2024-08-20 City Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
August 20, 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 August 7, 2024, City Council Meeting
b.Approve Minutes from the July 16, 2024, City Council Work Session Meeting
c.Acknowledge July 9, 2024, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
d.Acknowledge the June Par 3 Financial Report
e.Approve 2024-2025 Seasonal Compensation Pay Matrix Effective December 1, 2024
Page 1 of 246
f.Approve Police Chief Out of Metro Travel Request
g.Approve Recreation Program Coordinator Out of State Travel Request
h.Resolution 2024-46 Appointing Jennifer Weichert to the Parks and Recreation
Commission
i.Authorize Purchase of Loftness Flail Mower
j.Resolution 2024-47 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2024 Sanitary
Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project
k.Approve Claims List
7.Presentations
a.Firefighter Swearing In
8.Public Hearings
9.New and Unfinished Business
a.Tabled - Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan
Estates [Planning Case 2024-01]
10.Community / City Administrator Announcements
11.City Council Comments
12.Adjourn
Next Regular Meeting
September 3 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 246
6.a
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Wednesday, August 7, 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, Mazzitello, and Miller
(arrived at 7:08 p.m.) were also present. Councilor Paper was absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda.
Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the public wished to be heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent calendar as presented.
a. Approval of July 16, 2024, City Council Minutes
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
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)
Page 3 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 12
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
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 0
PRESENTATIONS
No items scheduled.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) TABLED – RESOLUTION 2024-38 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
MCMILLAN ESTATES (PLANNING CASE 2024-01)
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Council was being asked to consider
approval 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.
Councilor Miller arrived.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to remove this item from the table for discussion and consideration.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Councilor Mazzitello asked the applicant to provide details on the estimate received to construct the public
improvement.
Spencer McMillan, applicant, stated that he was able to find a lower cost option for the cul-de-sac
construction and therefore would request approval of the request whether or not the cul-de-sac is required
to be constructed. He stated that his preference would still be to delay the construction of a cul-de-sac
and believed that would also be the preference of the neighbors. He stated that he provided a number of
examples in Mendota Heights where cul-de-sacs were approved/required but not constructed and also
examples of lots that have frontage, but not on a city street. He commented that this is a unique property
because of the substantial amount of wetlands and therefore he would like to have the least amount of
impact on the environment and the neighborhood.
Page 4 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 12
Councilor Lorberbaum commented that there were a lot of examples provided by the applicant and her
first thought was whether those homes and lots were created prior to the creation of the current ordinances.
She stated that sometimes things are allowed and then the rules change, and those things are no longer
allowed.
Councilor Miller referenced proposed lot three and stated that there is a creek that clearly runs through
the property which he believes is a problem. He commented that any construction in that area would have
a trickle-down effect. He noted that creek is not shown on the map and therefore had concerns with what
else could be missing.
Councilor Mazzitello asked the applicant for the order of preferred construction.
Mr. McMillan replied that lot three would be the first for construction, with the home on lot one to be built
in 10 to 15 years.
Councilor Mazzitello commented that he reviewed the examples that were provided by the applicant
against the section of Code which defines a public street, noting that was adopted in 1981. He stated that
of the 20 examples provided, six of them were in Mendota and not Mendota Heights and of the 14 that
remained, only one was built after 1981 but that lot was platted in 1970 therefore all those properties were
platted before the requirement was enacted. He stated that in reviewing what was built after 1981, he was
able to locate 19 short cul-de-sacs that serve four homes or less and all of those were paved and developed
as part of the development, therefore that is the standard. He stated that there has to be frontage on the
public street, but the access does not need to come from that lot frontage. He stated that there would be a
choice before the Council to approve the plat with a condition that no lot development or building permits
could be obtained before the public infrastructure is completed, as the lots would all then front on a public
street and the plat would be compliant. He noted that the other choice would be to deny the request based
on the deferral as the lots would not comply without that frontage. He stated that there is a way for the
applicant to get where he wants to go, but this application is not it and the Council cannot design a project.
He stated that the applicant could withdraw the application and work with staff to create a new plan.
Councilor Lorberbaum commented that it seems that Councilor Mazzitello has a suggestion of what could
be done and asked how the applicant would gain that information without the Council or staff providing
it.
Councilor Mazzitello suggested that the applicant ask a land development engineer.
Mayor Levine asked if the applicant is interested in withdrawing the application before the Council makes
a decision.
Mr. McMillan commented that he would still like to move forward. He stated that if the Council wants
all the public infrastructure to be built, he is willing to do that.
Councilor Mazzitello asked and received confirmation that there is not a condition within the current draft
resolution that would require all public infrastructure to be built, whether that is before, during or after
construction of the homes.
Page 5 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 12
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the Council could add such a condition
if desired.
Councilor Lorberbaum asked for information on the public utilities that would be required to be installed.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that currently the applicant shows utility
extension to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb. She clarified that extension would not include Delaware
Avenue, as it would follow Ridgewood Drive. She stated that there was previous discussion about an
easement for utilities to run to the north for that neighbor but noted that would simply be a utility easement
and the applicant would not be required to run the utilities north. She stated that the utilities in this project
would only serve the lots within the plat.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that as part of this plat there is a right-of-way dedication for Delaware to
widen that road.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the property to the north is requesting a sewer easement.
He stated that there was also discussion that two homes on Delaware that are not currently connected to
sewer could potentially connect to sewer. He stated that there could be a condition within the
Development Agreement requiring the utility easement to the north. He stated that if there is a desire to
widen the easement to the south, that should be specified now and then those property owners could
potentially petition the City to connect to the sewer.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there is a condition in the draft
resolution that the applicant will work with the neighbor to the north to develop a utility easement. She
confirmed that the perimeter easement to the south could also then be widened to accommodate that goal.
Councilor Mazzitello asked if this were to be approved and the cul-de-sac built, the existing cul-de-sac
would need to be removed.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the entire road would need to be reconstructed from the
curve to the end. He confirmed that would be the responsibility of the developer to remove the existing
cul-de-sac and extend the roadway and verifying that all drainage is compliant.
Councilor Mazzitello asked when the City would vacate the existing cul-de-sac right-of-way.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there have been cul-de-sacs constructed that resulted in
through streets and that right-of-way still exists today. He stated that the Council could request that the
right-of-way be vacated through a condition, otherwise it would be the responsibility of the homeowners
to request a vacation of that right-of-way. He commented that the creek mentioned by Councilor Miller
goes in and out of a number of culverts, under driveways, through a private pond and ultimately ending at
Valley Park. He stated that the contour on the plan does show the creek, and the plans would include
correct size piping. He stated that the creek is not shown on the wetland delineation plan as it does not
meet the characteristics of a wetland.
Councilor Miller commented that he believes there is a second water way through that property.
Page 6 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 12
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented on the culverts that would be used for the property and
stated that he is not aware of any drainage issues between this property and Nature Way, which would be
the first restricted culvert after this property.
Councilor Mazzitello asked if Councilor Miller’s concerns could be addressed through onsite wetland
mitigation, not allowing banking or credits to be purchased.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that wetland mitigation would be an enhancement, and the
concern would be stormwater treatment noting that each site would have some type of stormwater
management improvement and additional stormwater management would be required with the roadway.
Councilor Mazzitello asked if conditions could be placed against the plat for stormwater and wetlands or
whether that would be attached to future applications.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that a dedicated drainage and utility easement is not shown on
the current plat and therefore stormwater management could be required to be shown as that is generally
dedicated within the plat.
Councilor Mazzitello commented that he believes that this should be moved to the next meeting because
of the multiple changes that would need to be made to the draft resolution, whether that is for approval or
denial. He added that there are a lot of unanswered questions that could justify denial. If council wanted
to do that, the application should be tabled to the next meeting and direct staff to return with findings of
fact for denial based on the discussion.
Councilor Lorberbaum agreed that an action should be clear and accurate and therefore would prefer to
act at the next meeting.
Councilor Miller commented that he would not object to waiting for the next meeting. He stated that there
are neighbors in the room tonight that have seen this process kicked down the road on several occasions
and did not want to give the perception that they are kicking this down until the public interest dies down.
He stated that is not the intention and therefore wanted to be clear. He agreed that the language needs to
thoroughly be drafted and therefore did not object to moving this to the next meeting.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she hears the comments of Councilor Miller, and she has read the
comments from the residents. She stated that the Council is cautious of staying within the review timelines
and also ensuring that the correct language is included in the action that will be taken.
Councilor Mazzitello appreciated the comments of Councilor Miller. He stated that he is not a patient
person, but this Council takes the time to make sure things are right. He stated that they do not want the
public to go away, and they are not kicking this down the road, but simply ensuring that the language of
the resolution be correct in either action the Council will take.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that rather than stating properties south of, relating to widening of the
easement, she would like to specify the addresses of those properties.
Page 7 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 12
Councilor Mazzitello stated that he believes the decision of whether this will be approved or denied should
be made tonight, as that would give staff clear direction in what they need to draft.
Councilor Miller stated that staff could craft both an approval and a denial.
Mayor Levine stated that the residents that came tonight are looking for direction from the Council. She
referenced the comment of this being kicked down the road. She stated that the Council cannot talk about
the case outside of the room, so this is the first time the Council has been able to discuss the additional
information that was provided. She acknowledged the public perception but stated that the Council can
only discuss items at meetings. She recognized that it can seem that matters drag on. She recognized that
everyone is uncomfortable with the situation, and this is not an easy decision. She stated that people have
rights to develop their land, within the context of City Code. She stated that the infrastructure would be
required to be constructed. She recognized that the road would need to go through a wetland, and it would
need to be done properly, with mitigation. She was unsure that the City would be in a position to deny
this plat.
Councilor Mazzitello commented that there are additional things that would need to be shown on the map,
such as drainage and utility easements, and stormwater management.
Mayor Levine stated that she would suggest that staff develop a draft resolution for approval and come
back with crisp clean findings of fact that state the required elements. She recognized that there are other
concerns that would be addressed through other elements of the development.
Councilor Lorberbaum asked if something could be added specific to the rusty patch bumblebee.
City Attorney Amy Schmidt deferred to Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that staff received the information, but the entire city has
potential rusty batch bumblebee habitat and therefore there are no requirements for the developer or the
city. He stated that if that was restricted a homeowner could not mow their lawn or add a fence anywhere
in the city. He stated that there is encouragement to create pollinator habitat.
City Attorney Amy Schmidt agreed with the comments of Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek.
Councilor Miller commented that he has serious reservations about how this is platted.
Mayor Levine asked if the Council would prefer to have one resolution prepared or both.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she would want both options prepared, otherwise they would be making
the decision right now.
Councilor Miller stated that he would also want both resolutions prepared.
Mayor Levine asked if staff has enough information to develop the draft both resolutions, one for approval
and one for denial.
Page 8 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 12
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she believes she has enough
information but would be welcome to additional input.
Councilor Miller stated that he does not believe that this application is complete, and he believes that there
is more water flowing through the property than is identified in the plan. He had concern with any
potential impact that building on lot three could have along with impacts to other properties. He
commented that this property is unique and there would be challenges to place homes because of the
wetlands.
Mayor Levine commented that is comparing apples to oranges. She stated that there can be a platted piece
of property that could be undevelopable and could not have a home.
Councilor Miller commented that part of the responsibility of the Council is to set the right expectation,
noting that the applicant has spent time and money on this plan with the belief that homes could be
constructed. He believed that they should take a deeper dive into how this is set up and asked whether
those things have been considered.
Councilor Lorberbaum asked if land could be platted that does not include a buildable lot within.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that typically a property of that nature would be
classified as an outlot. She stated that these would be lots and therefore the applicant needs to show a
preliminary building pad to show that something could be constructed meeting the setbacks and other
terms of ordinances. She stated that it has been demonstrated that the buildable standards could be met to
create a buildable lot.
Mayor Levine referenced the comment that lot three has more water running through it that could
potentially impact the buildable area.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there is a valid wetland delineation
from 2021 that the preliminary and final plat data is based off.
Councilor Miller stated that he would like to see the creek that he has mentioned on the map.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that this evening is the first time staff has heard from the
applicant that he could like to construct the public infrastructure. He stated that it would be nice to see
the improvement plans, which would take longer than two weeks.
Councilor Mazzitello asked if that would be the proper requirement for a plat application.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that they would need to know the footprint and whether
there is space to construct stormwater management, outside of a wetland, that would treat the impervious
surface. He displayed the contour map of the property and identified the ravines mentioned by Councilor
Miller noting that those would not impact the building pad for lot three.
Councilor Miller identified the path of the ravine/creek that he is speaking of, which is not shown on the
map.
Page 9 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 12
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the hydrology report would include that detail, as that
report would be used to correct size the stormwater management. He stated that each lot was required to
have its own stormwater management in the original concept but now that the public infrastructure would
be constructed, there will need to be regional treatment of the impervious surface.
Councilor Miller commented that he is worried about the residents that live around there but also the
investment that would be made by Mr. McMillan. He asked if Mr. McMillan was aware of the stream
that runs through the property, which is not identified.
Mr. McMillan commented that he has walked the lot from corner to corner, post to post, and has not seen
that additional stream running through the property, only the creek mentioned with culverts.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Delaware Avenue currently does not have curb and
gutter, but Dakota County is working on plans for that improvement and therefore curb and gutter would
be installed in the next few years to handle that runoff.
Councilor Miller acknowledged that he does not have that expertise but did not believe that stream was
solely a result of rain events and runoff. He suggested that it would be to everyone’s benefit to look further
into the unidentified water.
Mayor Levine acknowledged the concern of Councilor Miller that there is an additional stream, not
wetland, running through the property that is not identified. She asked if a stream could be mitigated.
Councilor Miller stated that what he has witnessed is moving water.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that there would be no requirement for surface water running,
as the property would be designed around that. He stated that running surface water would not be a
concern for lot three.
Councilor Mazzitello commented that if there is surface water running as Councilor Miller has stated and
that were redirected, that could not be directed onto another property.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained how the property could be designed to move the water on
the property. He stated that the Delaware Avenue properties are 20 feet higher in elevation and therefore
drainage from this property is not a concern. He stated that would consider existing surface water and the
grades around the property would be managed to direct the water appropriately.
