Loading...
PC 06-25-2024June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 25, 2024 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2024 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:04 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of May 28, 2024 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2024. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field commented that there is a full agenda and because of the straightforward nature of most of the cases, the Commission has agreed to reorganize the agenda, taking the cases in reverse order beginning with case #2024-12 and working backward. Commissioner Johnson arrived. Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2024-12 BOLTON AND MENK (ST. THOMAS ACADEMY), 949 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD – VARIANCE Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Bolton and Menk, acting on behalf of St. Thomas Academy (STA) is requesting certain variance approvals in order to construct new baseball field improvements at STA’s campus, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road. The variances would allow a new covered batting cage structure and new covered spectator seating structure to exceed the maximum number, height, and overall size standards for structures within the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 26 Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson referenced the elevation of the batting cage, which looks to be closer to Rogers Lake and asked for more information. Commissioner Petschel commented that the cage is well over 100 feet from Rogers Lake, estimating about 500 feet. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a plan for additional trees. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that there is no proposed landscaping immediately adjacent to the batting cage. She stated that the information provided is what is required for this review and additional details may be required at the time of a building permit request. She stated that there were previously trees north of the baseball field that were proposed to be removed as part of the 2020 application and that was completed. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Paul Aplikowski, Wold Architects on behalf of the applicant, was presented to address any questions. Amy McQuillan, Director of Facilities at STA, thanked the Commission for considering the application. Commissioner Johnson asked if any trees are planned to be planted as there were trees shown in the rendering. Mr. Aplikowski replied that was an effect of the rendering. He noted that they would work with City staff through the building permit process to ensure they are in compliance. Commissioner Katz asked if they have talked to Patterson about the plan. Ms. McQuillan commented that they have spoken with Patterson, shared their plan and no additional questions were raised. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 26 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ALL NEW STRUCTURES IDENTIFIED HEREIN, INCLUDING ANY FENCE PERMITS FOR THE OTHER ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. 2. ANY PUBLIC ADDRESSING/SPEAKER SYSTEM USED ON THIS BASEBALL FIELD MUST BE CENTERED OR FOCUSED DIRECTLY ON TO THE BASEBALL FIELD OR THE BLEACHER/SPECTATOR STANDS. NO SPEAKERS OR NOISE SHALL BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES OR RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SCHOOL. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM THE SITE PLAN UNDER THIS APPLICATION REVIEW; NOR INCREASE ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NUMBERS, AREA (FOOTPRINT), OR HEIGHT WITHOUT FIRST SEEKING AND RECEIVEING CITY APPROVALS, UNLESS CITY CODE PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN OR ALLOWABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. 4. ANY AND ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 5. APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AND CORRESPONDING SITE PLAN. IF THE VARIANCES ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM SAID APPROVAL DATE. IF AFTER ONE YEAR NO WORK HAS COMMENCED, THE APPROVAL SHALL EXPIRE. THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION (TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL) IF NEEDED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF EXPIRATION. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2024-11 CUSHMAN WAKEFIELD (MSP SLP APARTMENTS LLC), 1270 NORTHLAND DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the owner of Mendota Office Center (6 total buildings within the office development) is intending to construct an outdoor sport court amenity for the use of the employees/tenants of the office center. The owner is proposing a June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 26 10’ tall chain link fence to enclose this amenity, which requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the I-Industrial zoning district. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the shared parking and access. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided additional details on the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the shared parking and ingress and egress. She noted that each building has more than the required parking stalls for their use. Commissioner Katz asked if staff talked to the applicants about any required signage. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that they have had discussions about locking the gate with signage that the amenity is private. She stated that the applicants plan to use key card access. Dennis Meadows, applicant, commented that they were lucky enough to have a tenant choose this location over another location. He stated that they are having a hard time finding tenants and believe that this additional amenity would help to make their location more attractive. He commented that a six-foot fence would not be high enough for pickleball. He noted that the additional height would also make the space more secure. He confirmed that the amenity would be for their business campus, and they would have signage that the amenity is not available for the general public. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1270 NORTHLAND June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 26 DRIVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10-FOOT-TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTS APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 10-FOOT-TALL FENCE TO ENCLOSE A PRIVATE SPORT COURT. THE PROPOSED SPORT COURT AMENITY IS AN INCIDENTAL ACCESSORY USE TO THE PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DOES NOT GRANT APPROVAL FOR ANY COMMERCIAL RECREATION BUSINESS OPERATIONS. 2. A COMMERCIAL RECREATION BUSINESS USE IS NOT PERMITTED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE. 3. THE APPLICANT/OWNER MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED CITY PERMITS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FENCE PERMIT AND A BUILDING PERMIT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2024 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2024-10 STEVE NORTON (NORTON REALTY), 1170 DODD ROAD – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant is seeking a Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the property located at 1170 Dodd Road to create a four-lot residential subdivision. The proposed subdivision will create three new residential lots, while the fourth lot is an existing parcel addressed as 8 Beebe Avenue which is included in the Plat application in order to preserve 38 feet of the 1170 Dodd Road site as part of their property. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one comment was received and included as part of the report. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel referenced an arch on the plat and asked if that is an existing driveway. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that was an existing driveway which has been demolished. June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 26 Chair Field asked what would happen in MnDOT were to deny the access. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the lots require 100 feet of lot width on a City street and therefore that requirement would be met. She stated that access could be established in conjunction with the City and MnDOT. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that MnDOT could put limitations or qualifications on their approval, but access would be provided to Dodd Road. Steve Norton, applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Katz asked if the applicant has any concerns with access onto Dodd Road. Mr. Norton replied that he does not. Commissioner Stone asked if the plan would be to construct three homes, or whether they would plan to build twinhomes. Mr. Norton commented that this is single-family zoning so these would be single-family homes. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Laurel Stokke, 571 Mears, she commented that Dodd Road has a high speed and perhaps this would be an opportunity to lower the speed around that corner. She also expressed concern with drainage as that area is very wet. Julie Gugin, 9 Dorset Road, suggested that MnDOT be consulted first rather than assuming what they will or will not allow. She also suggested that the developer host a small community meeting to have a conversation about the intent, what this will look like, and to provide an opportunity of what this could look like as this has been a longstanding vacant parcel. Mr. Norton commented that the intent is as outlined with three additional single-family homes, setback in parallel with 1160 Dodd Road. He commented that there would still be a substantial setback from the Dorset properties. He commented that Ms. Stokke would be the closest neighbor and they would ensure they have a proper drainage plan and have plans for erosion control during construction. He commented that two of the people building on the southerly lot are present tonight and they would be willing to have a meeting to discuss the plans. He commented that there will be homes on the northerly lots, but he is unsure as to when that would happen. Commissioner Katz asked if the area is designated as a wetland, noting that it is quite wet. Mr. Norton commented that the portion near Dodd Road is lower and therefore gets quite wet but is not designated as a wetland. June 25, 2024 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 26 Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION OF STEVE NORTON FOR THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF A FOUR-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS SPRINGMAN ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE PRELIMINARY PLANS PRESENTED UNDER THIS PLAT REQUEST DO NOT REPRESENT OR PROVIDE APPROVAL OF BUILDING PAD SITES, SETBACKS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, OR DRIVEWAY ALIGNMENTS. FINAL LAYOUTS MUST MEET R-1 ZONE STANDARDS AND SHALL BE APPROVED UNDER SEPARATE BUILDING PERMITS FOR EACH LOT. 2. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 3. THE PARCELS KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 1, SPRINGMAN ADDITION, CREATED UNDER THIS PLAT, MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE ACCESS TO DODD ROAD HAS BEEN GRANTED BY MNDOT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. 4. THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLANS AND A DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN WITH ASSOCIATE EASEMENTS, SUGJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 5. ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ON EACH NEW BUILDABLE LOT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 6. IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION, THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL PAY A PARK DEDICATION FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 PER UNIT (4 LOTS – 1 EXISTING DWELLING = 3 x $4,000/UNIT, OR $12,000) IS TO BE COLLECTED AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT IS RELEASED FOR RECORDING WITH DAKOTA COUNTY, AND BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS. 7. ANY NEW OR EXISTING SANITARY OR WATER SERVICE LINES WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AN/OR ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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