Loading...
05272025 Planning Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 27, 2025 at 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Election of Planning Commission Vice Chair for Year 2025 4. Approval of Minutes a. Approve meeting minutes from the March 31, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting. 5. Public Hearings a. CASE No. 2025-03 Preliminary Plat Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary Plat of three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels. 6. New and Unfinished Business a. CASE No. 2025-06 Concept PUD Application of Condor Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 2320 Lexington Avenue 7. Updates/Staff Comments 8. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aid. However, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. Page 1 of 68 March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 31, 2025 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 31, 2025, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Cindy Johnson, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: Commissioners Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Patrick Corbett. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2025 Chair Field commented that this is a continued action from the previous meeting, and he would be willing to continue serving as Chair. Commissioner Goldade asked if this should again be tabled as there are now three absences at this meeting. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden recognized that there was a tie vote at the last meeting, and there is not necessarily a process within City Code related to that situation. She stated that the Commission tabled the decision before making the decision to reschedule the March meeting date to March 31st. She stated that the Commission could table the decision to the next meeting, recognizing that there may not be full attendance at the next meeting. She noted that there may not be an April meeting, and, therefore, the decision for a Chair and Vice Chair may end up at the May meeting. Commissioner Johnson believed that under Robert’s Rules of Order, if there is a tie vote, the Chair would be reappointed. COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ELECT LITTON FIELD AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2025. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Goldade asked Chair Field to provide some background information for the benefit of new member, Commissioner Nath. Chair Field provided background information on his experience on the Commission and in the role of Chair. AYES: 4 Page 2 of 68 March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO TABLE THE ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR TO THE NEXT MEETING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Approval of February 25, 2025 Minutes COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GOLDADE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2025. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Goldade commented that he drove by Dodd and 62 and recognized that a significant amount of work would be needed to create a path in that area to Ridge Place. He wanted the public to understand that the approval was for the opportunity for that to be created, but it is not something that will happen quickly. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the County is leaning towards the north option for an underpass, which would have major impacts on vegetation to the northwest corner. He stated that in 2025 and 2026, they will complete the design and necessary acquisition, with construction planned in 2027. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Field welcomed Commissioner Nath to the Commission. Commissioner Nath introduced himself. Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2025-02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the City is requesting consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendment to its 2040 Comprehensive Plan, modifying the “Future Land Use Plan” and guided land use of 99.23 acres of land. The current land use of the 99.23 acres is I-Industrial, and the proposed land use is B-Business. The subject area was evaluated during the City’s Zoning Code Update project and found to contain a majority of existing uses that are more consistent with commercial zoning than industrial zoning. The proposed change in land use is consistent with the Zoning Map updates, which were adopted in September of 2024 and went into effect on January 1, 2025. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Page 3 of 68 March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 4 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, subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council, based on the findings of fact. Commissioner Goldade asked for clarification on the difference between business and industrial. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided details on the types of businesses that would be allowed with the change, recognizing that there is not a large difference between the two guidings. Commissioner Goldade asked the number of spaces that are vacant versus occupied in this area proposed for change. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that none of the buildings were 100 percent empty, but had some vacancies. She stated that there is one green vacant site within the area proposed for change. Commissioner Goldade asked how a place of worship would be considered and whether they could be located in this type of zoning. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that a place of worship is allowed in the public/semi-public overlay and as a conditional use within the residential districts. She stated that type of use is not currently listed as allowed in the business or industrial districts. Commissioner Johnson commented that this would seem to rename the district to better match the existing uses, but asked if that is necessary, as the current guiding seem to match. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the current guiding is a close match, but because the zoning of this area has already been changed, the guiding also needs to be changed to match. Commissioner Nath asked if this change would eliminate the ability for someone in this area to continue to run their business. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that the current uses in this area would not be in conflict with the change. Commissioner Goldade asked if the Bourn property is within this area. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the Bourn Lane properties are not included in this area. Page 4 of 68 March 31, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 4 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 GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER GOLDADE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 15, 2025, meeting. New and Unfinished Business Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on recent actions of the City Council and other items of interest to the Commission. Adjournment COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:33 P.M. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 Page 5 of 68 5.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 27, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-03 Preliminary Plat Application of Spencer McMillan for a Preliminary Plat of three (3) existing parcels into six (6) single-family residential parcels located at 1707 Delaware Avenue and its adjacent vacant parcels. Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant is seeking a Preliminary 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 six 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 current property owner and applicant submitted a previous application in 2024, known as Planning Case No. 2024-01, which subdivided the subject site into three new lots of record. The Planning Commission reviewed that application at public hearings in March-June of 2024, and the City Council reviewed the application at their regular meetings in July-August, 2024. The City Council was not supportive of the applicant’s prior request to defer public improvements. Ultimately, the applicant withdrew the prior application in order to re-submit with greater detail and required information to the City relating to the construction of the cul- de-sac extension of Ridgewood Drive. 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. Some of these public comments were received as part of submitted comments on the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Joint Water Resources Page 6 of 68 Application. Those comments have been included in the total instances of public comments. 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 dedicate new right-of-way for an extension of Ridgewood Avenue, ending in a new cul-de-sac, and create six new lots of record from these parcels. Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are intended to be platted for future development of new single-family homes. The proposed Lot 4 would remain as the applicant’s residence but would be subdivided into a smaller parcel. In order to establish the required 125-foot of frontage on a city approved street for new platted lots in an R-E District, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 38,158 s.f. (.88 acres) of right-of- way extending north from the existing Ridgewood Drive right-of-way. The dedicated right-of- way would allow for the construction of an extension northward of Ridgewood Drive into the proposed subdivision, ending in a new cul-de-sac bulb. The street extension would be required to be constructed prior to the construction of any of the new single-family homes, and the work would include the removal of the existing cul-de-sac on Ridgewood Drive, to be replaced with a straight street extension. More information on this design 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. The wetland impacts proposed under that prior application are no longer applicable to the site. The applicant has concurrently submitted a new Joint Water Resources Application to the City to request approval of the wetland impacts Page 7 of 68 associated with this development. This topic is discussed in further detail in the Wetland Impacts section of this report. 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 Plat documents attached to this report. If the Preliminary Plat is approved by the City Council and there are not any significant changes to the Final Plat from their approval, then the Final Plat will be reviewed at a later date by the City Council. 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 five new residences plus the existing residential unit calculates to a density of 0.54 units/acre, which is within the range 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). 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. Page 8 of 68 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-E District, all new lots must have a minimum of 30,000-sf. of lot area. All three lots significantly exceed the size minimum requirement, as illustrated in the table below. Proposed Lot 1 158,544 SF 3.64 Acres Proposed Lot 2 61,652 SF 1.42 Acres Proposed Lot 3 53,242 SF 1.22 Acres Proposed Lot 4 153,532 SF 3.52 Acres Proposed Lot 5 77,002 SF 1.77 Acres Proposed Lot 6 162,659 SF 3.73 Acres The proposed Preliminary Plat and preliminary plans provided by the applicant illustrate outlines of potential building areas on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. In reviewing these outlined layouts, setbacks to front, side, and rear lot lines can be met due to the large acreage on all parcels. For the R-E District, all new lots require a minimum of 125-ft of lot width along a city approved street. Lot 4 (existing residence) will maintain its 329+ feet of frontage along Delaware Avenue. The remaining lots are proposed to have frontage and a lot width along the Ridgewood Drive extension of approximately 570-ft, ending in a new constructed cul-de-sac bulb and making the total cul-de-sac length approximately 1,220-ft in length. This dimension of the extension is measured from the existing north curb of the Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, to the proposed north curb of the new cul-de-sac. The proposed new single-family lots show compliance with the minimum 125-ft of frontage and lot width on this street and cul-de-sac extension. Lot width is Page 9 of 68 defined as the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first 30' of the lot depth. Based on this definition, the proposed Lots 2 and 3 are able to meet the minimum 125-ft lot width standard based on the length of the arc at a 30-ft setback from the proposed cul-de-sac bulb, with the lot width of the proposed Lot 2 measured at 138-ft, and the width of the proposed Lot 3 measured at 126-ft. 