save 395 10 White Ash Remove 1729 9 Box Elder poor Save 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking Aspen Remove61 8 Green Ash Save 316 7 Black Cherry Save 396 25 White Ash Save 1730 8 Box Elder Save 1817 6 Red Oak Save 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove62 10 Green Ash Save 317 14.5 Siberian Elm Save 397 12 Green Ash Remove 1731 10 Box Elder Remove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking Aspen Remove63 6 Green Ash Save 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White Ash Remove 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American Elm Remove64 10 Green Ash Save 319 7 Box Elder Save 399 16.5 White Ash Remove 1733 10 Black Cherry Save 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking Aspen Remove65 8 Green Ash Save 320 9 Quaking Aspen Save 400 21 White Ash Remove 1734 8 Box Elder poor Save 1821 12 Red Oak Save66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black Cherry Save 401 6.5 Buckthorn Remove 1735 12 Black Cherry Save 1822 11 Red Oak Save67 10 Green Ash Save 322 14.5 Box Elder Save 402 7.5 Buckthorn Remove 1736 6 Box Elder Save 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green Ash Save 323 10 Box Elder Save 403 7 White Ash Remove 1737 14 Black Cherry Save 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green Ash Save 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White Ash Remove 1738 8 Box Elder Save 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red Oak Save 325 9 Box Elder Save 405 8.5 White Ash Remove 1739 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1826 7 Black Cherry Save71 7 Bur Oak Save 326 8 Box Elder Save 406 10 Box Elder Remove 1740 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1827 6 Black Cherry Save72 9 Bur Oak Save 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box Elder Remove 1741 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1828 9 Black Cherry Save73 7 Apple Save 328 8 Buckthorn Save 408 14 Green Ash Remove 1742 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 Apple Save 329 54 Cottonwood Save 409 15 White Ash Remove 1743 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1830 8 Apple Save75 6 Green Ash Save 330 15 Box Elder Save 410 8.5 Box Elder Remove 1744 6 Box Elder Save 1831 8 Black Cherry Save76 7 Green Ash Save 331 8 Box Elder Save 411 7 Amur Cork Tree Save 1745 12 American Elm Save 1832 7 Black Cherry Save77 6 Black Cherry Save 332 9 Box Elder Save 412 12 Box Elder Save 1746 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1833 8 Black Cherry Save78 8 American Elm Save 333 13 Box Elder Save 413 9 American Elm Save 1747 9 Black Cherry Save 1834 7 Black Cherry Save79 9 Black Cherry Save 334 9 Box Elder Save 414 8.5 Black Cherry Save 1748 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1835 10 Black Cherry Save80 12 Black Cherry Save 335 63.5 Cottonwood Save 415 9 Black Cherry Save 1749 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1836 12 Red Oak poor SavePage 173 of 312 Dakota County Surveyor’s Office Western Service Center  14955 Galaxie Avenue  Apple Valley, MN 5512 4 952.891 -7087  Fax 952.891 -7127  www.co.dakota.mn.us February 20, 2024 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: MCMILLAN ESTATES The Dakota County Plat Commission met on February 14, 2024, to consider the preliminary plat of the above referenced plat. The plat is adjacent to CSAH 63 (Delaware Ave.) and is therefore subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. The proposed plat includes three parcels (one existing residential lot and two new residential lots). Access to the two new lots will be via Ridgewood Drive, a city street. The future right -of way needs are 60 feet of half right of way for a 3-lane or 2-lane median roadway. The proposed plat should dedicate 60 feet of half right of way along CSAH 63 (Delaware Ave). Restricted access should be shown along all of CSAH 63 except for one 40-foot access opening on the north for the existing driveway (proposed Lo t 1). A quit claim deed to Dakota County for restricted access is required with the recording of the plat mylars. The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary and final plat, provided that the described conditions are met, and will recommend approval to the County Board of Commissioners on March 12, 2024. Traffic volumes on CSAH 63 are 6,700 ADT and are anticipated to be 6,400 ADT by the year 2040. These traffic volumes indicate that current Minnesota noise standards for residential units could be exceeded for the proposed plat. Residential developments along County h ighways commonly result in noise complaints. In order for noise levels from the highway to meet acceptable levels for adjacent residential units, substantial building setbacks, buffer areas, and other noise mitigation elements should be incorporated into this development. No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County Recorder’s Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. Nothing herein is intended to restrict or limit Dakota County’s rights with regards to Dakota County rights of way or property. The Plat Commission highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss the permitting process which reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements, including, but not limited to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths, medians, etc. Page 174 of 312 Please contact TJ Bentley regarding permitting questions at (952) 891 -7115 or Todd Tollefson regarding Plat Commission or Plat Ordinance questions at (952) 891 -7070. Sincerely, Todd B. Tollefson Secretary, Plat Commission c: Page 175 of 312 Page 176 of 312 Page 177 of 312 Examples of Unconstructed Cul-de-sacs., Undeveloped Right of Ways, and Lots Without Frontage on Developed City Streets I understand there is concern about dedicating a cul-de-sac but not constructing it. I would like to point out that this is not unusual in Mendota Heights. Here are some examples where public right of ways and cul-de-sacs were dedicated but not constructed. In addition, there have been comments made about the necessity of a home having frontage on a city developed street. There are dozens of examples in Mendota Heights where a home does not have frontage on a city constructed street. Please see examples below. These are just the examples I could find. I am sure there are more. Because of the characteristics of the subject site (wetlands), it seems prudent to limit the scope of construction and impact on the environment. I hope the Council will consider deferral of the road and cul-de-sac since construction would have a negative impact on the environment without any additional benefit. The cul-de-sac and road bring no additional benefit, and in fact, have a larger negative impact on the environment. If you asked yourself what is best for the neighborhood and the environment, I think it is fair to say that private driveways are the best solution. This is not a one-off exception. There are dozens of examples in Mendota Heights where public right of ways were not constructed and instead utilize private driveways to access the lot(s). I think this proposal should be looked at on an individual basis. It is a very unique piece of land with various wetlands. It is a large piece of land that already has less frontage than what it is zoned for. The only option to subdivide this land is extend a right of way. However, it makes little sense to construct the road and cul-de-sac since there is no benefit and it has a larger impact on the environment and neighborhood. I think in the case of this site, the most prudent thing to do is defer the construction of the road and cul-de- sac until future resubdivisions occur and more lots are proposed. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Spencer and Breanna McMillan Page 178 of 312 1903 Hunter Ln- Undeveloped right of way used as frontage. The road and cul-de-sac are not constructed. These lots are utilizing a private driveway. Hunter Lane- Street View of Driveway Page 179 of 312 2155 and 2121 Delaware Ave/Crt- This has a long dedicated city right of way with a dedicated cul-de-sac. The road and cul-de-sac are not constructed. Instead, these lots utilize a private driveway. 2155 and 2121 Delaware Ave/Crt- Street View of Driveway Page 180 of 312 1300 Furlong Ave- Cul-de-sac was extended beyond the current cul-de-sac, but the new cul-de- sac was never constructed. The lot does not have frontage along a city constructed road. Page 181 of 312 Veronica Ln- Here is a cul-de-sac that was dedicated but never constructed. Page 182 of 312 Winston Crt- Here is a cul-de-sac that was dedicated but never constructed. Page 183 of 312 Brookside Ln and Laura St- The 644 and 646 Brookside Ln lots do not have frontage on a city constructed street. Brookside Lane continues to these lots as a private driveway. See Brookside Driveway picture below. Brookside Driveway- Street View of Driveway Page 184 of 312 2316 Lemay Lake Rd- This lot has no frontage on a city constructed street. They are utilizing a gravel personal driveway to access lots. 2316 Lemay Lake Rd- Street View of Driveway Page 185 of 312 1290 4th St- Lot frontage does not sit on city constructed street. It is simply a private driveway on a public right of way. Page 186 of 312 2275 Wagon Wheel Ct- This lot does not have frontage on a city constructed street. There is a public right of way, but the road is not constructed. This lot uses a private driveway in place of the city developed street. Page 187 of 312 1395 2nd St- 6 lots are using private driveways in city dedicated right of way. They are using frontage on an undeveloped right of way. Page 188 of 312 741 Knollwood Crt- This lot has no frontage on a developed city street. It utilizes a shared private driveway with the eastern neighbor. Page 189 of 312 1147 Orchard Cir- This lot does not have frontage along a city constructed street. Page 190 of 312 630 Wentworth Ave- Lot with no frontage on city constructed street. The access point to this lot is off Wentworth. Page 191 of 312 683 Hidden Creek Trl- Here are multiple lots that have no frontage on a city constructed street and utilize a shared personal driveway for multiple properties. Page 192 of 312 1264 Sibley Memorial Hwy- Here is a residential lot with a house that does not have frontage on a city constructed street. Page 193 of 312 1311 Dodd Rd- This lot does not have frontage on a city constructed street. The frontage is an undeveloped dead end right of way. Page 194 of 312 1369 Windy Rdg- Here are two lots with no frontage along a city constructed street. These lots are utilizing a private driveway to access the lots. Page 195 of 312 1348 Lower D St- This lot has no frontage on city constructed street. Operating as a private driveway to access the lots in this area. 1308 4th St- This lot does not have frontage on a city constructed street. It utilizes a private driveway for access. Page 196 of 312 Page 197 of 312 Page 198 of 312 Page 199 of 312 Page 200 of 312 Page 201 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 202 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 203 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 204 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 205 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 206 of 312 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 phone I 651.452.8940 fax l www.mendota-heights.com , i~n 1 ~~~DDT A HEIGHTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NEW _SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1707 DELAWARE A VENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet on Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 7:00 PM (or as soon as possible thereafter) in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an -applieation-from MMk-· & Katherine Sullivan;·-in-cooperation with Timothy-&-Gayle Olrer, requesting a Preliminary Plat of a new subdivision to be titled "Sullivan Acres"; along with a Variance to allow the extension of an existing public cul-de-sac roadway (Ridgewood Drive) by approximately 128-feet; The properties to be subdivided include the residential property located at 1707 Delaware A venue, and other vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. This plat and related applications have been assigned as Planning Case No. 2021-19. This notice is pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivisions) and Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons desired to be heard with reference to this request will be allowed such an opportunity at this meeting. Individuals may also elect to submit written comments directly to City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, :MN' 55118, Attn: Tim Benetti; or email timb@mendota-heights.com. Written comments will be included as part of the public record. Should the Planning Commission provide a recommendation on this item, this matter will be forwarded to the Mendota Heights City Council for further consideration at the -December 7, 2021 meeting, starting at 6:00 PM. Questions or corninents related to this request should be directed-to--comm.urrify--- Development Director Tim Benetti at (651) 255-1142 or email timb@n1endota-lieights.com. Lorri Smith City Clerk Page 207 of 312 ·-·-·-·-,--------- I I I I ..... --,-, ,,. I ', I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ______ j_ ____ _ I I I I I I ~--·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ I I I I N ' \ I ' -1, ) ' 0 -I I I 3nN3JW 3't!VMV130 ---·----·----_j_ __ , _______ , ____ ~,---·-·-·-·-·-·------------------------ ~I OAT[ 11['14$10N IY Hlf Tlnf • PIIO.LCJ, PIW'AJl[O f(II: , .... ,,.u,1N1~'1W\,..t..• di =1r N :J! Site Plan & Title Sheet Mark Sullivan ~..::..: ::-.::, ~':: _., ... 0~ r~.