Mayor Levine recognized that they do not want to have unintended consequences or do something today
that will cause problems in the future. She recognized that water is a concern, but it is the responsibility
of the developer to mitigate those issues to ensure that runoff does not impact adjacent properties.
Councilor Miller commented that he simply wants to ensure that everyone is protected, both the applicant
and adjacent property owners.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that she has enough information from the
Council.
Page 10 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 12
Councilor Lorberbaum asked the applicant if he would like to provide input on the discussion thus far.
Mr. McMillan commented that he has worked diligently with staff to meet all the zoning requirements.
He commented that he believed it would make more sense to proceed with a private driveway rather than
a cul-de-sac but believes that the proposal meets all aspects of Code and requests that the Council approve
the application.
Councilor Lorberbaum moved to table CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
B) RESOLUTION 2024-45 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION
OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE
FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being
asked to accept the feasibility report, authorize preparation of plans and specifications, and schedule a
public hearing for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood Improvements.
Luke Moren, Kimley Horn, presented the Feasibility Report for the Friendly Hills Neighborhood
Improvement.
Councilor Mazzitello asked what kind of material would be used to replace the concrete pipe.
Mr. Moren stated that the recommendation would be to use PVC.
Mr. Moren provided additional details on the public engagement to date as well as estimates for the project
cost and preliminary assessments. He also reviewed the project schedule and next steps.
Councilor Mazzitello referenced the estimated cost and received confirmation that is the total project cost.
He asked if there is a percentage of how much of the project would be done in 2025 and 2026.
Mr. Moren replied that it is not quite a 50/50 split. He explained that they worked with Saint Paul Regional
Water Supply (SPRWS) to identify streets that require watermain replacement and then work within that
budget for each year.
Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie replied that from a mileage perspective is about a 50/50 split but in
terms of cost it would be about 60 percent in 2025 and 40 percent in 2026.
Councilor Mazzitello stated that several years ago the City deeded the water service to St. Paul Regional
Water Services (SPRWS) and in that process there was an agreement to coordinate capital improvements
together and it sounds like staff did a great job working with SPRWS to coordinate on both ends.
Page 11 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 12
Councilor Lorberbaum moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2024-45 ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY
REPORT, AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND CALLING
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FRIENDLY HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
C) TWO RIVERS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (TRAA) TOURNAMENT FEE REDUCTION
REQUEST
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence provided a brief background on this item. The Council
was being asked to 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.
Councilor Miller asked for information on how the fees collected are used.
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence stated that those fees go back into the general fund.
She commented that even with those fees collected, it is not enough to cover the staff time and actual
costs.
Councilor Miller commented that he wanted to let everyone know that the City staff do four or five
different jobs and are stretched thin. He stated that at best the City would not make a profit but perhaps
try to break even in attempt to provide services for its residents. He stated that staff does a fantastic job,
and he does not begrudge a request for a fee reduction but would have a hard time granting it, knowing
that the City is already stretched thin in ensuring that parks projects and maintenance can be completed.
Councilor Mazzitello asked staff to provide a brief explanation of the priority users and fees that are set
in relation.
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence explained that the City has a priority policy for field
and facility usage which is used in scheduling events and activities. She explained that the City would
have first priority and the rest in the following order of partnerships, reciprocal agreements, associations,
club sports, residents/businesses, and non-residents. She stated that each of those groups has a different
fee. She confirmed that TRAA pays less than other associations or club sports because of their priority
ranking.
Councilor Mazzitello recognized that the City has granted a waiver reduction to TRAA in the past and
asked if this amount is similar to the amount typically granted.
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence confirmed that this is the same amount that has been
requested and approved in the previous years.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that each year TRAA requests this reduction, and it has been granted and
asked why the fees are just not adjusted to this amount.
Page 12 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 12
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence replied that is the decision of the Council as it reviews
the fee schedule each year. She stated that question will be important going forward as other groups have
asked if they can bring forward a waiver request similar to TRAA.
Councilor Lorberbaum stated that if the City is going to do this each year, it should be done in the fees
rather than continuing to come through a waiver request.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve FEE WAIVER REQUEST FROM TRAA IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,620 FOR TRAVELING BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL TOURNAMENTS HELD IN MAY AND
JUNE.
Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.
Ayes: 3
Nays: 1 (Miller)
D) ORDINANCE NO. 589 AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE
REGULATING PUBLIC PARKS
Police Chief Kelly McCarthy provided a brief background on this item. The Council was being asked to
consider adoption of Ordinance 589 Amending Title 8, Chapter 4 of the City Code regulating cannabis
use in city recreational areas.
Mayor Levine thanked Police Chief Kelly McCarthy for her work on this matter.
Councilor Mazzitello also expressed thanks.
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 589 AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 4 OF
THE CITY CODE REGULATING PUBLIC PARKS.
Councilor Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilor Mazzitello stated that he and Councilor Lorberbaum visited a number of block parties last night
during Night to Unite. He noted the upcoming Primary Election and encouraged all voters to participate
on August 13th. He stated that today is National Purple Heart Day, stating that he had the honor of pinning
two Purple Hearts on members of his squad. He encouraged people to thank a veteran, acknowledging
the sacrifice that a small percentage of the population makes for the rest of the population.
Councilor Miller stated that he also participated in Night to Unite as part of the Fire Department and
enjoyed getting out and interacting with residents.
Page 13 of 246
August 7, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 12
Councilor Lorberbaum echoed the comments about enjoying Night to Unite and interacting with residents.
She stated that she received positive input on parks and trails, park programing, the Police department and
had concern with sidewalk and trail gaps.
Mayor Levine stated that she was also visited parties for Night to Unite. She agreed with the previous
comments of the Council that there were less parties but noted that many parties were combined in order
to be bigger and better. She thanked those that did the party planning, acknowledging the work that is
involved. She encouraged residents to participate in the Parks Celebration events this weekend.
ADJOURN
Councilor Mazzitello moved to adjourn.
Councilor Lorberbaum seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
____________________________________
Stephanie B. Levine
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Nancy Bauer
City Clerk
Page 14 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DRAFT Minutes of the City Council Work Session
Tuesday, July 16, 2024
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was
held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilmembers Lorberbaum, Mazzitello,
Miller and Paper (arrived 4:41 pm) were also present.
Staff in attendance included City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Kelly Torkelson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie,
Natural Resources Coordinator Krista Sprieter, Park and Recreation/Assistant Public Works
Director Meredith Lawrence, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Community Development
Manager Sarah Madden, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer.
VALLEY PARK STREAMBANK STABILIZATION AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Dakota County and the City is working with SEH,
Inc. on designing the streambank stabilization for Interstate Valley Creek and trail improvements
in Valley Park. He noted that the project is on an accelerated timeline to get the project out for bid
in August and open bids in September. He highlighted that these improvements would have
noticeable impacts on the park.
Joe Barton, with Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District and Lower Mississippi
River Watershed Management Organization, provided background on the project, which is 60%
designed. He stated that SEH, Inc. had taken the lead in applying for a grant for this project and
nearly $600,000 was awarded.
Barton stated that the creek has substantial erosion and discharges into the Mississippi River. The
project will fix the erosion issues and reduce stormwater flow into the Mississippi River during
heavy rain events. In total, six projects were identified in the park and will be implemented with
the grant money.
Mr. Barton described the project improvements including removing trees, fixing the eroding
slopes, diverting stormwater pipes, replacing a weir, improving contractor access, bridge
replacement, providing additional water storage, revegetating, and removing invasive plants.
A representative from SEH reported that the trail design is at a 30% design level. The trail design,
alignment and two bridges were discussed. The bridges would be built to Dakota County
Greenway standards.
Page 15 of 246
6.b
July 16, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page 2
PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN PROJECT UPDATE
Park and Recreation/Assistant Public Works Director, Meredith Lawrence reported that the
preliminary data and initial results for the Park System Master Plan will be presented tonight by
Confluence/PROS Consulting.
Brad Aldrich and Mo Convery of Confluence/PROS Consulting presented their work completed
so for on the park master plan. The master plan is to establish a clear 15-year vision for all of
Mendota Heights parks, open spaces, and public spaces. The vision will guide all future
maintenance, improvements, and potential development within the park system to meet both
current and future community wants and needs. It will also provide vision, goals, and suggestions
for how to stretch dollars, costs, cost recovery, prioritization, identify changes, and provides a tool
for staff and decision-makers.
Phase 1 (needs assessment) and phase 2 (community engagement) for the plan have been
completed. The existing parks, park inventory, park assets, demographics, trends, level of service,
programs assessment, benchmark cities (New Brighton, New Hope, Golden Valley, and Green
River, WY), equity, improvement prioritization, and community engagement were discussed.
Recommendations include a reallocation of investment in programming to address inequities in
the current distribution. Additionally, the consultant recommended the addition of multiple parks
and recreation staff to support existing programs and services as well as an expansion of staff to
address the requests for future growth.
The challenges of finding similar cities for comparison were discussed. Council suggested getting
benchmark information from the cities of West St. Paul, Vandais Heights, and Little Canada. Park
programming and staffing needs for adding additional programming was also discussed. Assistant
City Administrator Torkelson noted that failure to address existing staffing needs creates a
retention challenge as staff are able to go work in the identified comparison cities with less
workload than in Mendota Heights. Ms. Lawrence said this will be studied further as part of the
master plan.
The results of the community outreach were presented noting that respondents love the parks, feel
they are well maintained, desire more inclusive improvements, and the diversification of amenities.
Councilor Miller thanked the consultants for the thorough report. He commented that keeping an
open mind about how we think about and how we use our open spaces is important as well as
finding other revenue sources is also important.
Councilor Mazzitello commented our parks were developed from a referendum and at a different
time. He asked if we were using our spaces the right way and what needs to be done to repurpose
those spaces to meet current needs. He questioned if there is a revenue source that we are not
capitalizing on that can help fund improvements and ongoing maintenance of those improvements.
Councilor Lorberbaum said the report was fascinating and the city has a lot of needs. She
questioned how to prioritize those needs when it comes to the parks.
Councilor Paper said the discussion regarding the number of ball diamonds was interesting. The
consultant noted that Mendota Heights is well above the national standard of one field per 4,000
Page 16 of 246
July 16, 2024, Mendota Heights City Council Work Session Minutes Page 3
people. Mendota Heights currently has one field per 616 people. There are 11 existing fields in
the city. Ms. Lawrence said the existing program registration and participation rates will be studied
in the next phase of the plan.
Councilor Mazzitello asked how we leverage the programming of neighboring communities to
meet resident requests and needs of our community.
Mayor Levine commented that our community is unique because we share resources with
neighboring communities and the school district. She also liked the focus on programming and
what can be done for a low cost. She is also looking forward to the roadmap, the CIP and funding
sources information.
PROPOSED TITLE 15: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
Jennifer Haskamp of Swanson Haskamp Consulting presented information on the proposed draft
of Title 15 of the city code regarding Environmental Standards. She noted that the new title was
created so that environmental standards and regulations were in one place within city code. The
Environmental Title is separate from the Zoning Title however the two sections will cross-
reference each other. She stated that the goal is to have the Environmental Standards approved
concurrently with the Zoning Code update.
The council reviewed with Haskamp the chapters within the proposed title. It was noted that the
Natural Resources Commission is the recommending body and is responsible for the review,
amendment or study of this title when directed by the City Council. They will also be responsible
for giving recommendations to the Planning Commission or City Council as required by the title
or as required the Zoning Code.
It was suggested that the proposed section be discussed at an upcoming Planning Commission
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 17 of 246
This page is intentionally left blank
6.c
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge July 9, 2024, Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Minutes
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT:
ACTION REQUEST:
BACKGROUND:
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Pk 07-09-2024
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Page 18 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING MINUTES
JULY 9, 2024
The July meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, July 9, 2024, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
1. Call to Order – Chair Jaffrey Blanks called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jaffrey Blanks,
Commissioners: Stephanie Meyer, Michelle Muller, Jo Schifsky, Dan Sherer, and Michael Toth;
absent: none. Staff present: Parks and Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director
Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek,
and Assistant City Engineer Lucas Richie.
3. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
4. Approval of Agenda
Motion Muller/second Schifsky to approve the agenda. AYES 6: NAYS 0
5.a Approval of Minutes from June 11, 2024 Regular Meeting
Motion Meyer/second Sherer to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2024 Parks and
Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0
6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda)
None.
4. Approval of Agenda (Continued)
It was requested to amend the agenda to swap the positions of Items 7 and 8.
Motion Meyer/second Muller to approve the agenda as amended. AYES 6: NAYS 0
7. New Business
7.a Consideration of Ivy Hills Basketball Enhancement Project
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence stated that staff is going to present a
potential basketball enhancement at Ivy Hills.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the City is reconstructing the parking lot of Ivy
Hills Park along with the surrounding streets. He commented that there will be materials that
will need to be stored during the project and the contractor requested to use the parking lot as
that staging and storage area. He stated that staff suggested that the east side of the tennis
courts be used, but recognized that is not enough room. He stated that the existing basketball
court is very low and stays wet, therefore they had the idea to fill that area and construct a new
basketball court that would be closer to full court standards. He stated that staff reviewed that
idea with the Council on June 18th and the hoop was then removed to allow that activity to
occur. He noted that letters have been sent out to neighbors to gain input. He stated that the fill
and restoration will be provided at no cost to the City, and the City would be responsible for the
Page 19 of 246
installation of the concrete pad. He provided background information on the pleasure rink that
previously existed, but was not being used. He stated that the potential of a pleasure rink could
continue to be an option, while a full hockey rink would not be feasible at this location. He
asked if the Commission supported the concrete basketball court. He recognized that the hoop
has been removed and there have been some inquiries, so staff suggested possibly placing a
portable hoop on the tennis court as an interim option.
Chair Blanks asked how long the basketball court would be offline.
Mr. Ruzek replied that this would be the duration of the season, as the contractor is behind on
their current job because of the rain conditions and therefore has not yet started this project. It
is anticipated that the project would begin within the next week. He commented that the fill
would sit over the summer, and they would anticipate to pour the concrete court next June.
Chair Blanks asked if the adjustable hoops would be installed.