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. The previous iteration of this application was reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission in February 2024, and the County is currently reviewing this plat application internally related to the requested and provided right-of-way of 60-ft of half right-of-way, in accordance with their review procedures. The February 2024 memo from the Dakota County Surveyor’s Office is included as an attachment to this report. Street, Utility and Grading Plan The applicant has provided a full construction plan set for the grading of the site, as well as street and storm sewer plans, drainage details, and utility plans, attached to this report as Plan Sheets C6-C15. 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, or driveways are being proposed. The house locations as shown on the provided plans are preliminary, 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 into the proposed Ridgewood Drive right-of-way extension, terminating just north of the new proposed cul-de-sac bulb. The santitary sewer line will also be extended from the existing manhole north of the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac, to a new manhole within the proposed cul-de-sac. The proposed santitary sewer line is 8” within the extended street and will flow by gravity south to connect with the existing manhole and 9” service line installed in the existing Ridgewood Drive cul-de-sac. A new fire hydrant will also be installed in the right-of-way just north of the cul-de-sac extension. The plans show the ability for future service connections to be made into the main line for any future construction of homes on the five new vacant 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. The applicant has also provided a wider easement along the southern property line of Lot 6, measuring at 15-ft in width, based on the prior Page 10 of 68 application’s recommendations from staff, the Planning Commission, and during the City Council’s review, to accommodate appropriate easement width for neighboring properties to petition for sanitary sewer extension to the east, if they so choose. The applicant has also provided a 60-ft utility easement directly north of the new cul-de-sac which could accommodate future utility extension to the north if petitioned by a northern neighboring property owner, or if additional future development north of this development site occurs. This easement area measures approximately 104-ft in length from the northern point of the cul-de-sac right-of-way to the northern edge of this subdivision. Lastly, additional easement width is provided at the shared property line between the proposed Lots 3 and 5, measuring 10-ft on each side, which could accommodate future utility services to 1707 Delaware Ave. All wetlands will be covered by similar drainage and utility easements, with varying widths. The City’s new Zoning Ordinance that went into effect January 1, 2025 references the new Title 15- Environmental Standards and the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) rules, but also requires an average buffer depth of 25-ft, with a minimum dimension of 10-ft and a maximum dimension of 50-ft. The applicant has provided a buffer area which meets these requirements, with the shortest dimension of the buffer area located on the proposed Lot 6, where the applicant is proposing 467 SF of wetland impact. The Ordinance does require that any drive aisles must be setback a minimum of 5-ft from any required buffer area, unless otherwise permitted by the Title 15-Environmental Standards. Title 15, Chapter 4: Wetland Conservation permits a Buffer Setback area to be disturbed upon approval of the City. This Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application is discussed later in this report. The wetland and wetland buffers’ easements, as well as the perimeter drainage and utility easements will be provided and officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording, if approved. The building pad sites and associated driveway access points shown on the plans are potential, and final house locations, individual grading plans and impacts, and construction-level architectural plans for the homes, will be provided at the time of building permit for home construction following approval of this subdivision and construction of the public roadway and utility improvements. The proposed driveway of Lot 6 is shown to encroach on the 15-ft drainage and utility easement that the City requested on the south property line during the prior application’s review period. This encroachment will be outlined in the Developer’s Agreement between the Applicant/Developer and the City. The proposed street construction will increase impervious surface by .43 acres overall. An additional acre of impervious surface is estimated for the future home construction improvements. Each of these individual lots will be evaluated for impervious surface requirements at the time of their building permit applications for the new homes. The required maximum impervious surface for the R-E Zoning District is 35%. The applicant’s plans propose that stormwater treatment for individual lot improvements will be provided at the time of construction. The City is not supportive of this request, and staff have provided a condition of approval that the stormwater management not be deferred to the individual single-family lots, and that the City will require stormwater management to be managed for the entire development and dedicated in a utility easement as part of the Final Plat. The single-family lots may be adequate for infiltration at the 1.1 inch BMP requirement, but water quality management would not be feasible for a single homeowner long-term. The stormwater improvements which are currently proposed include an infiltration basin on the proposed Lot 6, just east of the Ridgewood Drive extension. The basin includes a riprap stilling infiltration basin with two inlets, one to the west and one to the south. The applicant plans to seed the filtration basin with MnDot 33-261 seed mixture and to stabilize with appropriate erosion control. The elevations of the basin indicate 12” of planting media with volume for filtration above. The City will Page 11 of 68 require a third-party inspection for compliance with stormwater requirements during construction, which would be outlined in the Developer’s Agreement with the City. 