--~~ ..... ,._, .. ._.,.........., i;IU Nn 670 Hidden CrNk Trill ...... Mendou H1fgh1.t, MN 55118 Nll\JII NMIY • NOT JOit C(IO(IIIWCIION r s~ Sullivan Acres 65l·l6J.1771 cuiilfi I dili5 ::: a, .;; Mendola Heights, Dakolll County, MN C41l. 1/11@1 11('1110. JHot Page 208 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 209 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 210 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 211 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 1:13 PM Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote: Hi James – I’ve received your voicemail inquiring about an upcoming public hearing on the Preliminary and Final Plat application for McMillan Estates. My staff report is not finalized yet and is planned to be published on the City’s website on Friday, so I can’t provide a written report to you at this time. However the applicant’s plans have been attached to this e-mail. If you have specific questions, I can work to answer them ahead of the meeting, and if you would like to provide public comment you can do so by e-mailing me here or sending something to City Hall, dropping it off in person, attending the meeting to speak, etc. If I receive any written public comments about the proposal by end-of-day on Thursday I will be able to include them in the packet for our Commissioners. All public comment will become part of the public record and provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their consideration. Again, please let me know if you have any questions! Sarah Sarah Madden Community Development Manager City of Mendota Heights D: 651-255-1142 Page 212 of 312 Website | Connect smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov Pronouns: she/her Page 213 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 becausethe resulting lots do not have the minimum 100 feet of frontage on a public roadwaythat is required by city ordinance, and which is reinforced by Planning Commissionprecedent. · Please see the Planning Commission decision regarding PLANNING CASE #2019-03 JULIE WEISBECKER, 1840 HUNTER LANE LOT ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE.See page 8 @ https://public.mendota-heights.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216972&dbid=0&repo=MendotaHeights&cr=1 · The above referenced precedent from the Planning Commission clearly states that “any new developable lot MUST have 100 feet of frontage on a public roadway”. · The reference at the bottom of page 8 of the above referenced decision is absolutein declaring that 100 feet of frontage on a public roadway is the minimum required for abuildable lot. Neither of the proposed lots in the petitioner’s application have the required public roadwayfrontage required by ordinance and precedent and therefore should be declined. 2. The plat applicant cannot rely on variances not yet requested in order to securecommission approval for pending applications, per the precedent established in theFoxwood Estates opinion shared here: https://public.mendota- heights.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=209703&page=20&dbid=0&repo=MendotaHeights&cr=1 . · Per the above-referenced ordinance and precedent, "the applicant’s plat – however designed – needs to stand on its own”. More specifically: o Any plat application cannot rely on variances or permits not yet granted. o The proposed plat needs to stand alone on its own merits. The petitioner’s request to replat land relies on variances and permits not yet requested,something not allowed by ordinance or commission precedent, and therefore should be declined. 3. By state law, any action by the Planning Commission and City Council must alignwith its Comprehensive Plan. Granting the request of petitioner to re-platting theexisting Outlots to developable land as outlined in the petitioner’s letter of intent isdirect contraction of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan in several ways including, butnot limited to the following: · Contradiction with Environmental Protection: The protected wetland area iscrucial for maintaining the city's green and natural environment. Allowing developmentin such an ecologically sensitive area risks damaging or destroying the natural habitat,which goes against the goal of protecting and managing natural areas for highecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species. · Disruption of Neighborhood Characteristics: High-end residential developmentwith large lots in a protected wetland area will disrupt the distinct neighborhoodcharacteristics envisioned by the comprehensive plan. Such development will not alignwith the existing built environment and will diminish the attractiveness, character andvalue of the neighboring community. Page 214 of 312 · Conflict with Housing Diversity Goals: The comprehensive plan recognizes the need for a range of housing choices, including workforce housing and life-cycleopportunities. However, very expensive high-end residential development with largelots caters only to a niche market and fails to address the diverse housing needs of the community. · Failure to Encourage Sustainable Practices: Developing single home lotsranging from 5 to in excess of 10 acres in a protected wetland area does not align withthe goal of encouraging environmentally sustainable residential development practices.Such large lots lead to inefficient land use, increased energy consumption fortransportation, and disruption of natural drainage patterns, which can all contribute toenvironmental degradation. · Conflict with Density Goals: The comprehensive plan aims for an overall averagedensity of 5 units per acre for new growth. Allowing very expensive high-end residentialdevelopment with single home lots in excess of 10 acres would likely result insignificantly lower density than what is planned, leading to inefficient land use andpotentially sprawl, which contradicts the goal of planning for growth at appropriatedensities. · Conflict with Stormwater Management Policies and Goals: Taking steps toallow development in designated wetland areas will exacerbate stormwatermanagement issues by disrupting natural drainage patterns and increasing runoff. This contradicts the emphasis on improving stormwater management and protecting andrestoring the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources as stated in thecomprehensive plan. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments given my inability to attend the meeting in person. If you have any questions about the feedback I've provided, please let me know and I'll respond accordingly. Thanks - John Torinus On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:58 AM Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote: Hi John, thanks for your e-mail! The application is for a Preliminary and Final Plat, which is a subdivision request for the division of land parcels into lots of record. The proposed lots become part of a formal map of a subdivision. There are no Variances requested as part of this application. Under the City’s current ordinance within Title 12 Zoning, Chapter 2: Wetlands Systems, any future development within 100 feet of the high water mark of a wetland/water resource does undergo a City review process. If there is future development on the properties within the proposed parcels of this Plat, the development will be subject to the prescribed review processes in that ordinance, and any other ordinances applicable to development at the time the request is received. This application for the Plat will remain scheduled for the March 26th Planning Commission meeting, as the public hearing has been duly noted according to the hearing requirements. The hearing notice was published in the City’s official newspaper (Pioneer Press) at least ten days prior to the hearing – the notice ran on March 15th; and notices were mailed to property owners within 350’ of the boundaries of the property on Thursday, March 14th, also consistent with the requirement for mailed notices at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The notice contains a brief overview of the proposal – but I can absolutely provide more detail for you as requested. The staff report on this item is still being finalized, and the City publishes its full agenda packets on the Friday before each public meeting. As such, I cannot send along a written Page 215 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 tothe Planning Commission are required to be sent to anyone within 100 feet of the property inquestion. While I imagine re-platting of land for development in a designated wetland almostcertainly requires variance approval of some sort, I didn’t receive the notice until yesterday, just 8days before the planned meeting. I believe the notice should also include the property description,the proposed plat map, variances, etc. (?) but I received no such information and cannot find itonline. Page 216 of 312 As you can likely tell, I’m confused. This is something that has the potential for significant impactsto our quality of life, the character of the neighborhood and surrounding wetland, property values,etc. I absolutely want the chance to either be heard or to provide comments ahead of the meetingbut I haven’t been given the time necessary to plan my availability for the meeting nor theinformation necessary to provide informed comments. Can you help me with these things? Given what I believe is the desire to provide notice a minimumof 10 days in advance of such meetings, can you please move the date of the meeting to give thosethat might be impacted by this proposal time to plan their attendance at the meeting? Additionally,can you provide further details about what is being requested - essentially what "McMillan Estatesis - so that anyone that cannot attend can provide any desired feedback ahead of the meeting? These remedies would seem to be readily accessible and in keeping with the spirit of the processthat exists, and I hope you agree. I appreciate your consideration, as well as notice of your decisionand any related guidance. Thanks – John Torinus Page 217 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 218 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 219 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 220 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 221 of 312 Page 222 of 312 James P Kolar  1695 Delaware Avenue   Mendota Heights, MN, 55118  (612)408‐6852 / jamespkolar@gmail.com March 21, 2024  Mendota Heights Planning Commission  1101 Victoria Curve  Mendota Heights, MN  55118  c/ Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager  smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov  Re:  Proposed New Subdivision known as McMillan Estates  Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission Members:  My wife Michele Kolar and I are the property owners at 1695 Delaware Avenue which is  immediately north of the proposed subdivision.  This leƩer is to provide wriƩen comments and  to incorporate prior wriƩen comments to the almost idenƟcal Sullivan Acres in 2021 as our  comments for consideraƟon.  The McMillan Estates Subdivision is essenƟally the same as  Sullivan Acres submiƩed in 2021, albeit with less detail regarding dwelling placement and  footprint of structures than Sullivan Acres provided.  Thus, our comments are essenƟally similar  as provided in the leƩer dated November 18, 2021, from William C Griffith of Larkin Hoffman  (copy aƩached).  Please incorporate this leƩer and the aƩachment in your consideraƟon.  In summary, we are not opposed to the proposal, however, we respecƞully ask for sufficient  Ɵme to consider our property and the last remaining 10‐acre lot along this stretch of Delaware,  sufficient to allow the future access, necessary uƟlity easements from Ridgewood, and access  for  development of the westerly side of 1695 Delaware Avenue into one or more highly  desirable lots for future homes.    Page 223 of 312 As the McMillan’s state, such lots in McMillan Estates would generate significant tax revenue for  Mendota Heights and our property once developed would be similar in nature, even if only one  single lot was developed.  Landlocking our property unintenƟonally or without consideraƟon  could preclude any future opportunity for development and significant tax revenue.  I currently plan to aƩend the MeeƟng on March 26th and will provide comments, however at  this Ɵme I respecƞully request that any decision be deferred sufficient to allow me the Ɵme to  assess our property and come back to the commission with a proposal that could be considered  comprehensively with the McMillan’s.      Sincerely,    James P Kolar  Page 224 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 225 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 226 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 Atn: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov Re: Preliminary and Final Plat of Proposed New Subdivision known as McMillian Estates Dear Mendota Heights Planning Commission Members: I am wri�ng on behalf of my mother, 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, and two proper�es north of McMillian’s. As background, my parents purchased the property along with a home at 1673 Delaware Ave in 1998, and purchased an addi�onal lot on Foxwood Lane 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 the 2.51 acre Foxwood Lot). My late father submited plans before the Planning Commission and Mendota Heights City Council in an atempt to subdivide and develop a few lots, on number of occasions in the late 1990s, and early 2000s, and as recently as 2012. All plans were submited in accordance with the Future Land Use Designa�ons 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 Foxwood Lane. Overall, we are not opposed to a lot split on the McMillian Property, but request that the Planning Commission, City Staff and City Council take a comprehensive view of the superblock. Specifically, addressing future access and u�lity service for the parcels between Ridgeview Drive and Foxwood Lane. These proper�es are some of the last undeveloped parcels in Mendota Heights and will provide tremendous future benefit to the City once 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 sister and her husband have also expressed a similar interest. Page 227 of 312 I respec�ully request that the City take a more holis�c view of subdividing the superblock, and not limit or restrict access and u�lity connec�ons to adjacent proper�es. We advocate for retaining the character of the neighborhood as is appropriately defined by the Future Land Use Designa�ons in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, but without proper planning and access, the City is limi�ng any future development. This is not only a nega�ve for the city, but also nega�vely impacts exis�ng property owners. 