Mr. Ruzek commented that the adjustable hoops have not been successful as they become
broken to the point where they are no longer adjustable.
Ms. Lawrence replied that the portable hoop has been ordered and should be delivered to the
City this week with the intention to install on the tennis courts when time allows. She stated that
notice letters were sent to residents within 500 feet of the basketball court, encouraging them to
attend tonight if they had questions or comments. She also provided emails that she received
from residents. She stated that she also received two calls asking what happened with the
basketball hoop and they were in favor of the enhancement.
Commissioner Meyer asked the streets that would be a part of the project.
Mr. Ruzek reviewed the streets included in the project.
Commissioner Meyer asked if there would be an option to add parking to the south side of the
park, closer to the playground.
Mr. Ruzek commented that additional stalls could be added on the north side, but they are being
cautious of the memorial tree. He acknowledged that it would appear the open space on the
south is park space, but that is privately owned by the HOA.
Commissioner Toth asked what the plan is if this area can’t be used for material storage.
Mr. Ruzek replied that the material would need to be trucked off and stored offsite, and other
materials could potentially be placed on the sides of the road.
Commissioner Toth asked for an estimate on the number of truckloads that would need to
otherwise be hauled off.
Mr. Ruzek estimated about 500 loads. He confirmed that the material will be reclaimed during
the road project. He noted that many drivers are currently using this area as a cut through to
avoid the highway construction and anticipated that would stop once this project begins, and
that traffic would stay on the posted detours.
Commissioner Sherer recognized that would save the contractor a good amount of money and
asked if those savings would be passed to the City.
Page 20 of 246
Mr. Ruzek commented that the benefit the City would receive is filling the low area and
restoration of that area, which would otherwise cost the City about $100,000.
Commissioner Sherer commented that he receives the most complaints about this area
because of the poor conditions due to the low elevations. He asked if anything could be done to
make the ballfield more usable as well.
Mr. Ruzek commented that would be outside the scope of this project.
Commissioner Sherer stated that he was wondering if the elevation of the field could be moved
up a couple feet as well, to make that more usable.
Commissioner Schifsky asked if the storm sewer would enhance the drainage.
Chair Blanks invited residents to provide input.
Mary Ford, 1147 Ivy Hills Drive, commented that she had no idea there was going to be
anything happening on the tennis court and is trying to imagine the noise that would come from
that. She asked if they could hear the comments of the residents that emailed about this.
Chair Blanks commented that all four residents were in support of the basketball enhancement.
Commissioner Muller noted that one resident expressed concern with the traffic that the new
basketball court could bring.
Ms. Ford stated that she would like to keep the park as quiet as it is now and would share the
concern of increased traffic.
Mike Flood, 1043 Brompton Place, stated this unusable area has a created problem because of
the berms. He stated that the court used to be functional but changed with improvements made
to the park and pond. He stated that he has no problem with the basketball court
improvements, but wanted to ensure that it is done right. He encouraged staff to take the time
to review the drainage and ensure that this would drain correctly and not pass water to the other
areas of the park. He reiterated that the court and the ball field drained correctly and were not
wet until the changes to the park were made 10 to 15 years ago. He commented on the number
of young families that now live in the neighborhood and use the park.
Commissioner Muller stated that the full courts are heavily used by young teens once installed.
She commented that this park is pretty hidden and asked if there are any concerns with
negative activity at the courts.
Mr. Flood replied that his biggest concern would be for the residents in the townhomes as they
would hear the noise. He stated perhaps lights are not installed to prevent that activity at night.
He stated it has been very seldom that he has had to go out and ask teens to move on at night.
He also commented on a sump pump from a townhome that dumps out onto the park property
and often prevents that area from being mowed by the City. He confirmed that he supports the
project but wants to ensure that it is done correctly, and that the drainage is addressed.
Chair Blanks commented that he likes the idea of not using lights on the courts in order to
mitigate potential negative activity in the evening.
Page 21 of 246
Commissioner Toth commented that there is a rain garden in the concept and asked staff to
provide information on that feature.
Mr. Ruzek explained how the rain garden functions to assist with infiltration. He commented
that they will be surveying everything and explained how the water flow will be directed within
the park. He also provided details on the pond dredging that occurred, noting that material was
hauled offsite. He commented that the trucks would be hauling the material either way, whether
it is hauled to this location or hauled offsite.
Chair Blanks refocused the discussion towards the proposed enhancement of the basketball
court.
Commissioner Schifsky commented that she is excited that they will be doing something to fix
the spongey area. She stated that she has heard interest in park users for a pleasure rink. She
was also pleased that the court would not be poured until next June as they are still in the
master planning process, and they can ensure that the amenity is placed in the right location.
Ms. Lawrence stated the consultant is not predicting that this park would see a large transition,
noting that the consultant is not completing any concepts for park layouts. She stated that Ivy
Hills has the third highest equity rating because of the ranging demographics of the residents in
this area. She stated that basketball does provide a good option for lower income families as
there are not many barriers to playing basketball, as you just need a ball. She stated that for
that reason she feels that this would be a good opportunity for this neighborhood. She did not
foresee any large-scale impacts to this project because of the completion of the Master Plan.
Commissioner Muller commented that the Commission is looking at full court basketball courts
across the community and this would be a low-cost option for the amenity.
Mr. Ruzek commented that this would be part of the overall street project cost and therefore
would not impact on the special parks fund. He stated that this would be an amenity that could
be added to the park without impact to the park funds.
Commissioner Sherer commented that his concern is the impact that drainage has on the
usability of the park. He suggested a half-court basketball court as this is a neighborhood park
rather than a destination park. He stated that he would also like to see a drainage solution that
would improve the entire park.
Chair Blanks commented that five of the six residents that reached out were in favor of a full
court at this location.
Commissioner Muller commented that if they are not using adjustable hoops that may cause it
to be less of a destination.
Commissioner Meyer commented that there is an influx of teens that need something to do, and
she supports full court basketball. She provided input on the positive experience she has
noticed at Marie Park with that full court. She stated that she also trusts that staff will look at the
drainage engineering.
Commissioner Toth asked if there is something else that the concrete pad could be used for.
Page 22 of 246
Mr. Ruzek commented that the striping typically also includes some other options such as
hopscotch or tic tac toe. He stated that if there is not snow on the ground, it would typically be
used for basketball and in winter conditions there would be an option to use the area for a
pleasure rink.
Commissioner Muller commented that the four-square striping is very popular as well.
Ms. Ford asked if there would be lighting proposed for the court.
Mr. Ruzek replied that there would not be lighting proposed for the court. He stated that if there
was a pleasure rink added in the future, the existing lighting could be used for that.
Ms. Lawrence noted that if there was a request for lighting in the future, that would involve
resident engagement.
Commissioner Muller commented that the Commission has denied lighting requests at other
parks based on the feedback of neighbors.
Commissioner Toth commented that this is one of the few basketball courts that they have, and
it is important to have some options for residents, noting that the Commission tries to implement
amenities for everyone.
Motion Meyer/second Schifsky to approve the full court basketball enhancement as proposed.
AYES 5: NAYS 1 (SHERER OPPOSED)
8. Acknowledgement of Reports
Chair Blanks read the titles of the five updates (Par 3, Recreation, Park Improvement, Park
System Master Plan, and Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning Updates) and polled the
Commissioners for questions.
8.a Par 3 Update
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence stated that June has been busy on the
course and staff has been challenged with the wet conditions and growing grass. She reviewed
the financial information for the course thus far.
Commissioner Sherer asked if the irrigation is tracked by utilities.
Ms. Lawrence replied that the irrigation for the course is provided through the well and therefore
the only cost is for the electric that is used to run the well.
8.b Parks Improvement Update
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the progress of
different parks improvement projects. She reviewed the balance of the special parks fund and
stated that staff is continuing with the budget process with the City Council, carrying forward the
recommendations from the Parks Commission. She stated that she would notify the
Commission of when the parks items will appear on the Council workshop agenda in the case
that they would like to attend.
Commissioner Sherer commented that he was surprised that the skate park is not getting as
much use as he thought it would, recognizing that he is only driving by in the evening or on
weekends. He asked if there has been feedback on the new equipment from the users.
Page 23 of 246
Ms. Lawrence replied that she spoke with a member of the Dirty Dota, who was very happy with
the skate park project and suggested some small fixes that could potentially be implemented
next year. She stated that when she has driven by the skate park has been busy and she has
received very positive feedback.
Commissioner Schifsky commented that everyone is very excited about the Wentworth
pickleball courts.
Commissioner Sherer commented that the tennis courts look great too.
8.c Recreation Update
Recreation Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt highlighted upcoming recreation events and
programming.
8.d Park System Master Plan Update
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the Parks System
Master Plan process, noting that phase one is complete and the update will be provided to the
Council next Tuesday. She also noted the engagement plan and asked that the Commission
provide any changes to the list.
The Commissioners provided input on the engagement events that they could attend.
8.e Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning Update
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the progress of the
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan items.
Commissioner Schifsky noted that some park benches are in rough shape and asked if
volunteers could be used to sand and stain the benches.
Ms. Lawrence commented that power tools are not promoted as something for volunteers to be
involved with. She stated that she could follow up to determine which benches she is referring
to and develop a plan to address that.
9.Unfinished Business
10.Staff Announcements
Parks and Recreation Director Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements:
•There is a vacant position on the Commission following the resignation of Tica Hanson.
The position has been posted and the application process will remain open until July
19th. She encouraged Commissioners to refer anyone that may be interested.
•The Student Representative seat is currently vacant, as that term ended in June. Staff
will post that position in the fall once school starts back up.
•Other events can be found on the City’s website
11. Student Representative Update
None.
12. Commission Comments and Park Updates
Commissioner Sherer
Page 24 of 246
•The Civic Center ballfield receives a lot of use during the summer and drains remarkably
well
•Hagstrom King continues to be busy and is a great park, but the ballfield does not drain
well
Commissioner Toth
•The users at the dog park take ownership of that park and clean up after themselves
•Encouraged other park users to clean up after themselves
•Would like information on the treatment of Rogers Lake and any changes that have
occurred
•Encouraged residents to be cautious of pets around blue/green algae blooms in the
waters
Commissioner Muller
•Commented that the parks are well used and maintained
•Has witnessed more people playing tennis than pickleball lately
•Asked if there is anything that could be done about the increase in bugs and mosquitos
Chair Blanks
•The dugouts have standing water at Valley Park
•Market Square is a great park and encouraged residents to attend the live music events
Commissioner Schifsky
•Witnessed Yoga in the Park at Ivy Hills and encouraged residents to check it out
•Wentworth is a great park
•Has attended a few of the Tour de Rec events which have been a lot of fun
Commissioner Meyer
•Pickleball continues to be popular at Marie Park and she looks forward to the resurfacing
•Echoed the comments of Tour de Rec, commenting that the event today seemed well
attended
Ms. Lawrence noted that the August meeting will be on Wednesday, August 14th, as the Primary
Election is taking place on Tuesday, August 13th.
Commissioner Muller noted an area of high grass near Market Square. It was confirmed that is
private property and not City owned property.
13. Adjourn
Motion Meyer/Second Muller to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 PM
AYES 6: NAYS 0
Minutes drafted by:
Amanda Staple
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 25 of 246
6.d
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledge the June 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 June Par 3 Financial Report.
BACKGROUND:
In the month of June, the course had a total of 3,395 rounds of golf played and a total of
$55,313 in monthly revenue. The 2024 year-to-date revenue total including June is $163,285.
The course's June expenditures totaled $47,748. The year-to-date expenditure total is
$142,841.It is important to note that included in the Repairs and Maintenance line item was a
$20,700 expenditure for the clubhouse concrete project to ensure ADA compliance.
As of now the course is showing a $20,444 operating surplus.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Monthly Expenditure Report-June 2024 is attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.2024 P3 Budget to Actual
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy, Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive
and Responsive Government
Page 26 of 246
MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT
JUNE 2024
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
June 2024 (50% OF YEAR)
June
REVENUES June YTD YTD YTD
BUDGET 2024 2024 %2023
GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $177,000 $44,494 $105,948 59.86%$92,667
RECREATION PROGRAMS $54,000 $2,517 $39,239 72.67%$45,097
CONCESSIONS $34,000 $8,191 $17,886 52.61%$13,342
SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $111 $211 100.00%$116
INTEREST $450 $0 $0 0.00%$0
INSURANCE CLAIM $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $265,450 $55,313 $163,285 61.51%$151,222
EXPENDITURES June YTD YTD YTD
BUDGET 2024 2024 %2023
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $47,600 $6,587 $18,596 39.07%$12,763
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $34,358 $2,731 $17,446 50.78%$14,944
FICA/PERA $14,362 $1,488 $4,940 34.40%$3,616
MEDICAL INSURANCE $7,544 $629 $3,772 50.00%$3,594
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $3,420 $0 $4,928 144.08%$5,364
RENTALS $8,000 $1,505 $2,932 36.66%$2,802
UTILITIES $16,013 $1,292 $5,703 35.61%$5,687
PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $3,080 $0 $0 0.00%$0
PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $1,100 $0 $664 0.00%$61
PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $7,250 $0 $0 0.00%$0
PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $27,000 $3,081 $8,297 30.73%$7,748
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 $1,272 $5,848 51.76%$5,688
FUEL $3,000 $466 $839 27.97%$691
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $58,750 $27,060 $40,667 69.22%$34,062
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $12,750 $26 $3,083 24.18%$6,707
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $10,000 $1,612 $4,834 48.34%$4,552
GREENS ROLLER $0 $0 $16,191 $0
PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $275,327 $47,748 $142,841 51.88%$114,423
Page 27 of 246
6.e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Approve 2024-2025 Seasonal Compensation Pay Matrix Effective December
1, 2024
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant
City Administrator
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve the City's Seasonal Pay Compensation Pay Matrix to be effective December 1, 2024.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Mendota Heights hires approximately 50 seasonal employees every year who
provide services at the city golf course, recreation programming, and support for public works.
The proposed pay matrix update is to define the pay matrix for the upcoming year starting
with winter seasonal staff. Staff begins recruitment for winter seasonal positions in September.