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 wetland buffer area (illustrated on the plans as hatching around wetlands) which is designed to meet the minimum 25-ft buffer averaging requirement of City Code. The total amount of buffer area which is required for the delineated wetlands on site is 75,504 SF, and the total amount of buffer area which is provided is noted at 75,609 SF. Signs denoting buffer areas will be addressed in the Developer's Agreement with the City. 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 SF 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 property owner’s application are not outlined in this planning case. Instead, the applicant is proposing to impact up to 2,170 SF of wetlands for the future driveways and planned Ridgewood Drive extension. The applicant has a new active Joint Water Resources application for exemption under the deminimus rules. Impacts include 1,315 SF of impacts directly north of the existing cul-de-sac, to accommodate the street extension and a culvert which would traverse east-west underneath the street extension connecting the two major wetland areas. Additional wetland impacts of 467 SF are shown on the proposed Lot 6, adjacent to the property’s potential driveway. This second impact area, if approved, would add fill to the wetland impact area, which would be altered and presented as the provided wetland buffer area. South of these impacts and designated buffer, the proposed driveway would then be setback approximately 7-ft from the Wetland and Wetland Buffer alteration, meeting the zoning setback requirements for impervious surface installments such as drive aisles. The remaining wetland impacts are not explicitly identified on the proposed plans in excess of the combined 1,782 SF identified impact areas and up to the proposed 2,170 SF area which would be permitted under the deminimus exemption. The applicant is intending to request updates to the wetland impacts at the time that any of the single-family homes are constructed, as they may have grading impacts to the perimeter of wetland areas depending on the plans proposed by the developer or home-builder at that time. The applicant’s Joint Water Resources application under the WCA rules for proposed wetland impacts was submitted to the City in April, and the Notice of Application was sent on April 21, 2025 to the state, regional, and federal regulatory bodies that sit on the required Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for WCA rules applications. The comment period for the application ended on May 13, 2025. The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for enforcing the WCA rules, and will meet with the TEP an additional time before forming a response to the application. The 60-day decision deadline is June 20th for this WCA application. The administration and enforcement of any WCA Permit, including the Notice of Decision, is designated as the responsibility of the Natural Resources Coordinator and is not subject to City Council review. On the preliminary plans, the five 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 on the 2021 Wetland Delineation. The applicant does not have a finalized construction and development plan for homes on any of the proposed new single-family development properties, and those plans Page 12 of 68 are not under the review of the City at this time. If the current Joint Water Resources Application is approved, and no work is 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 on Sheets C3-C5. The inventory outlines the species and diameter of the trees within the anticipated development area only, out of approximately 1,900 or more trees which exist on the property today. The anticipated removal of trees is illustrated on the inventory plans which would be removed as part of any construction activities for the street extension and future building and driveway improvements. Final tree impacts on the individual residential lots 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. The City enacted new requirements in 2025 for a Forest Alteration Permit and Forest Management Plan. The applicant has provided the application materials for a Forest Alteration Permit as part of this subdivision request. The provided Sheet L-101 indicates the tree mitigation plans for the development site. Based on the tables provided by the applicant, 82 trees meeting the definition of a significant or heritage tree are proposed to be removed, amounting to 741 DSH (Diameter at Standard Height). One of the proposed removals is identified as a ‘Heritage Tree’, meaning it is a native tree, or cultivar of a native tree, which exceeds 24” in diameter. This specific tree to be removed is a 35” Cottonwood tree. Other trees which were in poor condition, were previously removed as part of work prior to the effect of the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance, and identified Ash trees were removed from forest mitigation plan calculations. 3,774.5 DSH of the remaining surveyed trees are noted to be saved or preserved on the property, including 11 Heritage Trees. Based on the proposed removals, 55.8 total DSH is required to be replaced. The applicant will also be required to submit a Tree Replacement escrow to the City related to the Forest Management Plan. The applicant is currently proposing to not prepare a replacement landscape plan and has noted their intent to complete an off-site tree replacement agreement with the City. The applicant cites the difficulty and feasibility of replacing the trees on-site, as the site is fully forested and the cleared areas will be replaced with street improvements. The City is not supportive of the request to not mitigate the removals with any replacement trees. The Urban Forest Preservation ordinance does allow for the City to approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planning of trees at an alternate site if compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible. City Staff is prepared to work with the applicant to create an alternative tree replacement measure, however the applicant must first attempt to mitigate a portion of the tree replacement on site consecutively with the development. A condition has been added that a Tree Replacement Plan be provided which would illustrate an attempt to comply with tree replacement measures prior to enacting an alternative mitigation plan with the City. In addition to the requirements of the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance, all single-family residential uses developed in the City are required to submit a landscaping plan as part of the application for Building Permit indicating the location of existing trees and shrubs, and proposed planting details for new landscape features. A minimum of 25% of the land of each single-family home will be required to be landscaped with grass, ground cover, shrubbery, and trees, and new construction homes are required to plant a minimum of one overstory or deciduous tree per 50- feet of lineal frontage of public street in the front yard of the lot. These required trees may count toward a replacement plan. The landscape plans for each new home will be evaluated at the time of Building Permit for new home construction. Page 13 of 68 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-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 –left). 