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 228 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 229 of 312 Page 230 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 231 of 312 Page 232 of 312 Page 233 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 234 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 235 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 10:26 AM 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 236 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 237 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 238 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 239 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 240 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 241 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 242 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 243 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 244 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 245 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 246 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 247 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 248 of 312 Paul Pontinen 1760 Ridgewood Drive Page 249 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 250 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 251 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 252 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 253 of 312 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 phone I 651.452.8940 fax l www.mendota-heights.com , i~n 1 ~~~DDT A HEIGHTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR NEW _SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1707 DELAWARE A VENUE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet on Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 7:00 PM (or as soon as possible thereafter) in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an -applieation-from MMk-· & Katherine Sullivan;·-in-cooperation with Timothy-&-Gayle Olrer, requesting a Preliminary Plat of a new subdivision to be titled "Sullivan Acres"; along with a Variance to allow the extension of an existing public cul-de-sac roadway (Ridgewood Drive) by approximately 128-feet; The properties to be subdivided include the residential property located at 1707 Delaware A venue, and other vacant parcels generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive. This plat and related applications have been assigned as Planning Case No. 2021-19. This notice is pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivisions) and Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons desired to be heard with reference to this request will be allowed such an opportunity at this meeting. Individuals may also elect to submit written comments directly to City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, :MN' 55118, Attn: Tim Benetti; or email timb@mendota-heights.com. Written comments will be included as part of the public record. Should the Planning Commission provide a recommendation on this item, this matter will be forwarded to the Mendota Heights City Council for further consideration at the -December 7, 2021 meeting, starting at 6:00 PM. Questions or corninents related to this request should be directed-to--comm.urrify--- Development Director Tim Benetti at (651) 255-1142 or email timb@n1endota-lieights.com. Lorri Smith City Clerk Page 254 of 312 ·-·-·-·-,--------- I I I I ..... --,-, ,,. I ', I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ______ j_ ____ _ I I I I I I ~--·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ I I I I N ' \ I ' -1, ) ' 0 -I I I 3nN3JW 3't!VMV130 ---·----·----_j_ __ , _______ , ____ ~,---·-·-·-·-·-·------------------------ ~I OAT[ 11['14$10N IY Hlf Tlnf • PIIO.LCJ, PIW'AJl[O f(II: , .... ,,.u,1N1~'1W\,..t..• di =1r N :J! Site Plan & Title Sheet Mark Sullivan ~..::..: ::-.::, ~':: _., ... 0~ r~.--~~ ..... ,._, .. ._.,.........., i;IU Nn 670 Hidden CrNk Trill ...... Mendou H1fgh1.t, MN 55118 Nll\JII NMIY • NOT JOit C(IO(IIIWCIION r s~ Sullivan Acres 65l·l6J.1771 cuiilfi I dili5 ::: a, .;; Mendola Heights, Dakolll County, MN C41l. 1/11@1 11('1110. JHot Page 255 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 256 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 257 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 258 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 259 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 260 of 312 From:Stephanie Levine To:John Torinus Cc:Sally Lorberbaum; Joel Paper; John Mazzitello; Jay Miller; Cheryl Jacobson; Sarah Madden Subject:Re: Comments on the McMillan Estates proposal Date:Monday, July 1, 2024 3:05:01 PM Dear John, On behalf of the city council, I want to acknowledge your email. I am also sending copies to City Administrator Jacobson and Community Development Manager Madden. We appreciate your expressions of disappointment in several aspects of the Planning Commission Meeting and understand the need to be clear in our deliberations. We will certainly try our best to articulate our thoughts and understanding during the decision-making process. If you have internet access tomorrow, the livestream can be watched through Townsquare TV. It will also be archived for public viewing shortly after the broadcast. You can navigate to those platforms through the city’s website. Sincerely, Stephanie Stephanie B. Levine Mayor City of Mendota Heights C:651-302-0861 Website | Connect From: John Torinus <jtorinus@gmail.com> Date: Monday, July 1, 2024 at 1:49 PM To: Stephanie Levine <SLevine@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, Joel Paper <JPaper@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, John Mazzitello <JMazzitello@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, Jay Miller <JMiller@mendotaheightsmn.gov>, Sally Lorberbaum <SLorberbaum@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: Comments on the McMillan Estates proposal Dear Mayor and City Council, I’m writing today to provide comments regarding the revised McMillan Estates proposal, as I am Page 261 of 312 unable to attend the council meeting tomorrow. I’m not aware if it’s standard procedure so before Icontinue, I want to encourage each of you to watch the recording of the Planning Commission’sreview of this proposal, as it provides important context. I was quite surprised by several aspects of the meeting. One such aspect was that concernsexpressed about impacts to wetlands, neighborhood character, and property values, protection of allof which are required by City Code, the Comprehensive Plan and State of MN law, were ignored.Unfortunately, rather than even attempting to address these valid concerns, the Commission insteaddismissed them in a rather patronizing way with the comment that “neighbors just like status quo”. To be clear, this is not the case; rather, the neighbors simply expect the planning commission to actin alignment with the law, which at both state and city level requires attention to theseconsiderations. Obviously this expectation was misplaced because the entirety of the meeting was spent firstexplaining the proposal’s complexity and then readily acknowledging it as an over-engineered way ofgetting around the zoning requirement that any developable lot have a minimum of 125 feet offrontage on public street – not 125 feet on paper or in concept – 125 feet on a street. I stoppedcounting after the word “perverse” was used three times by other commission members indescribing the plan’s alignment to City zoning requirements. Just as striking as this openly acknowledged subversion of current City Zoning Ordinance was themyopic focus of the Commission on the legal risk of declining the proposal. This hardly seems worthyof such attention given how other considerations required by City and State laws are being ignoredbut since the commission made it the primary focus, I think it’s important to consider this question:Would each of you be more comfortable in court defending a simple denial of the proposal due to itnot meeting the city's zoning requirement of 125 feet of frontage, or would you prefer to defend theapproval of the “ghost cul-de-sac” proposal, which the Commission admitted was an attempt tobypass the zoning ordinance to benefit one person at the expense of many? I take the McMillan’s at their word that their intent is to build a single home. I also trust the CityCouncil will find a way to enable this in a way that does not indict the integrity of existing state lawsand city ordinances, conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or create excessive wetland impacts.Accomplishing both of these goals seems quite feasible but not through the current proposal, whichshould be denied. Thank you for your consideration, John Torinus Page 262 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 263 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 264 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 265 of 312 9.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-45 Accepting Feasibility Report, Authorizing Preparation of Plans & Specifications, and Calling for a Public Hearing for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Lucas Ritchie, Asssitant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Accept the feasibility report, authorize preparation of plans & specifications, and schedule a public hearing for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements. BACKGROUND: The preparation of a feasibility report for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council in adopting Resolutions 2023-54 and 2024-28 at the City Council meetings held on September 5, 2023, and June 4, 2024, respectively. The proposed streets to be rehabilitated are Apache Court, Apache Lane, Apache Street, Aztec Lane, Cheyenne Lane, Creek Avenue, Decorah Lane, Fox Place, Havenview Court, Hazel Court, Hokah Avenue, Keokuk Lane, Mohican Court, Mohican Lane, Nashua Lane, Navajo Lane, Ocala Court, Ocala Lane, Pagel Road, Pontiac Place, Pueblo Drive, and Pueblo Lane. Streets proposed to be rehabilitated are broken out into multiple constructions seasons with roadways identified north of, and including, Decorah Lane being proposed for rehabilitation in the 2025 construction season and roadways identified south of Decorah Lane being proposed for rehabilitation in the 2026 construction season. Based on observations, as well as the pavement management system, these streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost- effective to perform standard maintenance routines and rehabilitation is necessary. The feasibility report indicates the estimated costs for the project, along with preliminary assessment estimates. At the end of the feasibility report, a project financing summary is included to show project cost splits and funding sources to be utilized. The total estimated Page 266 of 312 cost of the project is $9,372,445 including contingency and indirect costs. A portion of the feasibility report is attached, and the entire report is available for review at city hall or via request. Staff are proposing to hold a second informational meeting on September 4, 2024, ahead of the proposed Public Hearing. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners. Pursuant to the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties should be assessed 50% of the street reconstruction and rehabilitation costs. The following tables show the estimated unit assessments based on the City policy. Project Total 2025 Estimated Costs 2026 Estimated Costs Total Estimated Costs (2025 and 2026) Street Improvements $ 2,026,671.50 $ 2,224,424.00 $ 4,251,095.50 10% Contingency $ 202,667.15 $ 222,442.40 $ 425,109.55 Indirect Costs for Street Improvements (20%)* $ 445,867.73 $ 489,373.28 $ 935,241.01 Total Costs for Street Improvements $ 2,675,206.38 $ 2,936,239.68 $ 5,611,446.06 Park Improvements $ 126,016.00 $ 15,984.00 $ 142,000.00 10% Contingency $ 12,601.60 $ 1,598.40 $ 14,200.00 Indirect Costs Park Improvements (20%)* $ 27,723.52 $ 3,516.48 $ 31,240.00 Total Costs for Park Improvements $ 166,341.12 $ 21,098.88 $ 187,440.00 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 398,806.00 $ 239,469.00 $ 638,275.00 Water Improvements $ 9,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 15,500.00 Sanitary Improvements $ 941,078.00 $ 44,250.00 $ 985,328.00 10% Contingency (All Utility Improvements) $ 134,888.40 $ 29,021.90 $ 163,910.30 Total Cost for Utility Improvements $ 1,483,772.40 $ 319,240.90 $ 1,803,013.30 Saint Paul Regional Water Service Watermain Replacement $ 912,295.00 $ 487,345.00 $ 1,399,640.00 10% Contingency $ 91,229.50 $ 48,734.50 $ 139,964.00 Indirect Costs for SPRWS (15%)* $ 150,528.68 $ 80,411.93 $ 230,940.61 Total Cost for SPRWS Improvements $ 1,154,053.18 $ 616,491.43 $ 1,770,544.61 Total Improvement Cost $ 4,413,866.50 $ 3,017,972.00 $ 7,431,838.50 Total Contingency Cost $ 441,386.65 $ 301,797.20 $ 743,183.85 Total Indirect Costs* $ 624,119.93 $ 573,301.69 $ 1,197,421.62 Total Cost $ 5,479,373.08 $ 3,893,070.89 $ 9,372,443.97 Rounded Total Cost $ 5,479,374.00 $ 3,893,071.00 $ 9,372,445.00 *Indirect costs include legal, engineering, administration, and finance Page 267 of 312 Assessment Calculation Total Total Project Cost $ 9,372,443.97 Assessable Amount $ 5,611,446.06 Assessment Amount (50% of Assessable Amount) $ 2,805,723.03 Total Units - Residential* 343 Assessment - Residential $ 2,636,610.96 Total Units - City of Mendota Heights* 22 City Assigned Assessment Amount $ 169,112.07 Total Units 365 Unit Assessment (Assessable amount/ XX Units) $ 7,686.91 Total Assessment Amount $ 7,686.91 *1 unit = 100 frontage feet Residential assessments for the project are calculated to be $7,686.91 for the single-family homes in the project area. Staff are hopeful that competitive bids will be received on the project reducing the assessment of residential properties. Funding Source Project Total Municipal Levy $ 2,505,723.03 City Assessment (Municipal Levy) $ 169,112.07 Park Fund (Municipal Levy) $ 187,440.00 Total Municipal Levy $ 2,862,275.10 Municipal State Aid Funds $ 300,000.00 Residential Assessments (50%) $ 2,636,610.96 Utility Fund - Storm Sewer $ 702,102.50 Utility Fund - Sanitary $ 1,083,860.80 Utility Fund - Water $ 17,050.00 Saint Paul Regional Water Services $ 1,770,544.61 Total $ 9,372,443.97 The project is showing a total Municipal Levy of $2,862,275.10. The total rounded project cost is estimated at $9,372,445. It is presumed that the City would secure bonding for the Municipal Levy and Assessment portions of the project ($5,498,886.06). The assessment amount of $2,636,610.96 is equivalent to 48.0% of the bond amount. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 Special Assessment Bond Issue requires that a minimum of 20% of the total bond issue amount be recovered through special assessments. Page 268 of 312 As the project is designed and competitively bid, the calculated assessment amount will be updated leading up to the adoption of the assessment roll. The improvements are necessary to allow for safe and reliable street and utility services within the City of Mendota Heights. The project will be competitively bid to allow for a cost-effective improvement. The feasibility study has provided an overall analysis of the feasible improvements for consideration within this project area. Therefore, the proposed improvements within the areas outlined in this report are necessary, cost effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2024-45 Accept Feasibility and Call for Public Hearing - Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements 2.Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements Feasibility Report Excerpt CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 269 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-45 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT #202407) WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2023-54, the City Council, on September 5, 2023, ordered a feasibility report to be prepared by the Public Works Director with reference to the improvement of Apache Street, Aztec Lane, Cheyenne Lane, Creek Avenue, Decorah Lane, Fox Place, Hokah Avenue, Keokuk Lane, Mohican Court, Mohican Lane, Nashua Lane, Navajo Lane, Ocala Court, Ocala Lane, Pontiac Place, Pueblo Court, and Pueblo Lane; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2024-28, the City Council, on June 4, 2024, ordered a feasibility report to be prepared by the Public Works Director with reference to the improvement of Apache Court, Apache Lane, Havenview Court, Hazel Court, Keokuk Lane, and Pagel Road; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has submitted a report to the City Council with respect to Apache Court, Apache Lane, Apache Street, Aztec Lane, Cheyenne Lane, Creek Avenue, Decorah Lane, Fox Place, Havenview Court, Hazel Court, Hokah Avenue, Keokuk Lane, Mohican Court, Mohican Lane, Nashua Lane, Navajo Lane, Ocala Court, Ocala Lane, Pagel Road, Pontiac Place, Pueblo Drive, and Pueblo Lane improvements which include: reclaimed aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, sanitary sewer replacement and improvements, watermain replacement and improvements, storm sewer replacement and improvements, trail rehabilitation, ADA improvements and appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, in said report the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof are desirable and necessary, technically and economically feasible, cost effective, and further reported on the estimated cost of the proposed improvements; and NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1.The City Council hereby accepts the Feasibility Report as submitted. 2. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets and areas in accordance with the report and the assessment of property as described in the report for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvements of $9,372,445. 3. A Public Hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 17 th day of September, 2024 at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota at 7:00 p.m. Statutory notice and publication requirements shall be followed. 4.The Public Works Director shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such Improvements, which plans and specifications shall be placed on file at the City upon completion. Page 270 of 312 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of August, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ATTEST Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor _________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 271 of 312 FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Feasibility Study City Project 202407 City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota JULY 2024 Page 272 of 312 FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Feasibility Study CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT 202407 Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, 14800 Galaxie Avenue or report was prepared by me or under my Suite 200 direct supervision and that I am duly Apple Valley, MN 551124 Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature: __________________________ Luke Moren, P.E. Date: July 30th, 2024 Lic. No. 54190 File: 161212000 Page 273 of 312 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 3 STREET IMPROVEMENTS STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATE UTILITIES 4. PERMITS AND APPROVALS ............................................................................................................. 11 5. EASEMENT AND PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 11 6. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 11 7. ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING ........................................................................... 12 8. PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................ 14 9. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 14 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – PROJECT LOCATION FIGURES APPENDIX B – TYPICAL SECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENT MAPS APPENDIX C – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION APPENDIX D – OPINION OF PROBABLE COST APPENDIX E – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AND MAPS APPENDIX F – ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Page 274 of 312 1 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This feasibility study and report has been prepared for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements project, City Project No. 202407. The proposed project improvements consist of a full-depth pavement reclamation (FDR) of multiple street segments throughout the Friendly Hills Neighborhood and surrounding areas. The project improvements also include watermain, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and trail improvements. The total length of roadway rehabilitation included with the project is 4.56 miles. The total length of trail rehabilitation improvements is 0.45 miles. A project area map showing the street and trail segments in the project is included in Appendix A. The project is proposed to be constructed over the 2025 and 2026 construction seasons. Generally, the 2025 construction area includes Decorah Lane and all project street segments to the north. Generally, the 2026 construction area includes all the project street segments south of Decorah Lane. Detailed information on the proposed improvements is provided in the report. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed in the table below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency, 20% indirect cost for City improvements, and 15% indirect cost for Saint Paul Regional Watermain (SPRWS) improvements. Project Roadway Improv. Storm Sewer Improv. Sanitary Sewer Improv. Watermain Improv. City Park, Trail and ADA Improv. Total CP 202407 $5,611,446.06 $702,102.50 $1,083,860.80 $1,787,594.61 $187,440.00 $9,372,443.97 The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of Municipal Levy, Municipal State Aid Funds (MSA), various City utility funds, SPRWS funds, and special benefit assessments. A preliminary financing plan is provided in the table below. Total Municipal Levy MSA Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds Stormwater Utility Funds SPRWS Funds Special Assessments $9,372,443.97 $3,179,325.10 TBD $1,083,860.80 $702,102.50 $1,770,544.61 $2,636,610.96 A more detailed financing plan is provided within the body of this report. We recommend that the following project schedule be followed: Council Receives Feasibility Study August 7, 2024 City Council Schedule Public Hearing Project Informational Open House #2 Early September 2024 Public Improvement Hearing September 17, 2024 Council Order Project Final Design September 2024 – January 2025 Page 275 of 312 2 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I Council Approves Plans and Specs February 4, 2025 Authorize Advertisement for Bids Bid Opening March 5, 2025 City Council Accepts Bids March 18, 2025 Council Awards Contract Neighborhood Construction Open House April 2025 Construction (2025 Area) May 2025 – September 2025 Construction (2026 Area) May 2026 – September 2026 City Council Schedule Assessment Hearing September 2026 Assessment Hearing Informational Meeting September/October 2026 Assessment Hearing October 2026 Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed City Project 202407 is feasible, necessary, cost-effective, and would benefit the City of Mendota Heights and the residents in the project area. We recommend the following: A. The City Council orders and holds a public hearing on September 17, 2024. B. After receiving the appropriate staff reports, staff information, and public hearing input, the Council makes a decision on the approval or rejection of the proposed improvements and, if applicable, orders the approved project. Page 276 of 312 3 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I 1. INTRODUCTION The Mendota Heights City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study as part of the City’s Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements project on September 5th, 2023. Additional street segments were added to the project on June 4th, 2024. The project includes 4.56 miles of streets and is proposed for rehabilitation in 2025 and 2026. A general summary of the proposed improvements included is provided below. · Pavement full-depth reclamation of the following street segments: o 2025 Area: Creek Avenue, Fox Place, Hokah Avenue, Aztec Lane, Decorah Lane, Apache Street (north of Decorah Lane), Pontiac Place (north of Decorah Lane), Cheyenne Lane, Ocala Lane, Ocala Court and Nashua Lane o 2026 Area: Apache Court, Apache Lane, Apache Street (south of Decorah Lane), Pontiac Place (south of Decorah Lane), Pueblo Lane, Pueblo Drive, Navajo Lane, Keokuk Lane, Mohican Lane, Mohican Court, Havenview Court, Hazel Court, and Pagel Road · Trail rehabilitation along Decorah Lane and through Friendly Hills Park between Decorah Lane and Apache Lane, as well as north of the Apache Street cul-de-sac · Spot concrete curb and gutter replacement · Proposed storm sewer installation at the Creek Avenue and Dodd Road intersection · Sanitary sewer interceptor replacement along Decorah Lane (Dodd Road to Apache Street) and along Apache Street (north of Decorah Lane) · Storm sewer pipe and structure replacement, adjustment, and rehabilitation as needed · Sanitary sewer pipe and structure replacement and adjustments · Watermain replacement on Aztec Lane, Cheyenne Lane, Pontiac Place and Keokuk Lane, Decorah Lane (Dodd Road to Apache Street) and Apache Street (north of Decorah Lane) · Sacrificial anode retrofits on existing cast iron pipe throughout the project area · Watermain valve and hydrant replacement and adjustments as needed · ADA ramp improvements A project study area map for the project is included in Appendix A. 2. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The street segments proposed for rehabilitation are identified in the City’s current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ratings are used by the City to evaluate the condition of existing street pavements. PCI ratings for the street segments in the project area generally range between 25 and 50. Generally, mill and overlay improvements are cost effective when PCI ratings are above 70. When PCI ratings fall below 70, full pavement rehabilitation methods are necessary to rehabilitate the pavements. A full depth pavement reclamation rehabilitation approach is proposed for the street segments in the project area. Geotechnical borings and analysis were obtained with the feasibility study to support this recommendation and are included in Appendix C. STREET IMPROVEMENTS The proposed street improvements include approximately 4.56 miles of full-depth pavement reclamation. Additional excavation activities will be necessary along Decorah Lane and Apache Street where the Page 277 of 312 4 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I sanitary sewer interceptor replacement is proposed and for limited other storm sewer and watermain improvement areas. TYPICAL SECTION The streets in the project area are urban section roadways with barrier style concrete curb and gutter except for Keokuk Lane between Dodd Road and Pagel Road. Keokuk Lane between Dodd Road and Pagel Road does not contain existing curb and gutter. Existing street widths and an inventory of street segments in the project area are provided in the table below. The street width of Decorah Lane varies between 27-feet (Dodd Road to Apache Street) and 33-feet (Apache Street to Huber Drive). The 27-foot section of Decorah Lane includes an off-street trail but restrict on-street parking. C.P. 202407 Street Widths Street Name Street Width (ft) From To Apache Court 33 North End Huber Drive Apache Lane 33 West End Apache Court Apache Street 33 Pueblo Lane Northern End Aztec Lane 33 Southern End Northern End Cheyenne Lane 33 Apache Street Huber Drive Creek Avenue 33 Dodd Road (TH 149) Aztec Lane Decorah Lane 27 Dodd Road (TH 149) Apache Street 33 Apache Street Huber Drive Fox Place 33 Aztec Lane Creek Avenue Havenview Court 33 Pagel Road East End Hazel Road 33 West End Pagel Road Hokah Avenue 33 Dodd Road (TH 149) Aztec Lane Keokuk Lane 33 Pagel Road Pueblo Lane 44 Dodd Road Pagel Road Mohican Lane 33 Pueblo Drive Eastern End Mohican Court 33 Pueblo Lane East End Nashua Lane 33 Decorah Lane