Staff reviewed recruitment trends from the previous year as well as market rates for
comparable positions in other cities in the twin cities. Reviewing and updating these rates
annually ensures that the City of Mendota Heights can remain competitive and ensure that our
recreation programs are fully staffed and able to provide high quality services to residents. The
proposed pay matrix update will go into effect for this year's winter seasonal workers who
typically begin employment with the city in December.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Seasonal salaries are included in the 2024 and 2025 City Budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.2024-2025 Seasonal Pay Matrix
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 28 of 246
2024-2025 Seasonal Pay Matrix Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
1-
Seasonal Warming House Attendant $13.25 $13.50 $13.75 $14.00
Golf Course Clubhouse Attendant
Pickleball Assistant
Golf Assistant
Tennis Assistant
Skating Assistant
2-
Seasonal
Recreation Assistant
$14.00 $14.25 $14.50 $14.75
Public Work Maintenance
Golf Course Maintenance Worker
Rink Flooder
Tennis Instructor
Pickleball Instructor
Golf Instructor
Skating Instructor
Recreation Lead
3-
Seasonal
Parks and Recreation Intern
$16.75 $17.00 $17.25 $17.50
4-
Seasonal Golf Course Maintenance Lead $17.25 $17.50 $17.75 $18.00
5-
Seasonal Irrigation Specialist $18.75 $19.25 $19.75 $20.25
Page 29 of 246
6.f
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Police Chief Out of Metro Travel Request
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Kelly McCarthy, Police Chief
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve out-of-metro travel for Police Chief Kelly McCarthy to attend the 2024 FBI Northwest
Chapter Annual Conference and Training in Alexandria, Minnesota.
BACKGROUND:
The Northwest Chapter of the FBI National Academy Associates is hosting its annual
conference and training from September 9th -September 11th. Training topics include case
studies on homicides and incident command.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The price for the conference is $275 and lodging is $317.44 for a total of $592.44 to be paid
from the Police Departments Training budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 30 of 246
This page is intentionally left blank
6.g
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Approve Recreation Program Coordinator Out of State Travel Request
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation CONTACT: Meredith Lawrence, Parks
and Recreation/Assistant
Public Works Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve out-of-state travel for Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation Program Coordinator to attend the
2024 International Experiential Education Conference in Estes Park, Colorado.
BACKGROUND:
The City's Travel Authorization and Expense Reimbursement Policy requires that all out-of-state
conferences, seminars, and other educational related expenses be approved in advance by the
City Council, and must include an estimate of all costs of travel, lodging and programming.
The Association for Experiential Education International Conference will take place from
November 14-16 in Estes Park, Colorado. The AEE conference brings attendees together who
share the goals of promoting, defining, developing and applying theories and practices of
experiential education.
Recreation Program Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt has requested to attend this conference and I
believe this will be a great experience for her to learn, network and bring back fresh recreation-
based ideas for the Mendota Heights community.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Funds are available in the Recreation budget. The estimated total costs for attending are:
Airfare: $167
Ground Transportation: $122
Conference Registration: $475
Lodging: $204
Total: $968
Page 31 of 246
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government, Environmental
Sustainability & Stewardship
Page 32 of 246
6.h
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-46 Appointing Jennifer Weichert to the Parks and
Recreation Commission
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City
Administrator
ACTION REQUEST:
Approve Resolution 2024-46 Appointing Jennifer Weichert to the Parks and Recreation
Commission
BACKGROUND:
The city's advisory commissions include the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Airport Relations Commission and Natural Resources Commission. Members of
city advisory commissions are appointed by the Mayor and City Council.
The City Council accepted the resignation of Tica Hansen from the Parks and Recreation
Commission, creating a mid-term vacancy on the commission. The city sought applications
from interested residents and interviewed three applicants on August 12.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res. 2024-46 Appointing Weichert to PRC
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government
Page 33 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2024-46
APPOINTING JENNIFER WEICHERT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active
participation of citizens in representing the City on boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council. They advise the council on matters pertaining to the acquisition, development and
improvements of the city’s parks and recreational facilities and on the establishment of rules and
regulations for the use and management of city parks; and
WHEREAS, a vacancy with a term expiring January 31, 2026 exists on the Parks and
Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, applications from interested residents were sought and interviews were
conducted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the excellent qualifications of Mendota
Heights resident Jennifer Weichert to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
it hereby appoints Jennifer Weichert to the Parks and Recreation Commission to fill a
commissioner term expiring January 31, 2026.
Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 20th day of August, 2024.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
______________________________
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 34 of 246
6.i
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Purchase of Loftness Flail Mower
ITEM TYPE: Consent Item
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CONTACT: John Boland, Public Works
Superintendent
ACTION REQUEST:
Authorize purchase of a new Loftness Flail Mower from Lano Equipment.
BACKGROUND:
In 2021, the City Council approved a budget improvement package for Public Works to
purchase a disk mower for mowing roadsides for the amount of $9,000. This attachment with
the hitch was supposed to work within specs for our utility tractor. However, the attachment
proved to be too heavy for the tractor and the purchase was not made. Public Works has
worked with other municipalities and equipment dealers to find the attachment that will work
best with our equipment to maintain the needed areas most effectively. This flail mower will
work on the City’s equipment and worked well for the department's needs while demoing the
mower.
Lano equipment has this on the State Contract for $11,698.19 (State Contract T-632, ATT-
Loftness Flail Mower 72”)
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The purchase of this piece of equipment will come out of the Street operating budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 35 of 246
This page is intentionally left blank
6.j
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-47 Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for the 2024
Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project
ITEM TYPE: Resolution
DEPARTMENT: Engineering CONTACT: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works
Director
ACTION REQUEST:
Accept bids and award a contract for the 2024 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Televising Project.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Mendota Heights maintains a total 74 miles of sanitary sewer pipe, including 6.5
miles of the Sanitary Interceptor Line. The City’s sanitary sewer system is aging. Many of the
sanitary sewer pipes are 60 years old and will soon need repair. Cleaning the sanitary sewer
system on a regular cycle helps extend the life of the pipes. Televising of the sanitary sewer
system shows where immediate repairs are needed. Lining pipes in need of repair with cured-
in-place-pipe (CIPP) extends the life of the City’s sanitary sewer system. CIPP lining has a life
expectancy of 50 years when properly maintained.
Currently, one full-time and one seasonal employee clean approximately 10 miles of pipe per
year. The proposed project was for the cleaning of approximately 8.1 miles of the City’s
sanitary sewer system and televising approximately 19.2 miles of the City’s sanitary sewer
system. Historically, the city has been cleaning and televising its sanitary sewer every six years.
Recently, the cost of this service has been increasing and staff is recommending that the
existing quadrants of the city be divided so that the system will be inspected every 10 years
per the city policy. Based on this revising of the north quadrant, the actual quantities will be
reduced to clean 5.7 miles and televise 10.3 miles. The restructuring of the system will better
align with the budget in the sanitary sewer fund. The city will need to award the project as bid
and then will reduce the quantities per the project specifications.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Four bids (see attached resolution) were received and opened on Wednesday, July 17, 2024,
Page 36 of 246
for the Sanitary Sewer Televising and Cleaning Project. Vortech Hydro Vac and Televising
submitted the lowest bid of $155,655.75. Their bid exceeded the Engineer’s estimate of
$107,959.47.
The Sanitary Sewer Fund has an annual budget amount of $62,000 allocated to the cleaning
and televising of the sanitary sewer system, which varies by area of the city. The revised project
as described above will have a project cost of $81,032.15, and the sanitary sewer utility has an
adequate balance to fund the project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.5j.2 Resolution 2024-47 Award Contract for 2024 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning
2.2024 07 17 MH202404 - Bid Abstract
3.2024 08 15 MH202404 - Engineer's Estimate_Reduced Quantities_Vortech Unit $
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 37 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2024-47
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
THE 2024 SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND TELEVISING PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed cleaning and
televising of sanitary sewers to serve the area referred to as 2024 Sanitary Sewer
Televising and Cleaning Project (City Project No. 202404), bids were received, opened
and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with said
advertisement:
NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID
Vortech Hydro Vac & Televising $155,655.75
Pipe Services Corp.$173,974.53
Hydro-Klean, LLC $194.097.43
American Environmental $433,258.00
and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director recommends that the low bid submitted
by Vortech Hydro Vac & Televising of Prior Lake, Minnesota, be accepted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council
as follows:
1. That the bids for the above project are hereby received and accepted.
2. That the bid of Vortech Hydro Vac & Televising of Prior Lake, Minnesota,
submitted for the cleaning and televising of the above described project be and the
same is hereby accepted.
3. That the contract be awarded to Vortech Hydro Vac & Televising of Prior Lake,
Minnesota, and that the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate
the awarding of said bids.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this twentieth day of August,
2024.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
ATTEST
Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor
_________________________
Nancy Bauer, City Clerk
Page 38 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSPROJECT:2024 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and TelevisingPROJECT #:202404 DATE: 7/17/2024I certify that I have personally opened and read all bids, verified this abstract and find it correct.By:____________________________________________________Ryan Ruzek, Public Works DirectorITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICEENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNTSCHEDULE 'A' - CLEANING AND TELEVISING1 Clean & Televise 8" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 3,009 $1.25 $3,761.50 $1.25 $3,761.25 $1.57 $4,724.13 $1.86 $5,596.74 $4.00 $12,036.002 Clean & Televise 9" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 24,969 $1.25 $31,210.69 $1.25 $31,211.25 $1.57 $39,201.33 $1.86 $46,442.34 $4.00 $99,876.003 Clean & Televise 10" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 1,142 $1.25 $1,427.50 $1.25 $1,427.50 $1.57 $1,792.94 $1.86 $2,124.12 $4.00 $4,568.004 Clean & Televise 12" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 28 $1.45 $40.60 $1.25 $35.00 $1.57 $43.96 $1.86 $52.08 $4.00 $112.005 Clean & Televise 15" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 2,419 $1.50 $3,629.10 $1.25 $3,023.75 $1.57 $3,797.83 $1.86 $4,499.34 $4.00 $9,676.006 Clean & Televise 8" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 685 $1.75 $1,198.23 $3.50 $2,397.50 $7.74 $5,301.90 $4.52 $3,096.20 $10.00 $6,850.007 Clean & Televise 9" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 7,099 $1.75 $12,423.95 $3.50 $24,846.50 $7.74 $54,946.26 $4.52 $32,087.48 $10.00 $70,990.008 Clean & Televise 10" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 1,223 $1.75 $2,140.08 $3.50 $4,280.50 $7.74 $9,466.02 $4.52 $5,527.96 $10.00 $12,230.009 Clean & Televise 12" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 449 $2.00 $897.00 $3.50 $1,571.50 $7.74 $3,475.26 $4.52 $2,029.48 $10.00 $4,490.0010 Clean & Televise 15" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 1,832 $2.25 $4,122.00 $3.50 $6,412.00 $7.74 $14,179.68 $4.52 $8,280.64 $10.00 $18,320.0011 Clean & Televise 18" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 140 $2.50 $350.00 $3.50 $490.00 $7.74 $1,083.60 $4.52 $632.80 $10.00 $1,400.0012 Televise 8" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 12,231 $0.75 $9,173.18 $1.25 $15,288.75 $0.84 $10,274.04 $0.78 $9,540.18 $3.00 $36,693.0013 Televise 9" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 41,767 $0.75 $31,325.21 $1.25 $52,208.75 $0.84 $35,084.28 $0.78 $32,578.26 $3.00 $125,301.0014 Televise 10" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 839 $0.75 $629.25 $1.25 $1,048.75 $0.84 $704.76 $0.78 $654.42 $3.00 $2,517.0015 Televise 12" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 2,303 $0.95 $2,187.47 $1.25 $2,878.75 $0.84 $1,934.52 $0.78 $1,796.34 $3.00 $6,909.0016 Televise 8" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 428 $0.75 $321.00 $3.00 $1,284.00 $2.74 $1,172.72 $1.56 $667.68 $5.00 $2,140.0017 Televise 9" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 830 $0.75 $622.73 $3.00 $2,490.00 $2.74 $2,274.20 $1.56 $1,294.80 $5.00 $4,150.0018 MobilizationL.S. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,640.00 $4,640.00 $17,073.67 $17,073.67 $15,000.00 $15,000.00SUBTOTAL$107,959.47 $155,655.75 $194,097.43 $173,974.53 $433,258.00SUMMARYSCHEDULE 'A' - CLEANING AND TELEVISING$107,959.47 $155,655.75 $194,097.43 $173,974.53 $433,258.00TOTAL$107,959.47 $155,655.75 $194,097.43 $173,974.53 $433,258.00Vortech Hydro Vac & Televising Hydro-Klean, LLCPipe Services Corp. American Environmental, LLCBID ABSTRACTPage 1 of 1Page 39 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTSPROJECT:2024 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and TelevisingPROJECT #:202404 DATE: 8/14/2024CONTRACTOR:T.B.D.CONTRACT FOR:2024 Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and TelevisingITEM NO.ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNITORIGINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED UNIT PRICEENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT BID UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNTSCHEDULE 'A' - CLEANING AND TELEVISING1 Clean & Televise 8" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 3,009 $1.25 $3,761.50 $1.25 $3,761.25 1776 $1.25 $2,220.132 Clean & Televise 9" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 24,969$1.25$31,210.69$1.25$31,211.25 23322$1.25$29,151.943 Clean & Televise 10" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 1,142$1.25$1,427.50$1.25$1,427.500$1.25$0.004 Clean & Televise 12" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 28$1.45$40.60$1.25$35.0028$1.25$35.005 Clean & Televise 15" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 2,419$1.50$3,629.10$1.25$3,023.7566$1.25$83.006 Clean & Televise 8" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 685$1.75$1,198.23$3.50$2,397.500$3.50$0.007 Clean & Televise 9" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 7,099$1.75$12,423.95$3.50$24,846.503612$3.50$12,642.708 Clean & Televise 10" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 1,223$1.75$2,140.08$3.50$4,280.5057$3.50$200.209 Clean & Televise 12" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 449$2.00$897.00$3.50$1,571.50449$3.50$1,569.7510 Clean & Televise 15" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 1,832$2.25$4,122.00$3.50$6,412.00861$3.50$3,013.5011 Clean & Televise 18" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 140$2.50$350.00$3.50$490.000$3.50$0.0012 Televise 8" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 12,231$0.75$9,173.18$1.25$15,288.751778$1.25$2,222.6313 Televise 9" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 41,767$0.75$31,325.21$1.25$52,208.75 19859$1.25$24,824.0614 Televise 10" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 839$0.75$629.25$1.25$1,048.750$1.25$0.0015 Televise 12" Sewer in R.O.W.L.F. 2,303$0.95$2,187.47$1.25$2,878.752303$1.25$2,878.2516 Televise 8" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 428$0.75$321.00$3.00$1,284.000$3.00$0.0017 Televise 9" Sewer in EasementsL.F. 830$0.75$622.73$3.00$2,490.00397$3.00$1,191.0018 MobilizationL.S. 1$2,500.00$2,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.001$1,000.00 $1,000.00SUBTOTAL$107,959.47$155,655.75$81,032.15SUMMARYSCHEDULE 'A' - CLEANING AND TELEVISING$107,959.47$155,655.75$81,032.15TOTAL100% $107,959.47144% $155,655.75 52%75% $81,032.15As Advertised and SubmittedVortech Hydro Vac & TelevisingReduced Quantities w/ Submitted Unit $ENGINEERS OPINION OF ESTIMATED COSTSVortech Hydro Vac & TelevisingPage 1 of 1Page 40 of 246
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 41 of 2466.k
Page 42 of 246
Page 43 of 246
Page 44 of 246
Page 45 of 246
Page 46 of 246
Page 47 of 246
Page 48 of 246
Page 49 of 246
Page 50 of 246
Page 51 of 246
Page 52 of 246
7.a
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Firefighter Swearing In
ITEM TYPE: Presentation
DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief
Kelly Torkelson, Assistant
City Administrator
ACTION REQUEST:
Swearing in of Mendota Heights Firefighters: Ricky Chodek, Gretchen Connors, Christian
Douah, Emily Mahon, and Anna Molinaro.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the Mendota Heights Fire Department completes an in house training program for
new firefighters. In 2023, these firefighters began their training with the department. These
firefighters have now completed their training and are ready to be sworn in as official Mendota
Heights Firefighters.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
None
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Premier Public Services & Infrastructure
Page 53 of 246
This page is intentionally left blank
9.a
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Tabled - Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary and Final Plat of
McMillan Estates [Planning Case 2024-01]
ITEM TYPE: Resolution
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. The applicant then communicated with staff a request to
table the application in order to allow additional time to provide any revisions to the plans and
continue to work on the application materials which were being presented. The public hearing
was tabled to April 30, 2024, where it was again tabled by request of the applicant. The tabled
public hearing was reopened on June 25, 2024 at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting.