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: 1. 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 Page 14 of 68 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 a subdivision which places potential new single-family homes on the portions of this property that are not encumbered by wetlands, and each lot within the proposed subdivision is able to meet or exceed the required lot size and lot width for the R-E Zoning District. Based on the availability of dry buildable area, staff believes that the proposed lots are likely not able to be subdivided further based on the current requirements of City Code and that the applicant’s subdivision request and the layout of building pad sites, street extension, and utility connection complies with this standard. Under this plat request, the Applicant is seeking to provide an extension of this right-of-way at least 60-ft in width, and approximately 570-ft in length, ending in a new dedicated cul-de-sac bulb. The Developer/Applicant’s previous application in 2024 included a request to defer construction of any public improvements which was not supported by the City Council. The prior application was ultimately withdrawn as the applicant intended to come back with an application which complied with the public improvement standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The current proposal under this Planning Case shows an intent to develop and construct the full street extension to the new cul-de-sac bulb, to re-construct the street segment at the existing cul-de-sac bulb, and to install public utility improvements in the dedicated right-of-way beneath the new street extension. 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 place 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. Page 15 of 68 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 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 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. Conclusion The applicant has provided the dedicated right-of-way to the City, and planned a constructed street and utility extension within this Plat to meet the minimum lot width, frontage, and access requirements of the City Code. The proposed lots each meet or exceed the minimum of 125’ of lot width on a City-approved street and they exceed the minimum lot size requirements of 30,000 SF. The applicant’s revised plans under this current Planning Case application 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 street alignment in such a manner that future resubdivision of the overlarge lots is not applicable at this time. The applicant has submitted the required Wetland Conservation Act permits to the City concurrently with this Planning Case application, which is not a factor in the review of this Preliminary Plat request. The Planning Commission should review the technical aspects of the proposed Plat, as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary 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 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 request additional information from the applicant or staff. Staff will extend the application review period. Page 16 of 68 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application of Spencer McMillan for the Preliminary Plat of a six-lot residential subdivision to be known as McMillan Estates, based on the Findings of Fact as included herein, along with the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building pad sites, setbacks, accessory structures, or driveway alignments. Final layouts must meet R-E 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 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. 4. 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. 5. Stormwater Management shall be managed for the entire development and dedicated in a utility easement as part of the Final Plat. Stormwater management for water quality management shall not be deferred to the individual single-family home lots. 6. Public utility easement locations, including easements for stormwater management facilities and Best Management Practices (BMP) area(S) must be established, approved by the City, and included in the Final Plat prior to release of the Final Plat for recording with Dakota County. 7. All wetland impacts shall be in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, including Title 12-Zoning, Section 12-4A-4: Wetland Requirements and Title 15-Environmental Standards, Chapter 4: Wetland Conservation. 8. The Forest Management Plan shall be updated to include the replacement of tree removal impacts, in accordance with Title 15-Environmental Standards, Chapter 3: Urban Forest reservation. An attempt must be made to mitigate tree removal impacts on site prior to providing an alternative tree replacement measure to the City. 9. In lieu of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000 per unit (6 lots = 6 x $4,000/unit, or $24,000) 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. 10. Any new or existing sanitary or water service lines must be reviewed by the Public Works Director and/or St. Paul Regional Water Services prior to issuance of any building permit. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The Applicant/Developer shall install all public improvements, including the extension of the public street identified on the Plat as Ridgewood Drive and the necessary utility installations, in compliance with all City requirements, prior to the application of any Page 17 of 68 building permit for private construction or improvements within the Plat. 14. 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 building permit for private construction or improvements within the Plat. Attachments: 1. Findings of Fact for Approval 2. 