Cheyenne Lane Navajo Lane 33 Pontiac Place Pueblo Lane Ocala Court 33 Ocala Lane Eastern End Ocala Lane 33 Pontiac Place Decorah Lane Pagel Road 33 Dodd Road South End Pontiac Place 33 Apache Street Cheyenne Lane Pueblo Drive 33 Southern Limits Keokuk Lane Pueblo Lane 33 Mohican Lane Decorah Lane Street widths are generally not proposed to change with the project. The addition of a new trail along the south side of Decorah Lane between Apache Street and Pueblo Lane would require narrowing the roadway to 27-feet, matching the street width between Dodd Road and Apache Street. Consideration for this trail and roadway narrowing is further discussed later in the feasibility study. Spot curb and gutter replacement throughout the project area will not change existing street widths. Typical sections for the proposed improvements are included in Appendix B. Page 278 of 312 5 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I PAVEMENT SECTION AND PAVEMENT REHABILITATION APPROA CH A geotechnical investigation was performed as a part of the feasibility study. Existing bituminous depths ranged between 3.5-inches to 7-inches on the project streets and apparent aggregate base thicknesses ranged between 2-inches and 16-inches. Sub-base soils in the project area generally consist of silty sands, sandy lean clays, and lean clays. The full geotechnical report is included in Appendix C. Full depth pavement reclamation (FDR) is the proposed pavement rehabilitation method for all streets within the project limits. Recommendations for the pavement rehabilitation approach consider current PCI ratings, pavement age, pavement maintenance completed since last reconstruction, existing soils information, excavations due to utility improvements, and existing pavement information. A pavement section of 8-inches (minimum) reclaimed base material and 4-inches of bituminous pavement is proposed. In locations where full utility replacement work requires significant underground disturbance, additional curb and gutter replacement is anticipated along with pavement rehabilitation consisting of the same 4-inches of bituminous and 8-inches of aggregate base. Regrading of reclaimed base material to a proposed 3% roadway crown is proposed to maximize the amount of reclaimed material used in the pavement section, avoids exporting material from the project, and promotes positive drainage on the streets. Significant areas of additional subgrade correction are not anticipated throughout the project areas and will only be corrected if identified during construction. Unsuitable soils in areas of deeper excavations for utility improvements will be removed and replaced with suitable materials during backfilling operations. In the event that soils are found to be unstable in FDR areas, they will be corrected with sub-cutting and replacement or scarification, drying, and re-compaction with a thicker, reclaimed aggregate base section or with stabilizing rock as directed by the engineer. Excess reclamation material will be used for sub- grade correction as feasible. Proposed roadway typical sections and improvement maps depicting the rehabilitation areas are included in Appendix B. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Existing concrete curb and gutter that is settling, not providing adequate conveyance of stormwater, contains significant cracks, or has failing joints, is identified for replacement. Areas with utility improvements will also require full curb and gutter replacement. Curb and gutter identified specifically for replacement in the feasibility study phase is shown on the improvement maps in Appendix B. Additional spot curb and gutter replacement, not shown on the map, will be identified for replacement ahead of construction. Two intersections within the project area; Dodd Road and Creek Avenue and Dodd Road and Decorah Lane, currently do not have curb along the intersection turning radii. Erosion, as a result of stormwater runoff and off-road vehicle tracking, is observed at both intersections. Installation of concrete curb and gutter is recommended at these intersections to address the erosion issues, improve stormwater management, and keep vehicles on pavement. Keokuk Lane between Dodd Road and Pagel Road currently does not contain curb and gutter. The City has no history of ongoing maintenance issues with the current rural typical roadway section and installation of curb and gutter is not proposed. Page 279 of 312 6 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I Curb and gutter improvements are also proposed at the Havenview Court, Apache Lane, and Ocala Court cul-de-sacs to address drainage issues that were identified during site visits and resident input. The final limits of curb replacement in these areas will be identified during final design but anticipated replacement limits are shown in the project improvements maps. DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION The FDR rehabilitation will generally not disturb residential driveways. However, where utility replacement areas are proposed or spot curb replacement is necessary in front of existing driveways, a small driveway disturbance will be necessary. Driveways will be replaced in-kind within the construction disturbance area. All disturbed driveways will be reconstructed with 6-inches of aggregate base under a minimum of 6-inches of concrete or 3-inches of bituminous pavement. Affected residents and businesses will be notified of the disturbance prior to construction. STREET LIGHTING In general, there is limited or no existing street lighting throughout the project neighborhood streets. Intersection street lighting does exist at intersections with Dodd Road (TH 149). No street lighting improvements are proposed with the project. TRAIL AND SIDEWALK INFRASTRUCTURE Existing trail facilities are located within the project area along Decorah Lane (Dodd Road to Apache Street and Pueblo Lane to Huber Drive) and within Friendly Hills Park. These existing trail pavements are debilitated and in need of replacement. The existing trail pavement north of the Apache Street cul-de-sac is also in poor condition. Trail segments within the project area identified for replacement are shown in the project improvements map in Appendix B. The limits of trail replacement north of the Apache Street cul- de-sac are determined based on potential future Dakota County trail improvements through this area. Existing sidewalk along the south side of Havenview Court is privately maintained and will not be replaced with the project. Multiple trail and sidewalk connections to project street segments exist in the project area. The majority of these connections do not contain compliant Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp infrastructure. Locations of proposed ADA ramp construction are shown on the improvements map in Appendix B. DECORAH LANE TRAIL GAP – APACHE STREET TO PUEBLO LANE The section of Decorah Lane between Apache Street and Pueblo Lane does not currently contain a trail along the south side of the road. Construction of a trail along this segment would provide a continuous off-street trail for bicycle and pedestrian users between Huber Drive and Dodd Road. City staff solicited feedback on a potential trail in this location. A summary of the feedback received from the public regarding this trail gap is included in the Public Engagement section of the report. Construction of a trail in this area would require narrowing the roadway from 33-feet to 27-feet and restricting parking along the south side of Decorah Lane. Construction of new curb and gutter, storm sewer improvements, hydrant relocations, front yard grading, and driveway reconstruction would all be necessary to accommodate a trail in this segment. It is anticipated that construction of this trail segment could be completed within existing right-of-way and without significant impacts to existing trees. A cost Page 280 of 312 7 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I estimate for this potential trail improvement was prepared with the study and is estimated to add ~$337,000 to the overall project cost and would not be assessable. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimate for these trail improvements is included in Appendix D. At this time, these trail improvements are not included in the project recommendations and require further discussion with City Council. STREET SIGNAGE Street signs in poor condition or out of compliance with current City standards are planned for replacement throughout the project area. Existing yield and stop controlled intersections throughout the project area were reviewed with the study. Current City Code Sections 6-3-1 Through Streets and Stop Intersections and 6-3-2 Through Streets and Yield intersections identify signing and traffic conditions at most intersections in the project area. Revisions to yield and stop configuration intersections in the project area would require a modification to City Code. The City is not aware of any traffic operations or crash history at intersections within the neighborhood. No modifications to existing street signage layouts are proposed with the project. An allowance for street signage improvements is included in the feasibility study. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Storm sewer exists throughout the project area capturing stormwater runoff from the curb and gutter and conveying it to area stormwater pond discharge locations. The existing storm sewer system and proposed storm sewer improvements are shown on the improvement maps in Appendix B. A summary of the proposed storm sewer improvements is provided below: ·Existing manholes and catch basins in the street pavement and curb and gutter that are not identified for replacement will be adjusted to the new pavement/curb grades. Existing castings will be replaced if in poor condition. ·Storm sewer along Decorah Lane between Dodd Road and Apache Street and at the intersection of Decorah Lane and Apache Street is proposed for replacement due to sanitary sewer and watermain installation. ·An existing stormwater channel along the north side of Creek Avenue residences has historically created erosion and high water level issues in the neighborhood. Stormwater runoff from the new City fire station and upstream areas of Dodd Road route stormwater through this backyard channel. The feasibility study included an evaluation of the existing storm sewer system on Creek Avenue to identify if excess capacity is available for diverted stormwater. The existing Creek Avenue storm sewer system has excess capacity to carry additional stormwater. A diversion of some stormwater flows from Dodd Road, through this system, is proposed with the project as shown in the improvement maps. The ultimate discharge location for this diverted stormwater is the same as the backyard channel. This diversion and new storm sewer improvement will reduce flows in heavier rainfall events behind Creek Avenue and still route stormwater to its existing outfall location. ·Multiple localized drainage concerns were identified during a project site visit and via resident comments with the project. The locations and proposed improvements to address the issues are identified below. o Near the Cheyenne Lane and Nashua Lane intersection: Settled curb and gutter, flat curbline grades, and sump pump discharges are causing localized street flooding. New storm sewer and curbline replacement are proposed to address this issue. Page 281 of 312 8 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I o Ocala Court cul-de-sac: Settled curb and gutter and flat curbline grades are causing localized street flooding. New storm sewer improvements and curbline replacement are proposed to address this issue. o Pubelo Drive and Mohican Lane intersection: Settled curb and gutter and existing pavement grades are causing localized street flooding. Curbline replacement and regrading of the intersection are proposed to address this issue. o Along Mohican Lane: Existing sump pump discharges onto the street are causing icy road conditions in the winter. Extension of storm sewer up Mohican Lane will allow for sump pump connections and address the winter icing conditions. o Havenview Court: Heaving of existing curb and gutter due to tree roots is trapping water on the roadway. Replacement of existing curb and gutter to drain to existing catch basins is proposed to address this issue. o Hazel Court and Pagel Road Intersection: An existing low point in the northwest corner of the intersection is ponding water. A new catch basin is proposed to capture this water and discharge off the roadway. o Apache Lane: Flat grades of existing cul-de-sac curb and gutter are causing ponding in the cul-de-sac. Replacement of the cul-de-sac curb and gutter will address the drainage issues. Linear, pavement rehabilitation projects do not generally disturb the subbase soils beneath the existing pavement and aggregate base. In addition, no new impervious surface is created with the project. No stormwater management improvements are proposed with the project. The City’s rain garden program will be offered to interested residents on this project, consistent with previous City street rehabilitation projects. Rain gardens will be discussed at the next public informational meeting and an allowance for rain garden construction is included in the project construction budget. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS An existing 24-inch City sanitary sewer interceptor along Decorah Lane (Dodd Road to Apache Street) and Apache Street (north of Decorah Lane) was televised ahead of the feasibility study. Evidence of significant corrosion of the bottom of the sewer pipe, exposing existing rebar, was identified and this interceptor pipe is proposed for replacement. The corrosion of the pipe is too significant to consider a lining rehabilitation improvement. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe material is proposed to provide improved resistance to future corrosion from existing sewage and corrosive, clay soil conditions. Existing residential sanitary sewer services will be reconnected to the new pipe within the street. Replacement of sanitary sewer services is not proposed between the new main and existing right-of-way. Complaints of sewer gas odors within the Decorah Lane and Apache Street area were received as a part of the public engagement process and have been received historically by the City. The following project improvements and next steps are being considered to address the sewer gas odor concerns: ·Sewer gas samples within the project area and upstream and downstream of the project area will be collected in late Summer 2024. The gas samples will be analyzed to understand the makeup of the sewer gas and understand locations where gas concentration is highest. ·If determined feasibile and cost effective within the project area, the sewer gas analysis data will be used to size an odor control unit that will remove sewer gases directly from the sanitary sewer system in the project area and filter the gases to remove the odors. A budget allowance for two Page 282 of 312 9 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I odor control units is included in the feasibility study and would be funded via sanitary sewer utility funds. ·Existing drops at manhole locations are present throughout the Decorah Lane and Apache Street interceptor. The drops are necessary to maintain good flow in the sewer pipe but do increase mixing and turbulence of the sewer flows, which can result in increased sewer odors. Elimination of these sewer drops will be further evaluated in final design to reduce the mixing and turbulence in the sewer flows and potentially reduce sewer gas concentrations. ·At the intersection of Decorah Lane and Apache Street, the 90-degree routing of the sanitary sewer interceptor results in increase turbulence and mixing of sewage. The project is proposing an additional manhole at the intersection to more smoothly convey sewage in the interceptor pipe at this intersection and reduce mixing and turbulence. Existing sanitary sewer manholes within the project street segments will be adjusted to the new pavement grade. No sanitary sewer manholes outside of the interceptor replacement area are identified for replacement. The City is planning for a sewer lining project in future construction years as part of a separate project. WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) currently provides water service to residents in the project area. The City partners with SPRWS as street improvement projects are planned to coordinate necessary watermain improvements at the same time as City street improvement projects take place. SPRWS has identified improvements in the Friendly Hills neighborhood, mainly consisting of replacing existing cast- iron pipe (CIP) watermains. CIP watermain is located on Creek Avenue, Fox Place, Aztec Lane, Apache Street, Pontiac Place, Cheyenne Lane, Decorah Lane (east of Pontiac Place), Ocala Lane, Navajo Lane, Keokuk Lane, Pueblo Drive, Mohican Lane, Mohican Court, and Pueblo Lane. SPRWS has reviewed the break history, original installation time, existing soils, and other factors to identify which segments of CIP watermain will be replaced with the project. A summary of the proposed watermain improvements is listed in the table below and shown on the improvements maps in Appendix B. Pipe bursting installation methods are proposed where applicable to reduce the extent of curb and gutter removal and better align with the overall full depth pavement reclamation project approach. CP 202407 – Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements Street Name Material and Install Year Recommendation From To Approximate Length (ft) Apache Street Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Pueblo Lane Decorah Avenue 1,575 Apache Street Cast-Iron, 1956 Replacement (Open Trench) Decorah Lane North End 900 Aztec Lane Cast-Iron, 1956 Replacement (Pipe Bursting) South of Hokah Avenue North of Creek Avenue 1,450 Aztec Lane to Apache Street Cast-Iron, 1956 Abandonment Aztec Lane Apache Street 600 Page 283 of 312 10 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I Cheyenne Lane Cast-Iron, 1956 Replacement (Pipe Bursting) Apache Street 200’ East of Pontiac Place 1,250 Creek Avenue Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Dodd Road (TH 149) Aztec Lane 750 Decorah Lane Proposed Furnish and Installation Dodd Road (TH 149) Apache Street 650 Fox Place Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Aztec Lane Creek Avenue 800 Hokah Avenue Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Dodd Road (TH 149) Aztec Lane 325 Keokuk Lane Cast-Iron, 1956 Replacement (Pipe Bursting) Pagel Road Pueblo Lane 1,450 Mohican Lane Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Pueblo Drive Pueblo Lane 930 Mohican Court Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit South End Pueblo Lane 600 Navajo Lane Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Pontiac Place Pueblo Lane 650 Ocala Lane Cast-Iron, 1980 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Pontiac Place Decorah Lane 1,050 Pontiac Place Cast-Iron, 1956 Replacement (Pipe Bursting) Apache Street Cheyenne Lane 1,200 Pueblo Lane Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit Mohican Lane Decorah Lane 1,115 Pueblo Drive Cast-Iron, 1956 Sacrificial Anode Retrofit South End Keokuk Lane 410 An existing cast-iron pipe between Aztec Lane and Apache Street is not feasible to replace and is challenging to access for maintenance. This section of watermain is recommended for abandonment due to poor pipe conditions, future maintenance issues, and property impacts upon potential replacement. A new watermain along Decorah Avenue, connecting to existing watermain on Dodd Road, will re-establish the watermain loop and maintain existing water service levels to the neighborhood. In locations where CIP watermain is not identified for replacement on the project, sacrificial anodes will be installed to extend the service life of the existing watermains. Project street segments not included in the table above have ductile iron (DIP) watermains and are not in need of improvements. PRIVATE UTILITIES In general, conflicts with private utility facilities in the existing City right-of-way are not anticipated as a part of the project. Installation of new watermain on Decorah Lane and Dodd Road may require some Page 284 of 312 11 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I private utility relocation. In addition, spot curb replacement areas and some storm sewer work, may require exposure of existing private utilities. A Gopher One Map ticket request was submitted for the project area as a part of the feasibility study and the following utility companies have facilities present in the project areas: · Arvig · Lumen · Comcast · Dakota County Fiber · Mendota Heights Fiber · MCI · Mobil · Xcel (Gas) · Xcel (Power) Private utility companies will be notified of the project during final design and directed to schedule and perform any relocation work in order to not delay the project. 4. PERMITS AND APPROVALS The proposed improvements will require acquisition of the following permits: · General stormwater permit for construction activities under the Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · MnDOT Right-of-Way Permit o Areas of disturbance along Dodd Road (TH 149) for watermain replacement o Project work at intersections with Dodd Road (TH 149) including Decorah Lane, Keokuk Lane, Pagel Road, Hokah Avenue, and Creek Avenue Decorah Lane is on the City’s Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) system. Use of MSAS funding for street improvements on the City’s MSAS system requires plan approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) State Aid division. A design plan submittal and approval by MnDOT State Aid will be necessary for work on Decorah Lane. FDR pavement improvements are considered reconditioning improvements by State Aid and will be subject to State Aid Rule 8820.9926. All streets listed above meet the minimum criteria for Rule 8820.9926 and no variances will be necessary for this project. 5. EASEMENT AND PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS The street, storm, and utility improvements are proposed to occur within existing City right-of-way and easements. No easement or property acquisition is anticipated for this project. 6. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT As a part of the initial project mailings, a questionnaire was sent out to all residents in the project area to solicit feedback on the proposed project and collect information about the neighborhood. This included seeking information regarding drainage issues, traffic operations, potential Trail on Decorah Lane, Page 285 of 312 12 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I pedestrian safety, and general project feedback. A summary of the questionnaire feedback is provided below: ·Multiple, localized drainage issues were identified and have been reviewed and addressed, as applicable, with the proposed improvements ·Support and opposition to a new trail along Decorah Lane between Apache Lane and Pueblo Lane in the questionnaire was nearly split. Support for the trail was generally to get bicycles and pedestrians off the roadway. Opposition for the trail was loss of on-street parking, lack of use, and it generally being unnecessary. ·Some traffic safety concerns including sightlines and signage were noted. Traffic safety and signage issues were reviewed by City staff with the feasibility study and recommendations, as applicable or feasible, within existing right-of-ways, are included in the proposed improvements. The City received 83 completed surveys as a part of the feasibility study. An informational neighborhood open house meeting was held on June 20th, 2024 at the Mendota Heights City Hall. The purpose of the open house meeting was to introduce residents to the project, provide background on the feasibility study, share project schedule, and obtain input on the project. A total of 16 residents signed in at the open house. No in person questionnaires were submitted at the open house but multiple attendees completed the questionnaire virtually. A summary of the questionnaire responses is included in Appendix F. 7. ESTIMATED COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING The estimated costs for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvement project are provided in the table below. The estimated project costs include a 10% construction contingency and an allowance for indirect costs (20% for City of Mendota Heights and 15% for SPRWS). Indirect costs include legal, engineering, administration, and finance costs. Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix D. Project Roadway Improv. Storm Sewer Improv. Sanitary Sewer Improv. Watermain Improv. City Park, Trail and ADA Improv. Total CP 202407 $5,611,446.06 $702,102.50 $1,083,860.80 $1,787,594.61 $187,440.00 $9,372,443.97 The project will be funded through the following sources: Street and Storm Sewer Street improvements will be funded through the City’s municipal levy. Storm sewer improvements will be funded by the City’s Stormwater Management fund. Special Assessments The property owners’ share of the street and storm costs will be funded by assessments in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and the City’s current assessment policy. The City’s current policy is to assess 50% of the street improvements on the project. A preliminary assessment roll and map for each project area is provided in Appendix E. Page 286 of 312 13 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I Municipal State Aid (MSA) Funds Decorah Lane is eligible for Municipal State Aid (MSAS) funding on the project. The City will fund a portion of the Decorah Lane improvements using State Aid funds. Watermain The watermain improvements will be fully funded by Saint Paul Regional Water Services. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer improvements identified in this report will be funded through City sewer utility funds. The improvements are proposed to be assessed on a per unit basis. A preliminary assessment map is included in Appendix E. The preliminary assessment area includes 343 residential properties and 22 City owned properties. Residential parcels are considered one unit per the City assessment policy and City owned parcels are considered one unit per 100 linear feet of frontage. The total number of assessable units on the project is 365. The table below details the assessment calculation. Total Project Cost $9,372,443.97 Total Assessable Project Cost $5,611,446.06 Total Assessment Amount (50%) $2,805,723.03 Residential Units 343 Total Residential Assessment Amount $2,636,610.96 City Units 22 Total City Assessment Amount (Municipal Levy) $169,112.07 Total Number of Units 365 Assessment Amount per Unit $7,686.91 A preliminary assessment roll is included in Appendix E. The project is proposed to be funded per the funding shown in the table below. Total Municipal Levy MSA Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds Stormwater Utility Funds SPRWS Funds Special Assessments $9,372,443.97 $3,179,325.10 TBD $1,083,860.80 $702,102.50 $1,770,544.61 $2,636,610.96 Page 287 of 312 14 City of Mendota Heights | Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements │ Feasibility Study CP 202407 I 8. PROJECT SCHEDULE If the City Council chooses to accept this report and schedule a public hearing, we recommend that the following project schedule be followed: Council Receives Feasibility Study August 7, 2024 City Council Schedule Public Hearing Project Informational Open House #2 Early September 2024 Public Improvement Hearing September 17, 2024 Council Order Project Final Design September 2024 – January 2025 Council Approves Plans and Specs February 4, 2025 Authorize Advertisement for Bids Bid Opening March 5, 2025 City Council Accepts Bids March 18, 2025 Council Awards Contract Neighborhood Construction Open House April 2025 Construction (2025 Area) May 2025 – September 2025 Construction (2026 Area) May 2026 – September 2026 City Council Schedule Assessment Hearing September 2026 Assessment Hearing Informational Meeting September/October 2026 Assessment Hearing October 2026 9. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements Project is feasible, necessary, cost effective, and would benefit the properties in the project area and the City of Mendota Heights. We recommend the following: A.The City Council orders and holds a public hearing on September 17, 2024. B.After receiving the appropriate staff reports, staff information, and public hearing input, the Council decides on the approval or rejection of the proposed improvements and orders approved projects. Page 288 of 312 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – PROJECT LOCATION FIGURES Page 289 of 312 Page 290 of 312 APPENDIX B – TYPICAL SECTIONS AND IMPROVEMENT MAPS Page 291 of 312 Page 292 of 312 Page 293 of 312 Page 294 of 312 Page 295 of 312 Page 296 of 312 APPENDIX C – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Page 297 of 312 APPENDIX D – OPINION OF PROBABLE COST Page 298 of 312 ROADWAY (ASSESSABLE) STORM SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) SANITARY SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (CITY) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (SPRWS) CITY PARK, TRAIL, AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS (NON- ASSESSABLE) ROADWAY (ASSESSABLE) STORM SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) SANITARY SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (CITY) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (SPRWS) CITY PARK, TRAIL, AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS (NON- ASSESSABLE) ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 520,000.00$ 520,000.00$ 0.3 156,000.00$ 0.05 26,000.00$ 0.1 52,000.00$ 0.1 52,000.00$ 0.3 156,000.00$ 0.04 20,800.00$ 0.01 5,200.00$ 0.1 52,000.00$ 2101.602 TREE TRIMMING EACH 20 200.00$ 4,000.00$ 10 2,000.00$ 10 2,000.00$ 2104.502 REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 31 500.00$ 15,500.00$ 18 9,000.00$ 13 6,500.00$ 2104.502 REMOVE HYDRANT EACH 11 750.00$ 8,250.00$ 8 6,000.00$ 3 2,250.00$ 2104.502 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 6 750.00$ 4,500.00$ 6 4,500.00$ 2104.502 SALVAGE CASTING EACH 18 350.00$ 6,300.00$ 6 2,100.00$ 5 1,750.00$ 4 1,400.00$ 3 1,050.00$ 2104.503 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT 637 2.50$ 1,592.50$ 485 1,212.50$ 152 380.00$ 2104.503 REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT 904 15.00$ 13,560.00$ 904 13,560.00$ 2104.503 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)LIN FT 210 16.00$ 3,360.00$ 210 3,360.00$ 2104.503 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY)LIN FT 1472 20.00$ 29,440.00$ 1472 29,440.00$ 2104.503 REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT 18163 8.00$ 145,304.00$ 5938 47,504.00$ 936 7,488.00$ 2810 22,480.00$ 270 2,160.00$ 7454 59,632.00$ 575 4,600.00$ 180 1,440.00$ 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ YD 167 10.00$ 1,670.00$ 67 670.00$ 100 1,000.00$ 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 664 15.00$ 9,960.00$ 158 2,370.00$ 82 1,230.00$ 132 1,980.00$ 248 3,720.00$ 44 660.00$ 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 466 6.00$ 2,796.00$ 126 756.00$ 120 720.00$ 138 828.00$ 82 492.00$ 2104.518 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 28200 1.50$ 42,300.00$ 27204 40,806.00$ 996 1,494.00$ 2104.602 REMOVE SANITARY MANHOLE EACH 6 1,500.00$ 9,000.00$ 6 9,000.00$ 2104.603 ABANDON WATER MAIN LIN FT 786 20.00$ 15,720.00$ 786 15,720.00$ 2104.603 SAWING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY LIN FT 1068 3.00$ 3,204.00$ 325 975.00$ 299 897.00$ 279 837.00$ 165 495.00$ 2104.603 SAWING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY LIN FT 1017 4.00$ 4,068.00$ 264 1,056.00$ 137 548.00$ 220 880.00$ 396 1,584.00$ 2104.618 SALVAGE BRICK PAVERS SQ FT 20 30.00$ 600.00$ 20 600.00$ 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 12220 30.00$ 366,600.00$ 4788 143,640.00$ 78 2,340.00$ 1535 46,050.00$ 20 600.00$ 5739 172,170.00$ 47 1,410.00$ 13 390.00$ 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE CU YD 3114 30.00$ 93,420.00$ 1370 41,100.00$ 1744 52,320.00$ 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)CU YD 3114 20.00$ 62,280.00$ 1370 27,400.00$ 1744 34,880.00$ 2106.507 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV)CU YD 100 10.00$ 1,000.00$ 100 1,000.00$ 2106.601 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 1 20,000.00$ 2123.510 2 CU YD FRONT END LOADER HOUR 50 500.00$ 25,000.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 2123.610 TRACTOR MOUNTED BACKHOE HOUR 50 500.00$ 25,000.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 2123.610 SKID LOADER HOUR 50 500.00$ 25,000.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR 50 250.00$ 12,500.00$ 25 6,250.00$ 25 6,250.00$ 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 5071 30.00$ 152,130.00$ 1622 48,660.00$ 82 2,460.00$ 2705 81,150.00$ 19 570.00$ 582 17,460.00$ 47 1,410.00$ 14 420.00$ 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION SQ YD 87482 5.00$ 437,410.00$ 41089 205,445.00$ 46393 231,965.00$ 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3;C)TON 7600 100.00$ 760,000.00$ 3590 359,000.00$ 4010 401,000.00$ 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3;C) TON 12640 95.00$ 1,200,800.00$ 5970 567,150.00$ 6670 633,650.00$ 2360.609 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3;C) (DRIVEWAYS)TON 702 120.00$ 84,240.00$ 198 23,760.00$ 162 19,440.00$ 216 25,920.00$ 126 15,120.00$ 2451.609 GRANULAR BACKFILL TON 100 60.00$ 6,000.00$ 100 6,000.00$ 2502.602 PROTECT, SALVAGE, RESTORE, OR REPLACE IRRIGATION, PER LOT EACH 50 500.00$ 25,000.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 25 12,500.00$ 2503.503 24" PVC PIPE SEWER LIN FT 1432 125.00$ 179,000.00$ 1432 179,000.00$ 2503.601 TEMPORARY SEWER BYPASS LUMP SUM 1 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 1 50,000.00$ 2503.602 RECONNECT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH 17 1,000.00$ 17,000.00$ 17 17,000.00$ 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 2 5,000.00$ 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 9 1,500.00$ 13,500.00$ 7 10,500.00$ 2 3,000.00$ 2503.602 PVC WYE EACH 18 2,000.00$ 36,000.00$ 18 36,000.00$ 2503.602 ODOR CONTROL UNIT EACH 2 50,000.00$ 100,000.00$ 2 100,000.00$ 2503.603 6" PVC SANITARY SERVICE PIPE LIN FT 250 65.00$ 16,250.00$ 250 16,250.00$ 2503.603 RC PIPE SEWER (12" TO 18")LIN FT 1677 85.00$ 142,545.00$ 1095 93,075.00$ 582 49,470.00$ 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 16 2,000.00$ 32,000.00$ 9 18,000.00$ 7 14,000.00$ 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE EACH 105 1,500.00$ 157,500.00$ 75 112,500.00$ 30 45,000.00$ 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 11 5,000.00$ 55,000.00$ 8 40,000.00$ 3 15,000.00$ 2504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 62 250.00$ 15,500.00$ 36 9,000.00$ 26 6,500.00$ 2504.602 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 105 1,200.00$ 126,000.00$ 75 90,000.00$ 30 36,000.00$ 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 11 3,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 8 24,000.00$ 3 9,000.00$ 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE & BOX EACH 20 3,500.00$ 70,000.00$ 10 35,000.00$ 10 35,000.00$ 2504.602 SACRIFICIAL ANODE BAG EACH 45 3,000.00$ 135,000.00$ 27 81,000.00$ 18 54,000.00$ 2504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT 200 65.00$ 13,000.00$ 100 6,500.00$ 100 6,500.00$ 2504.603 8" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52 LIN FT 1620 75.00$ 121,500.00$ 1620 121,500.00$ 2504.603 8" WATERMAIN (PIPE BURST)LIN FT 5090 85.00$ 432,650.00$ 2871 244,035.00$ 2219 188,615.00$ 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND 2304 20.00$ 46,080.00$ 1548 30,960.00$ 756 15,120.00$ 2506.602 FURNISH & INSTALL NEW RINGS AND CASTINGS (SANITARY) EACH 8 2,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 5 10,000.00$ 3 6,000.00$ 2506.602 CONST SANITARY MANHOLE EACH 9 12,000.00$ 108,000.00$ 9 108,000.00$ 2506.602 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (SANITARY MANHOLE)EACH 81 1,000.00$ 81,000.00$ 49 49,000.00$ 32 32,000.00$ 2506.602 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (STORM MANHOLE)EACH 2 6,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 2 12,000.00$ 2506.602 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (CATCH BASIN)EACH 17 5,000.00$ 85,000.00$ 12 60,000.00$ 5 25,000.00$ 2506.602 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (STORM MANHOLE) EACH 12 1,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 9 9,000.00$ 3 3,000.00$ 2506.602 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (STORM CATCH BASIN)EACH 93 1,000.00$ 93,000.00$ 52 52,000.00$ 41 41,000.00$ 2506.602 FURNISH & INSTALL NEW RINGS AND CASTINGS (STORM)EACH 10 2,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 6 12,000.00$ 4 8,000.00$ 2506.604 CONSTRUCT RAIN GARDEN SQ YD 500 110.00$ 55,000.00$ 250 27,500.00$ 250 27,500.00$ 2521.518 3" BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT 28200 2.50$ 70,500.00$ 27204 68,010.00$ 996 2,490.00$ 2521.618 CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 1500 20.00$ 30,000.00$ 90 1,800.00$ 810 16,200.00$ 600 12,000.00$ 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT 4464 22.00$ 98,208.00$ 488 10,736.00$ 2810 61,820.00$ 591 13,002.00$ 575 12,650.00$ 2531.504 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 664 85.00$ 56,440.00$ 158 13,430.00$ 82 6,970.00$ 132 11,220.00$ 248 21,080.00$ 44 3,740.00$ 2531.601 DECORATIVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY ALLOWANCE LUMP SUM 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 0.5 15,000.00$ 0.5 15,000.00$ 2531.603 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 (SPOT CURB)LIN FT 13699 25.00$ 342,475.00$ 5938 148,450.00$ 448 11,200.00$ 270 6,750.00$ 6863 171,575.00$ 180 4,500.00$ 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 160 65.00$ 10,400.00$ 96 6,240.00$ 64 4,160.00$ 2540.601 MAIL BOX MAINTENANCE LUMP SUM 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ 0.5 15,000.00$ 0.5 15,000.00$ 2540.618 INSTALL BRICK PAVERS SQ FT 20 70.00$ 1,400.00$ 20 1,400.00$ 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 0.5 20,000.00$ 0.5 20,000.00$ 2564.601 SIGNING LUMP SUM 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 0.5 10,000.00$ 0.5 10,000.00$ ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST CP 202407 2025 PROJECT AREA 2026 PROJECT AREA Page 299 of 312 ROADWAY (ASSESSABLE) STORM SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) SANITARY SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (CITY) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (SPRWS) CITY PARK, TRAIL, AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS (NON- ASSESSABLE) ROADWAY (ASSESSABLE) STORM SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) SANITARY SEWER (NON- ASSESSABLE) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (CITY) WATERMAIN (NON- ASSESSABLE) (SPRWS) CITY PARK, TRAIL, AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS (NON- ASSESSABLE) ITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ESTIMATED QUANTITY COST ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST CP 202407 2025 PROJECT AREA 2026 PROJECT AREA 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 0.5 5,000.00$ 0.5 5,000.00$ 2573.601 EROSION CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ 0.5 37,500.00$ 0.5 37,500.00$ 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 1345 50.00$ 67,250.00$ 440 22,000.00$ 69 3,450.00$ 208 10,400.00$ 20 1,000.00$ 552 27,600.00$ 43 2,150.00$ 13 650.00$ 2575.504 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD 8073 12.00$ 96,876.00$ 2639 31,668.00$ 416 4,992.00$ 1249 14,988.00$ 120 1,440.00$ 3313 39,756.00$ 256 3,072.00$ 80 960.00$ 2582.503 12" SOLID LINE MULTI COMP LIN FT 178 15.00$ 2,670.00$ 160 2,400.00$ 18 270.00$ 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI COMP (WR)LIN FT 7500 3.00$ 22,500.00$ 5780 17,340.00$ 1720 5,160.00$ 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE MULTI COMP (WR)LIN FT 350 3.50$ 1,225.00$ 350 1,225.00$ 2582.503 4" DBLE SOLID LINE MULTI COMP (WR)LIN FT 2890 3.50$ 10,115.00$ 2890 10,115.00$ 2582.518 PAVT MSSG MULTI COMP SQ FT 30 25.00$ 750.00$ 30 750.00$ 7,431,838.50$ 2,026,671.50$ 398,806.00$ 941,078.00$ 9,000.00$ 912,295.00$ 126,016.00$ 2,224,424.00$ 239,469.00$ 44,250.00$ 6,500.00$ 487,345.00$ 15,984.00$ 743,183.85$ 202,667.15$ 39,880.60$ 94,107.80$ 900.00$ 91,229.50$ 12,601.60$ 222,442.40$ 23,946.90$ 4,425.00$ 650.00$ 48,734.50$ 1,598.40$ 966,481.01$ 445,867.73$ 27,723.52$ 489,373.28$ 3,516.48$ 230,940.60$ 150,528.68$ 80,411.93$ 9,372,443.96$ 2,675,206.38$ 438,686.60$ 1,035,185.80$ 9,900.00$ 1,154,053.18$ 166,341.12$ 2,936,239.68$ 263,415.90$ 48,675.00$ 7,150.00$ 616,491.43$ 21,098.88$ 4,325,319.90$ 5,479,373.08$ 3,276,579.46$ 3,893,070.89$ 15% INDIRECT COSTS (SPRWS) TOTAL 2025 PROJECT TOTAL (CITY) 2025 PROJECT TOTAL 2026 PROJECT TOTAL (CITY) 2026 PROJECT TOTAL SUBTOTAL 10% CONTINGENCY 20% INDIRECT COSTS (CITY) Page 300 of 312 Item No.Item Units Quantity Unit Price Amount 1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 18,924$ 18,924$ 2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING EA 3 1,000$ 3,000$ 3 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LF 1,400 8$ 11,200$ 4 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1,300 4$ 5,200$ 5 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 180 15$ 2,700$ 6 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 320 6$ 1,920$ 7 REMOVE CATCH BASIN EA 5 750$ 3,750$ 8 REMOVE STORM SEWER PIPE LF 61 16$ 976$ 9 RELOCATE HYDRANT EA 3 2,000$ 6,000$ 10 SALVAGE SIGN EA 2 100$ 200$ 11 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 540 30$ 16,189$ 12 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CY 54 30$ 1,619$ 13 COMMON EMBANKMENT CY 200 20$ 4,000$ 14 CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE TON 550 30$ 16,500$ 15 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SY 1,160 12$ 13,920$ 16 BITUMINOUS PATCHING TON 120 100$ 12,000$ 17 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,C) (3") (DRIVEWAYS)TON 70 120$ 8,400$ 18 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 180 85$ 15,300$ 19 B618 CURB AND GUTTER LF 1,400 22$ 30,800$ 20 3" BITUMINOUS TRAIL SF 10,440 2.50$ 26,100$ 21 CONCRETE WALK (PED RAMPS)SF 520 20$ 10,400$ 22 TRUNCATED DOMES SF 64 65$ 4,160$ 23 SODDING TYPE LAWN SY 920 12$ 11,040$ 24 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW (6'')CY 160 50$ 8,000$ 25 CATCH BASIN EA 5 5,000$ 25,000$ 26 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING (CATCH BASIN)EA (5) 1,000$ (5,000)$ 27 INSTALL SIGN EA 2 100$ 200$ 28 12" SOLID LINE LF 198 15$ 2,970$ Subtotal 255,468$ Construction Contingency (10%)25,547$ Indirect Costs (20%)56,203$ Total 337,217$ TOTAL DECORAH LANE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS COSTS 337,217$ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS DECORAH LANE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS ESTIMATED COSTS - TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS Page 301 of 312 APPENDIX E – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AND MAPS Page 302 of 312 WESTVI EWCIR A P A C H E L N POND VIEW DRDODDRD WESTVIEWTERAZTECLNPUEBLO DRPUEBLO LN PONTIAC P L BRIDGEV I E W CT APACHE LN KEOKUK LN LOCKWOOD DR HAMPSHIRE DR MEN DOTA HEIGHTS RD D E C O R A H L N PONDHAVENCIRCHEYENNE LN HUBERDRLAKE DR WAGON WHEEL TRL O C A L A LN APACHEC T O CAL A C T APACHE STPONDHAVENLN CREEK AVE HA ZE L CT HOKAH AVE M O H I C A N C T BLUEBILL DR PAGEL RDCHERI LNALICE LNN A V A J O L N NASHUALNHAVENVIEW C T M E ND AK O T A DR FOXPLM O H I C A N L N 661667 671 675 677681685691697 2312 700 694 688 680 676 672 2283 2289 2295 2303 2309 2317 677 679 681 683 685 2290 2291 705 698 694 690 682 687693 697 2384 2374 2366 2360 2356 23482347 2353 2361 2367 2375671677683687691695699 2385 2381664670674680686690694 705 704 700 2285 2281 2279 2280 2280 2286 2294 2306 2214 2218 2226 2232 839 2255 2224 2256 809 805 759765771775779785791795 2126 796 790 784 2123 2129 2135 2145 2153 2159 2165 2167 783789795 21197667722116 2124 2130 2136 2142 2150 2158 2163 2153 2147 2143 2137 2131 2125 2106 2112 2118 2124 2130 2138 2144 2150 2156 2162 2168 2174 2182 2188 2196 2202 2204 21972196 796 788 2201 2209 2213 2219 2225 2231 2237 2243 2249 719723 729 733 737 739 743 745 749 751 2212 2206 2200 724728 732 736 740 742 746 748 752 2222 2228 2236 2242 2250 757 753 749 747 743 741 737 733 725 721 717 731 736 740 742 746 7527562262 2270 2276 757 753 749 745 739 727 718 722 726 730 736 738 744 748 7527562288 2296 761 755 751 747 743 739 735 731 2263 2269 2275 2283 2289 2295 2305 771 777787795 703709 706 714 709 702 706 710 720 724 719 715 711 707 703 708 712 716 720 726 735 729 725 721 717 730 734 746 7502330 2332 2336 2350 2354 2359 2355 2349 2345 2341 2337 2331 772 780786 787 781 777 773 767 763 759 755 751 749 752 754 758 762 766 770 7747802350 736 740 744 750 2376 2354 2350 2353 2345 2339 2331 741 737 735 731 729 2191 2191 2191 649 648 642 2455 2459 2465 2471 2347 2347 23512351 2357 2357 2381 2391 803807 2400 2400 640 810818826832838 837 831 825 819 813 813 2171 730 2335 838 2341 2349 2361 2371 838 832 826 820 825833839 810 814815 813 809 800 790 780 750 750 2140 2140 2150-56 2150-56 2170 2170 65620692069 212121212075 2201 22272227 22512251 2332 2455 22202220 22222222 2270 2294 2300 2390 701 701 2229 2235 2230 2236 2223 2219 2215 2210 2221 2215 2475 799 793 783 775 769 753 750 754 754 760 760 732 728 728 724 724 723 800 800 796 796 790 790 784 784 778 778 772 772 766 766 2205 2213 2219 2225 2231 2237 2243 650 650 647 650 648 2487 2491 771 771 767 767 2481 2481 2477 2477 2473 2473 2467 2467 2461 2461 2455 2455 2450 2458 2458 2464 2464 2470 247024762480 2480 2484 24882492 2489 2489 2480 2480 2490 2490819 815 809 2475 2469 2465 2464 2464 2472 785 785 781 781 775 775 2490 2482 794 788 2486 782 776 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 accessing this imagery, the user acknowledges these terms and affirms compliance. https://gisimg.co.dakota.mn.us/mrsid/base_aerialphotography_2020_sprg/ Nearmap_DakotaCounty_SIGNED.pdf Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements Project Area Date: 6/25/2024 0 510 SCALE IN FEET Legend Proposed Property Assessments Proposed Street Rehabilitation Page 303 of 312 APPENDIX F – ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Page 304 of 312 This page is intentionally left blank 9.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) Tournament Fee Reduction Request ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director ACTION REQUEST: Requests for waivers or refunds of fees are considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. The Council should consider a fee reduction request for the Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) in the amount of $2,620 for May and June traveling baseball and softball tournaments. BACKGROUND: The Two Rivers Athletic Association (TRAA) has requested a financial reduction in field reservation and field preparation fees for all traveling baseball and softball tournaments held for the 2024 season. Fees for the use of city-owned fields and facilities are provided within the City's Annual Fee Schedule which was approved on January 23, 2024. Fees are charged to TRAA for the use of city fields and facilities for traveling baseball and softball tournaments (user fees are not charged for in-house tournaments). Current fees for tournaments are as follows: Field Reservation for Tournaments: $50 per field per day (all priority levels) Field Preparation-Tournament Usage: $35 per field per day (priority level 3 and 4) Concession Stand Usage: $25 per day (all priority levels) TRAA held traveling tournaments on the following weekends and invoices have been issued: Warrior Classic: May 3-5 Warrior Warmup: May 17-19 Masher Tournament: June 7-9 Two Rivers Throwdown: June 14-16 Mayhem at Mendakota: June 22-23 Page 305 of 312 FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The current invoices for TRAA total $5,110 for field reservation, field preparation and concession stand usage for traveling tournaments held in May and June. TRAA has formally asked the City for a reduction of fees to $498 per tournament, which would amount to TRAA paying $2,490 for their five traveling tournaments. This would be a $2,620 reduction in fees. ATTACHMENTS: 1.2024 TRAA Tournament Invoices 2.MHAA BaseballSoftball Tournament Waiver Email CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Page 306 of 312 Tournament NameDateNumber of Fields Used Cost Per Field Per DayTotal Field FeeNumber of Fields Prepped Cost Prep Field Per DayTotal Prep FeeConcession Stand Usage FeeTotalTotal RequestedWarrior Classic 3-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Warrior Classic 4-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Warrior Classic 5-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365$1,095$498Warrior Warmup 17-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Warrior Warmup 18-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Warrior Warmup 19-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365$1,095$498In House Tournament 31-May4$50$2004$35$140$25$365In House Tournament 1-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365In House Tournament 2-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365WAIVED$1,095Masher Tournament 7-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Masher Tournament 8-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Masher Tournament 9-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365$1,095$498Two Rivers Throwdown 14-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Two Rivers Throwdown 15-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Two Rivers Throwdown 16-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365$1,095$498Mayhem at Mendakota 22-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365Mayhem at Mendakota 23-Jun4$50$2004$35$140$25$365$730$498In House Tournament 12-Jul4$50$2004$35$140$25$365In House Tournament 13-Jul4$50$2004$35$140$25$365In House Tournament 14-Jul4$50$2004$35$140$25$365WAIVED$1,095FEE SCHEDULE AMOUNT DUE: $5,110$2,490REQUESTED WAIVED: $2,620IN HOUSE NOT CHARGED: $2,190Page 307 of 312 From:Dan Novak To:Stephanie Levine; Joel Paper; Jay Miller; Sally Lorberbaum; John Mazzitello Cc:Cheryl Jacobson; Jocelyn Steere; Meredith Lawrence; Adam Crepeau; Daniel Sherer; John Masica Subject:MHAA Baseball/Softball Tournament Waiver Date:Friday, May 10, 2024 6:10:38 AM City Council, I'm writing to request a blanket reduction of all traveling baseball and softball tournament invoices held at Mendakota for the 2024 season. In previous years, we were approved for a waiver fee of $498 on tournament fees for each weekend we host. Regards, Dan Page 308 of 312 9.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance 589 Amending Title 8, Chapter 4 of the City Code Regulating Public Parks ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Ordinance 589 Amending Title 8, Chapter 4 of the City Code regulating cannabis use in city recreational areas. BACKGROUND: Adult use cannabis became legal in Minnesota on August 1, 2023. The State’s Adult Use Cannabis law explicitly authorizes individuals to use adult-use cannabis flower and adult-use cannabis products in a private residence and yard; on private property not generally accessible by the public, unless the owner of the property prohibits the use of the products; and on the premises of an establishment or event licensed to permit onsite consumption. A person may not use cannabis flower, cannabis products, or hemp-derived consumer products in a manner that involves the inhalation of smoke, aerosol, or vapor at any location where smoking is prohibited under the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. While use of cannabis products in public spaces is not explicitly prohibited by the legislation, cities are authorized to adopt ordinances prohibiting the use of certain cannabis products in public places and to establish a petty misdemeanor offense for public use of cannabis. City Code (8-4-3E) prohibits tobacco use at all times in or on all recreational areas of the city. Recreational areas mean all facilities, parks, trails open space, and other property owned, leased, rented, contracted, used or controlled by the City of Mendota Heights for parks and recreational purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, restrooms, spectator and concession areas, playgrounds and athletic fields. Page 309 of 312 At its August 2, 2023, meeting, the city council discussed and provided direction to staff to proceed with drafting an amendment to the city's ordinance relating to Parks (Title 8, Chapter 4) to prohibit cannabis use within city parks and related public spaces and establish a petty misdemeanor offense for public use of cannabis. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1.Parks Ordinance Amendment v.2 07242024 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 310 of 312 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 589 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE REGULATING PUBLIC PARKS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights ordains: Section 1. The following sections of Mendota Heights City Code Title 8, Chapter 4 are hereby amended by adding the underlined to read as follows: 8-4-1: DEFINITIONS: "All times" means 24 hours a day, seven days a week. “Cannabis flower, cannabis product, lower-potency hemp edible, and hemp-derived consumer product” shall have the meanings as defined in Minn. Stat. § 342.01, as may be amended from time to time. "Electronic delivery device" means any product containing or delivering nicotine, lobelia, or any other substance intended for human consumption that can be used by a person to simulate smoking in the delivery of nicotine or any other substance through inhalation of aerosol or vapor from the product. The term includes, but is not limited to, devices manufactured, distributed, marketed or sold as e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, vape pens, or e-hookah. "Public park or parks" is any land owned or leased by the city for the use of the public for any one or a combination of the following uses: recreation, relaxation, amusement, playgrounds and fields, swimming, beaches, trails and trailways. "Recreational Areas" means all facilities, parks, trails, open space, and other property owned, leased, rented, contracted, used, or controlled by the City of Mendota Heights for parks and recreational purposes. The term includes, but is not limited to, restrooms, spectator and concession areas, playgrounds, and athletic fields. “Smoke or smoking” means inhaling or exhaling smoke from any lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other tobacco, cannabis flower, cannabis product, or plant product, or inhaling or exhaling aerosol or vapor from any electronic delivery device. Smoking includes being in possession of a lighted or heated cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other tobacco, cannabis, or plant product intended for inhalation, or an electronic delivery device that is turned on or otherwise activated. "Tobacco or tobacco product" means any product containing, made, or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, whether chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by any other means, or any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product including but not limited to cigarettes; cigars and other smoking tobacco; snuff and other chewing tobacco; electronic delivery devices; and any other kinds and forms of tobacco. The term excludes any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product, as a tobacco dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is being marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose. Page 311 of 312 "Tobacco Use" means the act of smoking, the use of smokeless tobacco, or the use of any other tobacco product in any form. 8-4-3: PROHIBITED ACTS AND CONDITIONS E. [Tobacco] Use: [Tobacco use] Smoking of any kind, including tobacco and cannabis products, is prohibited at all times in or on all recreational areas. It is not a violation of this policy to smoke or use tobacco in or on recreational areas as part of a Native American spiritual or cultural ceremony. Approval from the City of Mendota Heights City Administrator or his/her designee must be received prior to the ceremony. 8-4-8: VIOLATION; PENALTY Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this Code. Any person violating Section 8-4-3E shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this seventh day of August, 2024. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 312 of 312