Page 54 of 246
A planning report was presented and the public hearing was held and closed. The Planning
Commission discussed the applicant’s request for a Preliminary and Final Plat, with a
significant focus on the topic of the applicant’s additional request to defer the construction of
some public improvements, namely the right-of-way which was shown as dedicated on the
Plat, but which was suggested to remain undeveloped until a future date in the event of a
resubdivision, future lot split, or additional redevelopment of the subject site. The Planning
Commission expressed concern with the deferral of the street improvements. 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 the applicant 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 his 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.
At the August 7, 2024 City Council meeting, the staff report was again presented to summarize
the application review process and the details of the subdivision request. The applicant’s plans
and documentation had not changed, and the applicant stated that while their first preference
is to not construct the street improvements prior to the private construction improvements for
the homes within the Plat, but that they would like to move forward with the project. The
applicant stated at the public meeting that they would commit to constructing all required
public improvements, including the street, prior to building permit as the Subdivision
Ordinance outlines. If approved, 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 presented in the applicant’s preliminary plans.
In the City Council’s discussion, there was a direction to staff to prepare two Resolutions for
the August 20, 2024 meeting: a revised Resolution with Findings-of-Fact in support of
approval, and an additional Resolution with Findings-of-Fact in support of a motion of denial.
The Resolutions have been prepared and are included as an attachment to this report.
Also during the City Council’s discussion was a request for the language in the condition
Page 55 of 246
added by the Planning Commission - relating to the applicant’s commitment to working with
the neighboring property to the north to define a utility easement – to be refined. The City
Council also requested additional width in perimeter easements which could allow for future
extension of sewer lines to properties east of the Plat. The estimated width needed for such an
extension would be 20-ft. The eastern (rear) property line of the proposed Lot 3, Block 1,
McMillan Estates defines a 10-ft drainage and utility easement and the south (side) property
line of the proposed Lot 3 defines a 5-ft drainage and utility easement. On the segment of this
property line that abuts Lot 1, Block 1, Breckenridge Estates, there is a 5-ft drainage and utility
easement on the neighboring property, but continuing east of that lot’s boundary there are no
drainage and utility easements present on the abutting property to the south. Staff has
included a condition that additional width in easements on the south property line of the
proposed Lot 3 be provided. The condition includes a 15-ft drainage and utility easement
along the south lot line of the proposed Lot 3 beginning at the southwest corner of the
proposed Lot 3 moving eastward until the intersection of the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block
1, Breckenridge Estates, and a 10-ft drainage and utility easement beginning at said
intersection and continuing eastward to the southeast corner of the proposed Lot 3. The other
half of the easement width on the neighboring properties would be provided at such a time
that the property owners petition the City for utility extension to serve the properties east of
this subdivision.
Additional conditions of approval have also been added to the drafted Resolution relating to
the requirement to construct all public improvements prior to application for any building
permit for private construction improvements within the Plat, in accordance with Title 11:
Subdivision.
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 Agenda. 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. 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.
The attached [draft] Resolutions have been updated to reflect the current meeting date of
August 20th and to incorporate conditions and Findings-of-Fact based on the direction of the
City Council.
The City Council has the following 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 [draft 1] Resolution 2024-38 Approving the Preliminary
Page 56 of 246
and Final Plat request
• Deny the Preliminary and Final Plat based upon [draft 2] Resolution 2024-38 Denying the
Preliminary and Final Plat request
The statutory review period for this application expires on August 21, 2024.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Res 2024-38 - Draft 1 in Support of Approval
2.Res 2024-38 - Draft 2 in Support of Denial
3.Memo to Council -- Plat of McMillan Estates
4.8-7-24 City Council Meeting Staff Report (with attachments)
5.Sample Development Agreement
CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy
Page 57 of 246
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 the 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
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the Mendota Heights City Council held a regular meeting to
consider action on Planning Case 2024-01, and after receiving the staff report discussed the subdivision
and the Applicant’s request to defer the installation of public improvements, including the roadway
extension, and proceed with private construction on the lots within the proposed subdivision; and
WHEREAS, following Applicant’s request to table the vote on the application, the City Council
elected to table this matter to the August 7, 2024 meeting; and
Page 58 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (1)Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, at the August 7, 2024 City Council meeting, a staff report was presented and the
Applicant persisted with the request to defer construction of public improvements, including the
roadway extension, to a later date, but also stated to the City Council that they would proceed with
installing all required public improvements prior to issuance of building permits for private
improvements on the proposed lots within the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, at the August 20, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council considered the
application along with the Applicant’s stated intent to install all public improvements prior to the
construction of any private improvements within the proposed Plat; 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.
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 Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site
plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department
and Engineering Department as part of any building permit application.
5. All new construction and grading activities throughout this development site and on each
new buildable lot shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local
Page 59 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (1)Page 3 of 5
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
6. 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.
7. 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), which
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The Applicant/Developer shall install all public improvements, including the extension of
the public roadway system identified on the Final Plat as Ridgewood Drive and the
necessary utilities, in compliance with all City requirements, prior to the application of any
building permit for private construction or improvements within the Plat.
11. The existing cul-de-sac “bulb” of the existing Ridgewood Drive must be removed and
reconstructed to City street standards prior to applying for any further planning approval or
building permit.
12. Public utility easement locations, including easements for stormwater management
facilities and Best Management Practices (BMP) area(s) must be establishes, approved by
the City, and included in the Final Plat prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with
Dakota County.
13. 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.
14. The Applicant/Developer shall work with the adjacent landowner at 1695 Delaware
Avenue to define and provide a utility easement.
15. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a 15-ft drainage and utility easement along the
south lot line of the proposed Lot 3 beginning at the southwest corner of the proposed Lot 3
moving eastward until the intersection of the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1,
Breckenridge Estates, and a 10-ft drainage and utility easement beginning at said
intersection and continuing eastward to the southeast corner of the proposed Lot 3.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 20th day of August, 2024.
Page 60 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (1)Page 4 of 5
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 61 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (1)Page 5 of 5
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 62 of 246
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2024-38
RESOLUTION DENYING 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, the application included a request for approval for a deferral of the requirements
regarding the installation of public improvements, including a roadway extension and utilities, while
still proceeding with private construction on the lots within the proposed subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the plans submitted with the application reflected information about the proposed
subdivision, but because of the requested deferral, omitted otherwise required plat elements related to
the public improvements; and
WHEREAS, because the plans as submitted were consistent with the application, which
included the requested deferral, the application was deemed complete for purposes of Minnesota Statutes
§ 15.99, despite the omission of all Code compliant plat elements related to the required public
improvements; 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 the 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
Page 63 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (2)Page 2 of 4
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
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the Mendota Heights City Council held a regular meeting to
consider action on Planning Case 2024-01, and after receiving the staff report discussed the subdivision
and the Applicant’s request to defer the installation of public improvements, including the roadway
extension, and proceed with private construction on the lots within the proposed subdivision; and
WHEREAS, following a request to table the vote on the application, the City Council elected to
table this matter to the August 7, 2024 meeting; and
WHEREAS, at the August 7, 2024 City Council meeting, a staff report was presented and the
Applicant persisted with the request to defer construction of public improvements, including the
roadway extension, to a later date, but also stated to the City Council that they would proceed with
installing all required public improvements prior to issuance of building permits for private
improvements on the proposed lots within the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted no additional documentation or plans to support the
Applicant’s statement that the required public improvements, including the roadway extension, will be
installed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council wishes to adopt written findings-of-fact to
support of a motion to deny Planning Case 2024-01, consistent with Minnesota Statutes § 15.99; 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 reversed, and
the proposed Preliminary and Final Plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES may be denied based on the
following findings-of-fact:
1. The proposed plat does not meet the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The proposed plat does not meet the minimum standard for lot width on a City approved
street as required under the R-1A One Family Residential District and Subdivision
Regulations.
3. The request to utilize the undeveloped right-of-way access for two separate private
driveways is not in conformance with the required public improvements within the Title
11- Subdivision Ordinance.
4. The proposed plat does not include all aspects of public infrastructure and easements
needed to construct the street, water main, sanitary sewer extension, stormwater
management, and other necessary easements to install the public infrastructure.
5. The proposed plat does not include a design of the public infrastructure, including the
reconstruction of the existing Ridgewood Drive Cul-de-Sac “bulb”.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on this 20th day of August, 2024.
Page 64 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (2)Page 3 of 4
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 65 of 246
Mendota Heights Res. 2024-38 (2)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 66 of 246
1
232258v1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL
FROM: AMY SCHMIDT, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: AUGUST 16, 2024
RE: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF MCMILLAN ESTATES
PLANNING CASE 2024-01
Mayor and Councilmembers,
On July 2, 2024, I provided a legal opinion regarding the plat application identified above. In that
memorandum, I addressed two issues: (1) whether a variance was required for a proposed
extension of the cul-de-sac at the northern end of Ridgewood Drive; and (2) whether the City Code
allowed for approval of the proposed plat of McMillan Estates (the “Plat”) with the requested
deferral of the requirements for installation of public improvements. That memorandum also
provided some information about the legal standard applicable to the Council acting in a quasi-
judicial capacity when considering whether to approve or deny a proposed plat that meets the
minimum standards of the Code.
At the July 2 Council meeting, the applicant requested an extension of the Council’s consideration
of the application, in order for the applicant to obtain further information about the possible cost
of installing the public improvements, rather than continuing the request for deferral. The matter
was presented to the Council again on August 7, 2024, at which time the applicant verbally
continued his request for deferral, but also verbally indicated his willingness to install the public
improvements if the Council so required as a condition of approval. The matter was again tabled
until the Council meeting on August 20, 2024.
In light of the verbal statement by the applicant indicating a willingness to install the public
improvements if the Council so required as a condition of approval, the legal analysis related to
the second issue addressed in the earlier legal memo is different. This memo is intended to address
that additional information with updated legal analysis.
Discussion
The July 2 memo set forth the legal conclusion that the proposed plat met the minimum Code
requirements of City Code Section 11-3-3(A)3, because the three proposed lots are larger than the
minimum lot size in the R-1A District; the owner/applicant had arranged the proposed lots, and
shown a future arrangement of resubdivided lots, with locations for future streets; and provided
for future utility connections for such resubdivided lots. The July 2 memo also set forth the legal
conclusion it would be within the Council’s authority to grant the requested deferral pursuant to
City Code Section 11-4-1, so long as the required improvements were completed prior to
application for building permits.
Page 67 of 246
2
232258v1
However, the applicant’s verbal agreement to install the public improvements without the deferral
creates an inconsistency between the application and the plans submitted for the plat. The plans
originally submitted do not depict all of the elements required by Minnesota Statutes § 505.021.
Namely, the proposed plat does not depict the public infrastructure and easements needed to
construct street, water main, sanitary sewer extension, stormwater management, and other
necessary easements to install the public infrastructure. Further, the proposed plat does not depict
a design of the public infrastructure. With these omissions in the proposed plat, there is insufficient
information for the Council to conclude whether the plat without a deferral meets the minimum
Code requirements.
Under these circumstances, the Council is within its authority to take the following actions:
1. The Council could approve the application as submitted, with the requested deferral, as
recommended by the Planning Commission. The Council may attach reasonable
conditions to the approval.
2. The Council could deny the application for failure to meet the minimum Code
requirements, based on the incomplete information related to the verbal agreement by the
applicant to install the public improvements.