1707 Delaware - McMillan Estates - Aerial Site Map 3. Letter of Intent 4. McMillan Estates Preliminary Plat 5. McMillan Estates Construction Plans 6. McMillan Estates Final Plat 7. Public Comments (Received as of the submittal of this report) Page 18 of 68 Planning Case 2025-03 (McMillan Estates/1707 Delaware Ave – Spencer McMillan) Page 15 of 15 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary 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 Preliminary Plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed Preliminary 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-E Residential Estate Zoning District. Page 19 of 68 G!. G!. G!. G!. G!.G!. G!. G!. G!.666666 666666666666 6666666666666MARIE AVE DELAWARE AVERI DGE WOOD D RMARIE AVE W Nearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN Location Aerial Map1707 Delaware Ave/McM illan Estat es Date: 3/21/2024 City ofMendotaHeights0340 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 20 of 68 1 March 11th, 2025 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. Page 21 of 68 2 Proposed Plat: We would like to replat the 3 parcels into 6 new lots. The new configuration is shown below. 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 roughly 570 ft, so the total length becomes roughly 1,220 ft. Section 11-3-3 of the zoning code states “Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500’)”. However, the current 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. For these reasons, we are not requesting a variance for the longer cul-de-sac. Expected Outcome and Benefits 1. This proposal increases the number of available lots in Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights is a desirable place to live and this proposal increases the number of buildable lots from 2 to 6. Page 22 of 68 3 2. This proposal extends existing utility stubs on the existing cul-de-sac northward to the end of the new cul-de-sac. Future utility extensions are provided to serve lots to the north. Also, a 15 ft easement is provided for potential future utility services to homes along Delaware Ave to the east. 3. This proposal dedicates right of way along Delaware to Dakota County. 4. The proposal meets all Mendota Heights zoning requirements and does not require variances. It is consistent with the desired zoning of Mendota Heights. Thank you for your consideration, Spencer McMillan Page 23 of 68 MCMILLAN ESTATES 10105 5 Preliminary Plat1 1 202142Spencer McMillan1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114ZONING INFORMATION OWNER/DEVELOPER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAT AREAS Land Surveying & Engineering 2580 Christian Dr. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MNWETLANDS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WETLAND DELINEATOR UTILITIES STORMWATER SEE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN FOR FOR DETAILED IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND TREE PRESERVATION Page 24 of 68 OWNER/DEVELOPERENGINEER/SURVEYORLEGENDMCMILLAN ESTATESMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNVICINITY MAPCONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR GRADING, STREET,STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAINSHEET INDEXTitle & LayoutC12580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanPage 25 of 68 Page 26 of 68 Page 27 of 68 Page 28 of 68 2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142Tree InventoryMCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, Dakota County, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanTag 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 Remove 336 17 Black Cherry Mostly Dead Save 416 13.5 Buckthorn Save 1750 10 Black Cherry Remove 1837 12 Red Oak Save2 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 82 7 Black Cherry Remove 337 13 Box Elder Save 417 9 Buckthorn Save 1751 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1838 7 Black Cherry Save3 7 Black Cherry Remove 83 8 Box Elder poor Remove 338 11 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 418 11 White Ash Save 1752 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1839 6 Red Oak Save4 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 84 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 339 10 Buckthorn Save 419 23.5 White Ash Save 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 Remove 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 Save 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 Save 424 13 White Ash Save 1758 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1845 7 Red Oak Save10 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 90 15 Red Oak Save 345 16.5 Hophornbeam 2 stem/dead Save 425 7 Buckthorn Save 1759 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1846 10 Basswood Save11 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 91 12 Red Oak Save 346 13 American Elm Save 426 6Swamp White Oa Save 1760 6 Quaking Aspen Save 1847 10 Red Oak Save12 8 Black Cherry poor Remove 92 8 Black Cherry Save 347 8 White Ash Save 427 16 White Ash Save 1761 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1848 11 Red Oak Save13 7 Green Ash poor Remove 93 6 American Elm Save 348 6 White Ash Save 428 9 White Ash Save 1762 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1849 6 Quaking Aspen Save14 7 Black Cherry Remove 94 9 Black Cherry Save 349 10 Box Elder Save 429 17 White Ash Save 1763 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1850 8 Quaking Aspen Save15 12 Apple Save 95 9 Black Cherry Save 350 9 Box Elder Save 430 6 Buckthorn Save 1764 8 Green Ash Remove 1851 7 Quaking Aspen Save16 12 Black Cherry Save 96 9 Quaking Aspen Save 351 21 Buckthorn 5 stem Save 431 16 White Ash Save 1765 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1852 8 Quaking Aspen Save17 6 Green Ash Remove 97 8 Quaking Aspen Save 352 9.5 Box Elder Save 432 13.5 Box Elder 2 stem Save 1766 10 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1853 6 Quaking Aspen Save18 10 Black Cherry Remove 98 9 Quaking Aspen Save 353 12 Box Elder Save 433 23 Green Ash Save 1767 9 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1854 6 Quaking Aspen Save19 6 Apple Remove 99 7 Quaking Aspen Save 354 10 Box Elder Save 434 31.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1768 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1855 6 Quaking Aspen poorSave20 6 Apple Remove 100 7 Black Cherry Save 355 10 White Ash Save 435 14 Cottonwood Save 1769 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1856 7 Quaking Aspen Save21 8 Box Elder poor Save 101 6 Apple Save 356 8 Green Ash Save 436 18.5 Box Elder Save 1770 11 Quaking Aspen Save 1857 7 Red Oak Save22 7 Apple Save 102 12 Black Cherry Save 357 14 Black Oak Save 437 13 Box Elder Save 1771 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1858 7 Red Oak Save23 9 Box Elder Save 103 8 Amur Maple Save 358 20.5 White Ash Save 438 10 White Ash Save 1772 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1859 8 Red Oak poor Save24 7 Black Cherry Save 104 8 Black Cherry Save 359 22 White Ash 2 stem Save 439 11 Black Cherry Save 1773 9 Quaking Aspen Save 1860 7 Green Ash poor Save25 7 Black Cherry poor Save 105 12 Red Oak Save 360 8 White Ash Save 440 38 Buckthorn 10 stem Save 1774 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1861 7 Black Cherry poor Save26 8 Black Cherry Save 106 10 American Elm Save 361 8 White Ash Save 441 16 Box Elder Save 1775 8 Quaking Aspen Save 1862 8 Quaking Aspen Save27 6 Green Ash Save 107 6 Bur Oak poor Save 362 13.5 White Ash Save 442 14 White Ash Save 1776 8 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1863 6 Quaking Aspen Save28 6 Green Ash poor Save 108 19 Cottonwood Save 363 9 White Ash Save 443 8 Buckthorn Save 1777 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1864 6 Quaking Aspen Save29 7 Black Cherry Save 109 7 Red Oak poor Save 364 14.5 American Elm Save 444 18 White Ash Save 1778 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1865 8 Quaking AspenSave30 8 Box Elder Save 110 8 Quaking Aspen Save 365 12 White Ash Save 445 16.5 Hophornbeam Save 1779 10 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1866 7 Quaking Aspen Save31 7 Black Cherry Save 111 9 Red Oak Save 366 8 White Ash Save 446 9 Green Ash Save 1780 15 Quaking Aspen Remove 1867 6 Quaking Aspen Save32 8 Black Cherry Save 112 13 Red Oak Save 367 11 White Ash Save 1701 21 Cottonwood Remove 1781 6 Green Ash Remove 1868 6 Quaking Aspen Save33 12 Black Cherry Save 113 12 Red Oak Save 368 10 White Ash Save 1702 7 Black Cherry Save 1782 6 Quaking Aspen Remove 1869 8 Quaking Aspen Save34 6 Apple Remove 114 6 Bur Oak Save 369 6 White Ash Save 1703 13 Green Ash Remove 1783 7 Quaking Aspen Remove 1870 10 Red Oak Save35 8 Black Cherry Save 115 8 American Elm Save 370 10 White Ash Save 1704 7 Green Ash Remove 1784 10 Black Walnut Remove 1871 6 Red Oak Save36 6 Amur Maple poor Save 116 6 Apple Save 371 6 Green Ash Save 1705 7 Green Ash Remove 1786 8 Box Elder Remove 1872 7 Red Oak Save37 6 Black Cherry Save 117 19 Red Oak Save 372 9.5 White Ash Save 1706 12 Box Elder Remove 1787 12 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1873 7 Quaking Aspen Save38 6 American Elm poor Save 118 31 Cottonwood Save 373 15 White Ash Save 1707 19 Cottonwood Remove 1788 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1874 6 Black Cherry poor Remove39 7 Black Cherry poor Save 119 6 Green Ash Save 374 15 Green Ash Save 1708 7 Cottonwood Remove 1789 10 Box Elder Remove 1875 25 Cottonwood Save40 8 Black Cherry Save 120 7 Green Ash Save 375 10.5 White Ash Save 1709 6 Cottonwood Remove 1790 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1876 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove41 11 Black Cherry Save 121 6 Green Ash Save 376 12 White Ash Save 1710 7 American Elm Save 1791 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1877 6 Quaking Aspen poor Remove42 10 American Elm poor Save 122 6 American Elm Save 377 8.5 White Ash Save 1711 30 Cottonwood Save 1792 8 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1878 6 Quaking Aspen Remove4310 (25')Scotch Pine poor Save 123 7 Green Ash Save 378 8.5 White Ash Save 1712 35 Cottonwood Remove 1793 11 Green Ash Remove 1879 7 Quaking Aspen Remove44 8 Black Cherry Save 124 12 Red Oak Save 379 15.5 Green Ash Save 1713 6 Box Elder Save 1794 11 Black Walnut Remove 1880 7 Quaking Aspen Remove45 6 Bur Oak Save 125 11 Red Oak Save 380 19 White Ash 2 stem Save 1714 6 Box Elder Remove 1795 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1881 7 Quaking Aspen Remove46 4 Green Ash poor Save 301 8 Bur Oak Remove 381 11.5 Green Ash Save 1715 18 Cottonwood Remove 1796 7 Quaking Aspen poor Remove 1882 6 Quaking AspenRemove47 6 Green Ash Save 302 16 Cottonwood Remove 382 14.5 Green Ash Save 1716 12 Box Elder Save 1797 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1883 9 Quaking Aspen Remove48 6 Green Ash Save 303 20.5 White Ash Save 383 16 White Ash Save 1717 10 Siberian Elm Remove 1798 12 Red Oak Save 1884 6 Quaking Aspen Remove49 6 Green Ash poor Save 304 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 384 23.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1718 6 Siberian Elm poor Remove 1799 12 Quaking Aspen Save 1885 6Quaking Aspen Remove50 7 Green Ash Save 305 9 Black Cherry 2 stem Save 385 32.5 White Ash 3 stem Save 1719 7 Box Elder Remove 1800 10 Quaking Aspen Save 1886 7 Quaking Aspen Save51 8 Apple Save 306 13 Green Ash Save 386 17.5 White Ash Save 1720 6 Black Cherry Remove 1807 10 American Elm poor Save 1887 7 Quaking Aspen Save52 6 Bur Oak Save 307 17.5 Green Ash Save 387 10 White Ash Save 1721 7 Black Cherry Remove 1808 11 Black Cherry poor Save 1888 12 Red Oak Save53 6 Black Cherry Save 308 6 Black Cherry Save 388 25.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1722 7 Black Cherry Remove 1809 8 Black Cherry poor Save 1889 13 Black Cherry Remove54 6 Bur Oak Save 309 10 American Elm Save 389 7 White Ash Save 1723 13 Box Elder Remove 1810 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1890 6 Red Oak Save55 6 Green Ash Save 310 42 Cottonwood Save 390 13.5 White Ash Save 1724 7 Black Cherry Remove 1811 12 Quaking Aspen Save 1891 12 Red Oak Remove56 6 Black Cherry Save 311 77.5 Cottonwood 2 stem Save 391 22 White Ash Save 1725 9 Black Cherry Save 1812 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1892 7 Red Oak Save57 14 Red Oak Save 312 28 Slippery Elm splitting Remove 392 18 White Ash Save 1726 8 Box Elder Remove 1813 6 Quaking Aspen poor Save 1893 8 Quaking Aspen Save58 15 Red Oak Save 313 6 White Ash Remove 393 22.5 White Ash Save 1727 7 Black Cherry Remove 1814 28 Red Oak Save 1894 7 Quaking Aspen Save59 14 Red Oak poor Save 314 9.5 White Ash Remove 394 30.5 White Ash 2 stem Save 1728 6 Black Cherry Remove 1815 24 Red Oak Save 1895 7 Quaking Aspen Save60 7 Black Willow Save 315 22 Cottonwood Remove 395 10 White Ash Save 1729 9 Box Elder poor Remove 1816 10 Red Oak poor Save 1896 8 Quaking Aspen Save61 8 Green Ash Save 316 7 