Page 68 of 246
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 69 of 246
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 70 of 246
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 71 of 246
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 72 of 246
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 73 of 246
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 74 of 246
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 75 of 246
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 76 of 246
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 77 of 246
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 78 of 246
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 79 of 246
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 80 of 246
9.d
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of McMillan Estates
(Planning Case No. 2024-01)
ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community
Development Manager
ACTION REQUEST:
Adopt Resolution 2024-38 Approving a Preliminary and Final Plat of a three-lot residential subdivision
to be known as McMillan Estates located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and two vacant parcels owned in
common and generally located at the north end of Ridgewood Drive.
BACKGROUND:
The subject site consists of 16.63 acres of combined land across three separate parcels. The primary
property addressed as 1707 Delaware Avenue is a long, rectangular, unplatted parcel consisting of
10.06 acres, measuring 329.18-ft. in width along Delaware Avenue to the east. This parcel contains an
existing single-family home. The remaining two parcels are known as Outlots A and B of Grappendorf
Addition, which was approved in 1984. The two Outlots are situated at the end of Ridgewood Drive
and consist of 4.5 acres (Outlot A) and 2 acres (Outlot B). Both outlots are vacant.
In order to establish the required frontage for the two lots proposed which will not abut Delaware
Avenue, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 15,522 s.f. (.36 acres) of right-of-way extending north
from the existing Ridgewood Drive right-of-way. The dedicated right-of-way would consist of an
approximately 186-ft extension northward into the proposed subdivision. Additionally, 19,751 s.f. (.45
acres) of right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along Delaware Avenue, to accommodate Dakota
County’s request for 60-ft of half right-of-way.
A large portion of the subject site is encumbered by wetlands. Prior to this application, the previous
property owner hired an environmental specialist to study, identify, and map out these wetlands on
the property; an official Wetland Delineation Report dated 06/22/2021 was submitted to the City for
review and was later accepted by the City Council on September 9, 2021. This report is valid for five
years.
Page 81 of 246
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 82 of 246
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 83 of 246
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 84 of 246
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 85 of 246
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 86 of 246
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 87 of 246
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 88 of 246
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 89 of 246
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 90 of 246
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 91 of 246
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 92 of 246
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 93 of 246
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 94 of 246
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 95 of 246
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 96 of 246
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 97 of 246
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 98 of 246
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 99 of 246
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 100 of 246
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 101 of 246
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 102 of 246
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 103 of 246
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 104 of 246
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 105 of 246
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 106 of 246
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 107 of 246
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 108 of 246
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 109 of 246
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 110 of 246
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 111 of 246
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 112 of 246
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 113 of 246
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 114 of 246
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 115 of 246
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 116 of 246
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 117 of 246
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.666666 666666666666 6666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERIDGEWOOD
DR
MARIE AVE W
Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Location Aerial Map1707 Delaware Ave/McMillan Estates
Date: 3/21/2024
City of
Mendota
Heights0340
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Page 118 of 246
Existing
Parcel
Boundaries:
Proposed
Parcel
Boundaries:
Page 119 of 246
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 120 of 246
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 121 of 246
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 122 of 246
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 123 of 246
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 124 of 246
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 125 of 246
6
Spencer McMillan
Page 126 of 246
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 127 of 246
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 128 of 246
Page 129 of 246
Page 130 of 246
Page 131 of 246
Page 132 of 246
Page 133 of 246
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 134 of 246
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 135 of 246
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 AspenSave 1847 10 Red OakSave12 8 Black Cherry poor Save 92 8 Black CherryRemove 347 8 White Ash Save 427 16 White Ash Remove 1761 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1848 11 Red OakSave13 7 Green Ash poor Save 93 6 American ElmRemove 348 6 White Ash Save 428 9 White Ash Remove 1762 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1849 6 Quaking AspenSave14 7 Black CherrySave 94 9 Black CherryRemove 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 CherryRemove 350 9 Box Elder Remove 430 6 Buckthorn Remove 1764 8 Green AshRemove 1851 7 Quaking AspenSave16 12 Black CherrySave 96 9 Quaking AspenRemove 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Remove 431 16 White Ash Remove 1765 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1852 8 Quaking AspenSave17 6 Green AshSave 97 8 Quaking AspenRemove 352 9.5 Box Elder Remove 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking AspenSave18 10 Black CherrySave 98 9 Quaking AspenRemove 353 12 Box Elder Remove 433 23 Green Ash Save 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1854 6 Quaking AspenSave19 6 Apple Save 99 7 Quaking AspenRemove 354 10 Box Elder Remove 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1768 10 Quaking AspenSave 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove20 6 Apple Save 100 7 Black CherryRemove 355 10 White Ash Remove 435 14 Cottonwood Remove 1769 8 Quaking AspenSave 1856 7 Quaking AspenRemove21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green Ash Remove 436 18.5 Box Elder Remove 1770 11 Quaking AspenSave 1857 7 Red OakSave22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black CherrySave 357 14 Black Oak Remove 437 13 Box Elder Save 1771 10 Quaking AspenSave 1858 7 Red OakSave23 9 Box ElderSave 103 8 Amur MapleSave 358 20.5 White Ash Remove 438 10 White Ash Save 1772 8 Quaking AspenSave 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black CherrySave 104 8 Black CherrySave 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Remove 439 11 Black Cherry Remove 1773 9 Quaking AspenSave 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red OakSave 360 8 White Ash Remove 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Remove26 8 Black CherrySave 106 10 American ElmSave 361 8 White Ash Remove 441 16 Box Elder Save 1775 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1862 8 Quaking AspenRemove27 6 Green AshSave 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 AspenRemove28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 CottonwoodSave 363 9 White Ash Remove 443 8 Buckthorn Save 1777 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1864 6 Quaking AspenRemove29 7 Black CherrySave 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 AspenRemove30 8 Box ElderSave 110 8 Quaking AspenSave 365 12 White Ash Remove 445 16.5 Hophornbeam Save 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1866 7 Quaking AspenRemove31 7 Black CherrySave 111 9 Red OakSave 366 8 White Ash Remove 446 9 Green Ash Save 1780 15 Quaking AspenRemove 1867 6 Quaking AspenRemove32 8 Black CherrySave 112 13 Red OakSave 367 11 White Ash Remove 1701 21 CottonwoodRemove 1781 6 Green AshRemove 1868 6 Quaking AspenRemove33 12 Black CherrySave 113 12 Red OakSave 368 10 White Ash Remove 1702 7 Black CherrySave 1782 6 Quaking AspenRemove 1869 8 Quaking AspenRemove34 6 Apple Save 114 6 Bur OakSave 369 6 White Ash Remove 1703 13 Green AshSave 1783 7 Quaking AspenRemove 1870 10 Red OakRemove35 8 Black CherrySave 115 8 American ElmSave 370 10 White Ash Remove 1704 7 Green AshRemove 1784 10 Black WalnutRemove 1871 6 Red OakRemove36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green Ash Remove 1705 7 Green AshRemove 1786 8 Box ElderRemove 1872 7 Red OakRemove37 6 Black CherrySave 117 19 Red OakSave 372 9.5 White Ash Remove 1706 12 Box ElderRemove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking AspenRemove38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 CottonwoodSave 373 15 White Ash Remove 1707 19 CottonwoodRemove 1788 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1874 6 Black Cherrypoor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green AshSave 374 15 Green Ash Remove 1708 7 CottonwoodSave 1789 10 Box ElderRemove 1875 25 CottonwoodRemove40 8 Black CherrySave 120 7 Green AshSave 375 10.5 White Ash Save 1709 6 CottonwoodSave 1790 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black CherrySave 121 6 Green AshSave 376 12 White Ash Save 1710 7 American ElmSave 1791 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American ElmRemove 377 8.5 White Ash Save 1711 30 CottonwoodSave 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1878 6 Quaking AspenRemove43 10 (25') Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green AshSave 378 8.5 White Ash Remove 1712 35 CottonwoodSave 1793 11 Green AshSave 1879 7 Quaking AspenRemove44 8 Black CherrySave 124 12 Red OakSave 379 15.5 Green Ash Remove 1713 6 Box ElderSave 1794 11 Black WalnutSave 1880 7 Quaking AspenRemove45 6 Bur OakSave 125 11 Red OakSave 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box ElderSave 1795 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1881 7 Quaking AspenRemove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur Oak Remove 381 11.5 Green Ash Save 1715 18 CottonwoodSave 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking AspenRemove47 6 Green AshSave 302 16 Cottonwood Remove 382 14.5 Green Ash Save 1716 12 Box ElderSave 1797 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1883 9 Quaking AspenRemove48 6 Green AshSave 303 20.5 White Ash Remove 383 16 White Ash Save 1717 10 Siberian ElmSave 1798 12 Red OakRemove 1884 6 Quaking AspenRemove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Remove 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking AspenRemove 1885 6 Quaking AspenRemove50 7 Green AshSave 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box ElderRemove 1800 10 Quaking AspenRemove 1886 7 Quaking AspenRemove51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green Ash Save 386 17.5 White Ash Save 1720 6 Black CherryRemove 1807 10 American Elm poor Remove 1887 7 Quaking AspenRemove52 6 Bur OakSave 307 17.5 Green Ash Save 387 10 White Ash Save 1721 7 Black CherrySave 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Remove 1888 12 Red OakRemove53 6 Black CherrySave 308 6 Black Cherry Save 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black CherrySave 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 1889 13 Black CherryRemove54 6 Bur OakSave 309 10 American Elm Save 389 7 White Ash Save 1723 13 Box ElderSave 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1890 6 Red OakRemove55 6 Green AshSave 310 42 Cottonwood Save 390 13.5 White Ash Save 1724 7 Black CherrySave 1811 12 Quaking AspenRemove 1891 12 Red OakRemove56 6 Black CherrySave 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White Ash Save 1725 9 Black CherrySave 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1892 7 Red OakRemove57 14 Red OakSave 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Save 392 18 White Ash Save 1726 8 Box ElderSave 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1893 8 Quaking AspenRemove58 15 Red OakSave 313 6 White Ash Save 393 22.5 White Ash Remove 1727 7 Black CherrySave 1814 28 Red OakSave 1894 7 Quaking AspenRemove59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White Ash Save 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Remove 1728 6 Black CherrySave 1815 24 Red OakSave 1895 7 Quaking AspenRemove60 7 Black WillowSave 315 22 Cottonwood Save 395 10 White Ash Remove 1729 9 Box Elder poor Save 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking AspenRemove61 8 Green AshSave 316 7 Black Cherry Save 396 25 White Ash Save 1730 8 Box ElderSave 1817 6 Red OakSave 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove62 10 Green AshSave 317 14.5 Siberian Elm Save 397 12 Green Ash Remove 1731 10 Box ElderRemove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking AspenRemove63 6 Green AshSave 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White Ash Remove 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American ElmRemove64 10 Green AshSave 319 7 Box Elder Save 399 16.5 White Ash Remove 1733 10 Black CherrySave 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking AspenRemove65 8 Green AshSave 320 9 Quaking Aspen Save 400 21 White Ash Remove 1734 8 Box Elder poor Save 1821 12 Red OakSave66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black Cherry Save 401 6.5 Buckthorn Remove 1735 12 Black CherrySave 1822 11 Red OakSave67 10 Green AshSave 322 14.5 Box Elder Save 402 7.5 Buckthorn Remove 1736 6 Box ElderSave 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green AshSave 323 10 Box Elder Save 403 7 White Ash Remove 1737 14 Black CherrySave 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green AshSave 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White Ash Remove 1738 8 Box ElderSave 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red OakSave 325 9 Box Elder Save 405 8.5 White Ash Remove 1739 8 Quaking AspenSave 1826 7 Black CherrySave71 7 Bur OakSave 326 8 Box Elder Save 406 10 Box Elder Remove 1740 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1827 6 Black CherrySave72 9 Bur OakSave 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box Elder Remove 1741 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1828 9 Black CherrySave73 7 Apple Save 328 8 Buckthorn Save 408 14 Green Ash Remove 1742 8 Quaking AspenRemove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 Apple Save 329 54 Cottonwood Save 409 15 White Ash Remove 1743 9 Quaking AspenRemove 1830 8 Apple Save75 6 Green AshSave 330 15 Box Elder Save 410 8.5 Box Elder Remove 1744 6 Box ElderSave 1831 8 Black CherrySave76 7 Green AshSave 331 8 Box Elder Save 411 7 Amur Cork Tree Save 1745 12 American ElmSave 1832 7 Black CherrySave77 6 Black CherrySave 332 9 Box Elder Save 412 12 Box Elder Save 1746 8 Quaking AspenSave 1833 8 Black CherrySave78 8 American ElmSave 333 13 Box Elder Save 413 9 American Elm Save 1747 9 Black CherrySave 1834 7 Black CherrySave79 9 Black CherrySave 334 9 Box Elder Save 414 8.5 Black Cherry Save 1748 9 Quaking AspenSave 1835 10 Black CherrySave80 12 Black CherrySave 335 63.5 Cottonwood Save 415 9 Black Cherry Save 1749 10 Quaking AspenSave 1836 12 Red Oak poor SavePage 136 of 246
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 137 of 246
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 138 of 246
Page 139 of 246
Page 140 of 246
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 141 of 246
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 142 of 246
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 143 of 246
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 144 of 246
Veronica Ln- Here is a cul-de-sac that was dedicated but never constructed.
Page 145 of 246
Winston Crt- Here is a cul-de-sac that was dedicated but never constructed.
Page 146 of 246
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 147 of 246
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 148 of 246
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 149 of 246
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 150 of 246
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 151 of 246
741 Knollwood Crt- This lot has no frontage on a developed city street. It utilizes a shared private
driveway with the eastern neighbor.
Page 152 of 246
1147 Orchard Cir- This lot does not have frontage along a city constructed street.
Page 153 of 246
630 Wentworth Ave- Lot with no frontage on city constructed street. The access point to this lot
is off Wentworth.
Page 154 of 246
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 155 of 246
1264 Sibley Memorial Hwy- Here is a residential lot with a house that does not have frontage on a
city constructed street.
Page 156 of 246
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 157 of 246
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 158 of 246
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 159 of 246
Page 160 of 246
Page 161 of 246
Page 162 of 246
Page 163 of 246
Page 164 of 246
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 165 of 246
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 166 of 246
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 167 of 246
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 168 of 246
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 169 of 246
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 170 of 246
·-·-·-·-,---------
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 171 of 246
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 172 of 246
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 173 of 246
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 174 of 246
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 175 of 246
Website | Connect
smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov
Pronouns: she/her
Page 176 of 246
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 177 of 246
· 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 178 of 246
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 179 of 246
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 180 of 246
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 181 of 246
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 182 of 246
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 183 of 246
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 184 of 246
Page 185 of 246
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 186 of 246
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 187 of 246
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 188 of 246
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 189 of 246
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 190 of 246
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 191 of 246
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 192 of 246
Page 193 of 246
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 194 of 246
Page 195 of 246
Page 196 of 246
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 197 of 246
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 198 of 246
· 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 199 of 246
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 200 of 246
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 201 of 246
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 202 of 246
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 203 of 246
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 204 of 246
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 205 of 246
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 206 of 246
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 207 of 246
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 208 of 246
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 209 of 246
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 210 of 246
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 211 of 246
Paul Pontinen
1760 Ridgewood Drive
Page 212 of 246
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 213 of 246
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 214 of 246
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 215 of 246
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 216 of 246
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 217 of 246
·-·-·-·-,---------
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 218 of 246
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 219 of 246
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 220 of 246
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 221 of 246
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 222 of 246
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 223 of 246
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 224 of 246
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 225 of 246
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 226 of 246
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 227 of 246
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 228 of 246
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
FOR
MCMILLAN ESTATES
TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
REF: MH Planning Case No. 2024-01
THIS DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT (hereafter the “Agreement”), is made and entered
into this ______ day of ________________, 2024, by and between the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota, a municipal corporation and political subdivision under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, having its principal office at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
(hereafter the “City”) and Spencer McMillan, a Minnesota ___________, along with their
successors and assigns (hereafter the “Developer”), and having his primary residence at 1707
Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the subject property consists of 16.63 acres in area, is generally located in
the area midblock and directly north of Ridgewood Drive on the west side of Delaware Avenue,
south of Wentworth Avenue, and north of Marie Avenue and officially addressed as 1707
Delaware Avenue and adjacent and adjoining parcels owned in common by the Developer, and is
legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use
Plan and is zoned R-1A One Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to plat a new subdivision consisting of three (3) new
lots in Mendota Heights, to be known as “MCMILLAN ESTATES” to Mendota Heights
(hereafter the "Development"), and which is fully illustrated and described on attached Exhibit-B;
and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council of the City adopted Resolution No. 2024-
38, which granted approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat request of McMillan Estates (the
‘Development”), which is the planned re-subdivision of the Property described herein and described
on attached Exhibit B and is made part of this Agreement (the “Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has prepared and intends to record a final plat of the new
subdivision consisting of three (3) single-family dwelling lots (the “Project”), to be platted and known
as “McMillan Estates” (the “Final Plat”) attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, the Developer shall prepare and submit for approval to the City the final grading
and drainage plans, which shall include any and all related specifications, drawings and related
documents with respect to all Infrastructure Improvements (herein defined) as contained in the final
Grading and Drainage Plans (the “Final Plans”), approved by the Public Works Director.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 229 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 2 of 9
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises and
conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows:
SECTION 1 - Representations and Warranties
A.Representations by the City. The City represents, warrants, and covenants to the following:
a)The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision duly organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The City is authorized and has the requisite
power to enter into this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder.
b)The City shall use reasonable efforts to cooperate and work with the Developer in
connection with:
i.further applications, agreements, amendments and approvals relating to, among other
things, site plan, planned unit developments, subdivision, utility and other
development matters to permit the development of the Property in accordance with
this Agreement and the Final Plans;
ii.any requirements of local, state or federal governments or agencies thereof relating
to the development of the Project; and
iii.coordinating the sequencing, commencement and completion of the Infrastructure
Improvements.
B.Representations, Covenants and Warranties by the Developer. The Developer represents,
warrants, and covenants to the following:
a)The Developer is not in violation of any the laws of local, state or federal government, and
has all necessary power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out its
obligations hereunder.
b)All Infrastructure Improvements constructed by the Developer will be constructed,
operated and maintained (to the extent retained by it) in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement, the Final Plans and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including,
but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code, energy conservation, and public
health laws and regulations).
c)The Developer has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal
official that the activities of the Developer in the Property may be or will be in violation of
any known state or federal environmental laws. The Developer has no knowledge of any
facts, the existence of which would cause it or any of its projects to be in violation of any
environmental laws, or which would give any person a valid claim under any such
environmental laws.
d)The Developer shall use its reasonable efforts to pursue and obtain, in a diligent and timely
manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and will seek to meet, in a timely
manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations
which must be obtained or met before the Infrastructure Improvements may be lawfully
constructed.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 230 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 3 of 9
e)Neither the execution nor the delivery of this Agreement by the Developer, nor the
consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, materially
limited by, or materially conflicts with or results in a material breach of the terms,
conditions or provisions of any restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or
instrument of whatever nature to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is
bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing.
f)The Developer shall cooperate and use its reasonable efforts with the City, in a reasonable,
timely and diligent manner, in connection with (a) applications, agreements, amendments
and approvals relating to, among other things, site plan, planned unit developments,
subdivision, utility installation, submittal for approval of Final Plans and other
development matters to permit the development of the Property in accordance with this
Agreement and the Final Plans, (b) any requirements of local, state or federal governments
or agencies thereof relating to the development of the Project, and (c) coordinating the
sequencing, commencement and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements.
SECTION 2 - Infrastructure Improvements
a)Final Plans. The Developer will install and construct at its sole expense the following improvements,
according to and as shown on the Final Plans, which shall include or provide for at a minimum,
specifications for the following, which collectively upon approval as provided for herein shall be
known as the “Infrastructure Improvements,” and per the following terms and conditions:
(a)Grading and compacting of the Property as necessary for the installation of Infrastructure
Improvements set forth herein and as shown on a specific Final Plans for the Property;
(b)Installation of the public roadway system, identified on the Final Plat as Ridgewood Drive
(the “Public Road”) in compliance with all City requirements; plus all of the following
when located within the Public Road: curbs, gutters, fire hydrants, and related fire safety
items meeting the requirements of the Fire Chief, public street signs, non-mechanical
traffic controls, landscaping, trees, ground cover or plantings;
(c)Installation of necessary utilities within the Public Road including without limitation: 1)
electric, 2) telephone, 3) natural gas, 4) water, 5) sanitary sewer, 6) cable, and 7) storm
sewer;
(d)All landscaping and erosion control measures necessary for the Development as shown on
the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (the “SWPPP”)
as contained in the Final Plans;
(e)St. Paul Regional Water Services. Installation of water mains shall be in accordance with
the Final Plans and shall conform with the St. Paul Regional Water Services (the “RWS”)
specifications; and
(f)Sanitary Sewer and Water Easements. All easements and public right-of-ways shall be
dedicated to the City, as shown on the Final Plat, for all sanitary sewer and water utilities.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 231 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 4 of 9
b)Developer Requirements. The Developer shall be financially responsible for the completion of
the Infrastructure Improvements in compliance with the Final Plans. Additionally, the Developer
shall be solely responsible for completion of the following:
a)Demolition. Demolition and removal of the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, all
existing structures, foundations, un-useable septic systems, utilities and un-useable
driveways or roadways.
b)Erosion Control. Prior to initiating any Infrastructure Improvements or site grading, the
erosion control measures depicted on the Final Plans, the Erosion Control Plan, and the
SWPPP shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved in writing by
the City. The City may, in its sole discretion, impose at no cost to the City, reasonable,
additional erosion control requirements on the Developer if the City determines that such
additional measures are necessary to meet the erosion control requirements as described in
the Final Plans. All areas disturbed by grading shall be reasonably reseeded in a timely
fashion to meet the erosion control requirements as described in the Final Plans. All
seeded areas shall be mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. If the
Developer does not comply with the Erosion Control Plan and the SWPPP or
supplementary conditions imposed by the City, the City may take such reasonable action
as is necessary to control erosion. The City will notify the Developer in advance of any
proposed action. The Developer shall be solely responsible for any costs properly incurred
by the City for erosion control measures. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for
any cost the City properly incurred for such work within thirty (30) days of invoice, the
City shall be allowed to recover its cost by execution securities contained in the Escrow
Agreement (hereafter defined). No Infrastructure Improvement or paving construction will
be allowed unless the Project is in compliance with the erosion control requirements.
c)Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for maintenance of the
storm water improvements shown on the Final Plans during the construction of the Project.
The Developer shall provide the City with an inspection report and as-built grading plan
verifying the ponds are constructed and operating in accordance with the Final Plans.
Subsequent maintenance, as required by any federal, state or local governmental entity or
regulation shall be provided by the City.
d)Easement and Right-of-Way Dedications. The Final Plat recorded in Dakota County for
the Project shall include, at no cost to the City, any and all required utility, drainage, public
and access easements as identified on the Final Plat and within this Agreement.
e)Plantings in Easement Areas. Any plantings or landscaping in the aforementioned
easements or right-of-ways shall be as provided in the Final Plans and any new landscape
plan submitted for each new single-family building lot.
f)Utility Locations. Delivery of an as-built survey of all utilities that fall with the
aforementioned easements or right-of-ways to the City based on the Dakota County
coordinate system and within two (2) feet of the horizontal, including:
i.Top nut of hydrants, catch basin and manhole rims and inverts,
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 232 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 5 of 9
ii.Sanitary sewers at the wye, property line and where it enters the single-family
residential unit or other structure,
iii.Water services at the corporation stop, curb box and where it enters the single-family
residential unit or other structure,
iv.Flared end sections,
v.Drain tile within the right-of-way, and
vi.Any other information or utility work necessary, as determined by the Minnesota
Office of Pipeline Safety, necessary for the City to conform to the requirements of
Minnesota Administrative Rule 7560.
g)Park Dedication. In lieu of land dedication, a Park Dedication fee in the amount of
$8,000.00 total, or $4,000.00 for each new buildable Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the
Development, shall be paid prior to recording of the final plat with Dakota County
or issuance of any new building permits by the City (on each lot).
h)Pre-Construction Meeting. The Developer agrees to hold one or more pre-construction
meetings prior to the initiation of the Infrastructure Improvements, which meetings shall
include the Developer, its engineers and contractors, the Public Works Director and other
City staff, Dakota County, MnDOT (if necessary), RWS representatives, and
representatives from all other private utility providers serving the Development.
i)Quality of Work. The Developer agrees that all the Infrastructure Improvements, including
all labor, materials and supplies, shall be done and performed in a good and workmanlike
manner and in conformance with the Final Plans as approved by the City, and on file with
the City Clerk.
j)Engineering and Location Services. The Developer shall furnish all engineering services
for the Infrastructure Improvements, including:
i.Preparation of complete plans and specifications by a professional engineer;
ii.Geotechnical testing for design and during construction of the Infrastructure
Improvements;
iii.Determination, by a professional excavator or land surveyor, of the precise location
of underground utility facilities, without damage, prior to excavating within two feet
on either side of the marked location of said facilities; and
iv.Unless the Public Works Director makes a written determination that technology is
not currently available, installation of a locating wire that effectively marks the
location of each nonconductive underground facility installed after December 31,
2005 within a public right-of-way.
k)Hours of Operation. Developer will not permit any grading, construction, mobilization,
equipment maintenance, fueling or other physical work to be conducted on the site outside
of the specified working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 233 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 6 of 9
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Permission from the Mendota Heights City Council is required
for work on Sundays or Holidays.
l)Staking and Inspection. It is further agreed that the Developer shall provide any staking or
surveying services as required by the Public Works Director. The Developer agrees to
reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of a written request, for the cost of the City to
provide a City inspector for any required or requested inspection of any Infrastructure
Improvements in order to assure that the completed Infrastructure Improvements conform
to the Final Plans. The City and RWS will provide for general and final inspection and
shall be notified of all tests to be performed. The Developer shall use reasonable efforts to
coordinate its inspector, the City Inspector and RWS inspectors’ inspections at various
times to check the condition of water stop boxes and other utility extensions.
m)Emergency Access. At all times prior to sale of all of the single-family residential units,
the Developer shall provide maintain emergency access to the Development as all time.
n)Building Permits. As part of the building permit application process, the City shall promptly
review plans prepared by the Developer and/or its contractors, and shall use good faith efforts
to review the plans and approve or disapprove within twenty-one (21) business days. The
City’s approval of the plans shall not be unreasonably withheld and the Developer will
promptly reply to requests for additional information or clarification on items requested by the
City in order to ensure an efficient review process. The plans for the Infrastructure
Improvements shall be consistent with standard City practices. If the plans vary from the
written terms of this Agreement, the written terms of the plans approved by the City shall
control.
o)Certificate of Occupancy. No Certificate of Occupancy for any new single-family
residential unit shall be issued by the City unless and until all Infrastructure Improvements
serving the Project and all residential units have been installed, inspected and accepted by
the City and by RWS and are available for use, and to the reasonable satisfaction of the
City and so long as no Event of Default exists under this Agreement, remains uncured by
the Developer. Furthermore, the Developer shall maintain reasonable access to any
occupied units, including necessary street maintenance such as grading and graveling and
snow removal prior to permanent street surfacing of the Public Road.
p)Final Inspection. Upon completion of all Infrastructure Improvements except the final
paving lift to the Public Road, and written notice from the Developer to the Public Works
Director, the Public Works Director or a designated representative, a representative of the
Developer, its contractor, and its engineer will make a final inspection of the Infrastructure
Improvements. Before final payment is made to any contractor responsible for the
Infrastructure Improvements by the Developer, the Public Works Director shall give the
Developer written notice that the Public Works Director is satisfied that all Infrastructure
Improvements except the final paving lift were satisfactorily completed in accordance with
the approved Final Plans, as indicated in writing by the Public Works Director, and the
Developer shall submit to the City a written statement attesting to the same along with a
certificate, attested to by a Registered Land Surveyor, that all property corners and survey
control points have been properly installed. Upon completion of the Infrastructure
Improvements except the final paving lift to the Public Road, the Developer shall cause to
be provided to the Public Works Director an electronic copy of the Final Plans and the as-
built survey, both in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director. Such electronic
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 234 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 7 of 9
copies of Final Plans shall include survey control points. These electronic Final Plans shall
also include the locations, elevations and ties to all sanitary sewer and water main services.
The Developer shall remain obligated at its expense to complete the final paving lift as
weather permits.
SECTION 3 – Financial Commitments and Warranties
1.Escrow Agreement. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Developer
has agreed to provide a separate Escrow Agreement (the “Escrow Agreement”), dated as of the date
hereof, among the Developer, the City and a specified title services company (the “Title Company”)
to pay for and disburse funds for the payment of completed an accepted Infrastructure Improvement
work as part of the Development. The Developer shall furnish the City with a signed Escrow
Agreement, specifying a deposit of money and securities in an amount equal to 125% of the cost
of the Infrastructure Improvements. The amount of the Escrow Agreement shall be as determined
by the Developer’s engineer’s estimate, as further described in the Escrow Agreement. The amount
of the Escrow Agreement shall be $_______. The Title Company shall be subject to the approval
of the City; shall be authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, and with a principal branch
located within the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Escrow Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect until the Development has been completed or this Agreement has
been terminated.
2.No Warranty; Changes to Infrastructure Improvements. Approval of the Final Plans, any
portion thereof or any changes thereto by the City is not intended, nor shall it be construed to be a
warranty or representation by the City as to: (i) the compliance of the Project with any federal,
state, or local statutes, regulations, or ordinances; (ii) the structural soundness of the proposed
Project; (iii) quality of materials; (iv) workmanship; or (v) the fitness of the Infrastructure
Improvements for their proposed uses.
a)The Developer shall submit to the Public Works Director for approval any changes in the
Final Plans. The City shall approve changes in the Final Plans in writing if, in the
reasonable judgment of the City the changed Final Plans: (i) conform to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement; (ii) conform to the specifications established by the City or
Public Works Director; (iii) conform to all applicable local laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations; and (iv) the construction sequencing is such that the City will be able to comply
with its obligations set forth herein. No approval by the City of changes to the Final Plans
shall relieve the Developer of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
Any rejection of any change requested shall set forth the reasons therefor.
b)For any changes in the Infrastructure Improvements, said improvements shall not be
constructed until the City has issued a written approval of any such requested change to
the Final Plans.
c)The City may choose to waive this procedure in the future as to any change, however, no
such waiver shall be construed as a waiver of the City’s rights pursuant to this Agreement
or this section with respect to further changes subsequent to any such waiver.
3.City Expenses. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for reasonable costs, fees, charges or
expenses of the City, related to legal costs, (not related to fees incurred in past litigation between
the parties), planning, and engineering services, including without limitation inspection, surveying,
supervision and administration costs and fees (collectively, the “City Expenses”) within thirty (30)
days of a receipt of a detailed invoice from the City. If such payments are not received by the City
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 235 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 8 of 9
within said thirty (30) days, all approvals of the City and the Public Works Director detailed in this
Agreement shall be suspended and have no effect until such time as the Developer has paid the
City for all City Expenses. Such lack of payment shall also constitute an Event of Default as
described in Section 5 of this Agreement.
4.Warranty. The Developer warrants all Infrastructure Improvements required to be constructed by
it pursuant to this Agreement against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period
for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years. The warranty
period on Infrastructure Improvements installed by the Developer shall commence on the date the
Public Works Director issues written acceptance of such improvements. The Developer shall post
warranty bonds as security. The City shall retain twenty-five (25%) of the security posted by the
Developer until the Public Works Director accepts the Infrastructure Improvements installed by the
Developer. All punch list items must be completed and “as-built” drawings received prior to the
commencement of the warranty period. The retained security may be used by the City to pay for
warranty work within the above-referenced warranty time periods. The City standard specifications
for utilities and street construction identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and
utilities. These standards are set out in the Public Works Design Manual.
5.City’s Right to Complete Improvements. The Developer is not required by this Agreement to
commence any Infrastructure Improvements, and the Developer may suspend or terminate its work
at any time; provided that all Infrastructure Improvements that have been commenced shall be
completed in a manner complying with applicable legal requirements and provided further that
upon final inspection the Developer shall be required to complete the final paving lift on the Public
Road in accordance with this Agreement. If the Developer fails to diligently prosecute in a timely
manner completion of any Infrastructure Improvements that have been commenced, in compliance
with and pursuant to the Final Plans, and fails to resume diligent prosecution of the same within
ten (10) days after receipt of notice of failure to diligently prosecute from the City, the City shall
be free to exercise its option to complete any of the Infrastructure Improvements required of the
Developer. The Developer agrees to be and shall be financially responsible for payment to the City
for correction of the non-conforming or abandoned work within thirty (30) days of formal billing
by the City. If the City has not been paid within 30 days of billing for this work, City may obtain
reimbursement through execution on securities contained in the Escrow Agreement, as further
described in this Agreement.
6.Infrastructure Improvement Acceptance by the City. Following acceptance of the Infrastructure
Improvements by the City and Public Works Director as described in this Agreement, the City
shall, in conjunction with other public entities as necessary, including but not limited to RWS, be
responsible to maintain and repair all Infrastructure Improvements located in the public easements
and rights-of-way of the Development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and regardless of when the
Infrastructure Improvements are actually accepted by the City, the Developer is responsible to
complete the final paving lift of the Public Road.
7.Maintenance Prior to City Acceptance. Until acceptance by the City of the Infrastructure
Improvements, the Developer shall be solely responsible for all maintenance and repair of the
Infrastructure Improvements. Prior to acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City,
the Developer shall cause warning signs and established detour routes to be placed on and around
such streets and other improvements whenever any dangerous or hazardous condition exists on the
Property, as necessary, to prevent public travel on and over such property. If and when streets
become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. Streets within the Development
may not otherwise be closed without the written approval of the Public Works Director. The
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 236 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 9 of 9
Developer shall be responsible for keeping paved streets within the Development swept clean of
dirt and debris that may spill or wash onto the street from this operation and shall conduct any
additional sweeping as reasonably requested by the City, at the Developer’s cost. The Developer
shall keep all the paved streets and access roads within the Development open during the winter
months by plowing snow from said streets prior to final acceptance of said streets by the City.
SECTION 4 - Indemnification, Release and Insurance
1. Indemnity. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors, materialmen, and
laborers, release and waive any claims of liability or responsibility in any way against the City, the
City Council, and its agents, consultants or employees, arising out of the performance and
completion of the Project provided for herein, except for any (i) breach by the City of its obligations
hereunder and (ii) gross negligence or intentional misconduct of the City. Additionally, the
Developer will unconditionally indemnify and hold the City harmless from all such claims,
demands, damages, actions or causes of actions or the cost of disbursement, and expenses of
defending the same, specifically including, without intending to limit the categories of said costs,
costs and expenses for City administrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering services
and costs of legal services rendered in connection with defending such claims as may be brought
against the City.
2. Release and Waiver. The Developer agrees to rely entirely upon its own property insurance for
coverage with respect to any damage, loss or injury to the property interests of the Developer in the
Project or interests which may be exposed to damage, loss or injury in connection therewith. The
Developer hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents, and others acting on its behalf
from all liability or responsibility to the Developer, and to anyone claiming through or under the
Developer, by way of subrogation or otherwise, for any loss of or damage to the Developer’s
business or property caused by fire or other peril or event to the extent that such fire or other peril
or event was covered by any type of real or personal property insurance, including any indirect
property insurance (such as business interruption coverage) in effect on the date of the loss, even if
such fire or other peril or event was caused in whole or in part by the negligence or other act or
omission of the City or other party who is to be released by the terms hereof; or by anyone for
whom such party may be responsible.
3. Insurance. Except as is specifically provided to the contrary in the following provisions of this
Section, the Developer agrees to provide and maintain at all times the insurance coverage set forth
in this Section, and to otherwise comply with the provisions that follow.
a) Builders’ Risk. Builders’ Risk Insurance, written on a Completed Value coverage form
(non-reporting), in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the insurable value
of the Infrastructure Improvements at the date of completion. Such coverage shall become
effective concurrent with the beginning of the process of construction, and shall continue
until replaced by the permanent all risk Property Insurance described below. Coverage
shall be provided on an “all risk” basis.
b) Workers’ Compensation. Workers’ Compensation insurance in compliance with all
applicable statutes. Such policy shall include Employer’s Liability coverage in at least
such amount(s) as are customarily provided in workers’ compensation policies issued in
Minnesota.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 237 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 10 of 9
c) General Liability. Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability insurance, providing
coverage on an “occurrence”, rather than on a “claims made” basis, which policy shall
include coverage for the Completed Operations Hazard, and which shall also include a
Broad Form General Liability Endorsement GL 0404 (Insurance Services Office form
designation), or an equivalent form (or forms), so long as such equivalent form (or forms)
affords coverage which is in all material respects at least as broad.
The Developer agrees to maintain total liability policy limits of at least $2,000,000,
applying to liability for Bodily Injury, Personal Injury, and Property Damage, which total
limits may be satisfied by the limits afforded under its Occurrence-Based Commercial
General Liability Policy (which Policy is to include the Broad Form Endorsement coverage
specified above), or by such Policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella
Liability Policy (or policies); provided, however, that the coverage afforded under any such
Umbrella Liability Policy shall be at least as broad as that afforded by the underlying
Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy (including Broad Form coverage).
Such Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy and Umbrella Liability
Policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverages afforded
thereunder, so long as such aggregate limits have not, as of the date of the Developer’s
possession of the Property, been reduced to less than the total required limits stated above,
and further, that the Umbrella Liability Policy provides coverage from the point that such
aggregate limits in the underlying Occurrence-Based Commercial General Liability Policy
become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella Policy which “drops down” to respond
immediately over reduced underlying limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits, but
subject to a deductible amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible
amount does not cause the Developer’s total deductible for each occurrence to exceed the
amount shown in the provision immediately below.
All such policies described in this Section shall also name the City as an additional insured
and permit waiver of claims in favor of the City. Copies of all policy certificates must be
provided to the City.
d) Property Insurance. All risk property insurance in an amount not less than the full insurable
replacement value of the Infrastructure Improvements. The term “full insurable
replacement value” shall mean the actual replacement cost of the Infrastructure
Improvements (excluding foundation and excavation costs and costs of underground flues,
pipes, drains, and other items customarily omitted from replacement cost valuation for
insurance purposes), without deduction for depreciation.
e) Insurers. All policies of insurance required under this Agreement shall be maintained with
financially sound and reputable insurers licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota
and as reasonably acceptable to the City. All policies of insurance required under this
Agreement shall be in form and content, and in all other respects reasonably satisfactory to
the City.
f) Non-Imputation. All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the
City or the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations,
promises, agreements and obligations of the City and not of any governing body member,
officer, agent, consultant or employee of the City, in their individual capacity.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 238 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 11 of 9
SECTION 5 - Events of Default
1.Defined. The term “Event of Default” shall mean any failure by the Developer or the City to
observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or
performed under this Agreement
2.Remedies. Whenever any party becomes aware of the occurrence of an Event of Default, the non-
defaulting party may, after providing twenty (20) days’ written notice to the defaulting party of the
Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said twenty (20) days
or, if the Event of Default is by its nature incurable within twenty days and the defaulting party
does not provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the non-defaulting party that the Event of
Default will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, take whatever other action permitted by law,
including the termination of this Agreement and any other legal, equitable or administrative action,
which may appear necessary or desirable to cure any such Event of Default or to enforce
performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Agreement.
3.No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to either party is intended
to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies. Each and every such remedy shall be
cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or
hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any remedy or
power accruing upon any Event of Default shall impair any such remedy or power or shall be
construed to be a waiver thereof. Any such remedy and power may be exercised from time to time
and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle either party to exercise any remedy
reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in
this Section.
4.No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any Event of Default is waived by
the non-defaulting party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular Event of Default so waived
and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent Event of Default
hereunder.
SECTION 6 - Expiration or Termination of Agreement
1.Automatic Expiration. This Agreement shall automatically expire upon:
a)Completion of the Infrastructure Improvements in accordance with the Final Plans; and
b)Acceptance of the Infrastructure Improvements by the City (not including the final paving
lift of the Public Road by the Developer).
In the case of any single-family housing unit sold to a third party that is not an affiliate of the
Developer, such unit shall be automatically released from this Agreement upon such sale so long
as a final Certificate of Occupancy for such unit has been issued by the City.
2.Option to Terminate. Except as otherwise provided herein, the City or the Developer may
terminate this Agreement if there occurs an Event of Default pursuant to this Agreement that is not
cured within the applicable cure period.
3.Effect of Termination. Following the termination or expiration of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall be null and void and of no effect.
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 239 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 12 of 9
4.Evidence of Termination. If requested by the Developer, the City will provide the Developer with
a certification recordable among the public land records certifying that this Agreement has been
terminated or has expired and, if true, that the Developer was not in default of its obligations
hereunder at the time of such termination or expiration.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 240 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 13 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and City have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed on the date and year first above written.
DEVELOPER – SPENCER MCMILLAN
Date:
Spencer McMillan
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________,
2024, by Spencer McMillan, and as the Developer noted herein.
Notary Public
[S E A L] DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 241 of 246
Developer’s Agreement – McMillan Estates
Spencer McMillan – 1707 Delaware Ave
___________
Page 14 of 9
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
Stephanie Levine, Mayor
Date:
Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________________,
2024, by Stephanie Levine and Cheryl Jacobson, the Mayor and City Administrator, respectively,
of the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation and political subdivision, on
behalf of such city.
Notary Public
[S E A L]
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 242 of 246
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Subject Property
ADDRESS: 1707 Delaware Ave, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PID NO.: 27-02400-78-010, 27-31100-00-020, and 27-31100-00-010
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
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 243 of 246
EXHIBIT – B
Final Plat of MCMILLAN ESTATES
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 244 of 246
EXHIBIT – C
Preliminary Plat of McMillan Estates
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 245 of 246
EXHIBIT- D
Resolution No. 2024-38
Adopted August 20, 2024
DRAF
T/
SAMPL
E
Page 246 of 246