Black Cherry Remove 396 25 White Ash Save 1730 8 Box Elder Save 1817 6 Red Oak Save 1897 7 Quaking Aspen poor Save62 10 Green Ash Save 317 14.5 Siberian Elm Save 397 12 Green Ash Save 1731 10 Box Elder Remove 1818 7 Red Oak poor Save 1898 8 Quaking Aspen Save63 6 Green Ash Save 318 36 Box Elder 4 stem Save 398 26 White Ash Save 1732 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1819 7 Red Oak poor Save 1899 6 American Elm Save64 10 Green Ash Save 319 7 Box Elder Save 399 16.5 White Ash Save 1733 10 Black Cherry Save 1820 14 Red Oak poor Save 1900 10 Quaking Aspen Save65 8 Green Ash Save 320 9 Quaking Aspen Save 400 21 White Ash Save 1734 8 Box Elder poor Remove 1821 12 Red Oak Save66 7 Green Ash poor Save 321 10 Black Cherry Save 401 6.5 Buckthorn Save 1735 12 Black Cherry Save 1822 11 Red Oak Save67 10 Green Ash Save 322 14.5 Box Elder Save 402 7.5 Buckthorn Save 1736 6 Box Elder Remove 1823 6 Red Oak poor Save68 10 Green Ash Save 323 10 Box Elder Save 403 7 White Ash Save 1737 14 Black Cherry Remove 1824 7 Red Oak poor Save69 11 Green Ash Save 324 8 Buckthorn 2 stem Save 404 12.5 White Ash Save 1738 8 Box Elder Remove 1825 9 Red Oak poor Save70 21 Red Oak Remove 325 9 Box Elder Save 405 8.5 White Ash Save 1739 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1826 7 Black Cherry Save71 7 Bur Oak Save 326 8 Box Elder Save 406 10 Box Elder Save 1740 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1827 6 Black Cherry Save72 9 Bur Oak Save 327 37.5 Black Willow Half Dead Save 407 13.5 Box Elder Save 1741 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1828 9 Black Cherry Save73 7 Apple Save 328 8 Buckthorn Save 408 14 Green Ash Save 1742 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1829 8 American Elm poor Save74 8 Apple Save 329 54 Cottonwood Save 409 15 White Ash Save 1743 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1830 8 Apple Save75 6 Green Ash Save 330 15 Box Elder Save 410 8.5 Box Elder Save 1744 6 Box Elder Remove 1831 8 Black Cherry Save76 7 Green Ash Save 331 8 Box Elder Save 411 7Amur Cork Tree Save 1745 12 American Elm Remove 1832 7 Black Cherry Save77 6 Black Cherry Remove 332 9 Box Elder Save 412 12 Box Elder Save 1746 8 Quaking Aspen Remove 1833 8 Black Cherry Save78 8 American Elm Remove 333 13 Box Elder Save 413 9 American Elm Save 1747 9 Black Cherry Remove 1834 7 Black Cherry Save79 9 Black Cherry Remove 334 9 Box Elder Save 414 8.5 Black Cherry Save 1748 9 Quaking Aspen Remove 1835 10 Black Cherry Save80 12 Black Cherry Remove 335 63.5 Cottonwood Save 415 9 Black Cherry Save 1749 10 Quaking Aspen Remove 1836 12 Red Oak poor SaveSEE SHEET L-101 FOR TREEMITIGATION CALCULATIONSC5Page 29 of 68 L-100FOREST MITIGATIONPLAN - TREES SAVEDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-100 Forest Mitigation Plan.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:36 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O.BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 52856 04-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 Page 30 of 68 L-101FOREST MITIGATIONPLAN - TREESREMOVEDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-100 Forest Mitigation Plan.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:42 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O.BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 52856 04-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOREST MITIGATION NOTES1.Significant tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six inches in diameter fordeciduous trees, 10 feet in height for conifer trees, and is not considered hazardous.2.Heritage tree means a tree of any native species or cultivar of a native species that is 24 inchesin diameter or greater, excluding invasive species.3.The applicant shall post a tree replacement escrow with the City. For every heritage treepreserved on site, the escrow may be reduced by $250.00.4.If seven (7) or more total significant or heritage trees on the property are removed, theapplicant shall mitigate all significant and heritage tree inches measured at DBH at a rate of75%. Example: 84 DBH inches removed x .75 = 63 DBH inches required to be replaced.5.Trees shall not be planted within 10 feet of property lines without written permission of theaffected adjacent property, nor shall trees be planted at lot corners in a way that obstructs adriver's line of sight. If compliance with the tree replacement requirement is not feasible, theCity may approve alternative tree replacement measures, including the planting of trees at analternate site. The alternate site must be public land, and at the choice of the city. The city mayrequire post-construction tree care.6.In order to preserve diversity and provide protection from tree disease and pests; where ten ormore replacement trees are required, not more than 20 percent shall be of the same family, notmore than 10 percent of the same genus, and not more than 5 percent of the same species,unless approved by the City. Tree species of the genus Acer shall be limited to 10 percent oftotal replacement trees planted, due to its over-abundance in the City's forest canopy. Aminimum of 50 percent of replacement trees must be species native to Minnesota orrecommended by the Department of Natural Resources or University of Minnesota Extension.7.When replacement trees are required, replacement trees shall be no less than a one-caliperinch deciduous or six-foot height conifer tree unless approved by the City. No more than threeconsecutive trees of the same species may be planted in a continuous row, including aroundcorners and in groupings.FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN1.Contact responsible for tree preservation during the course of the project:Spencer McMillan1707 Delware AvenueMendota Heights, MN 55118(715) 698-71142.Tree replacement escrow reduction = 11 heritage trees preserved x $250 =$2,7503.Onsite replacement of the total DBH to be replaced is not feasible as theremainder of the property is fully forested. We have intentionally not prepared areplacement landscape plan and will complete an off-site tree replacementagreement with the City.TREE SURVEY NOTES1.Tree removals excluded from forest mitigation plan calculations due to ash andSiberian elm tree species, poor tree condition, or being previously removed sincetree survey was complete and forest mitigation plan submittal.2.Poor tree condition denotes that the tree has less than 50% of a healthy crownremaining from diseased or dying tree due to age.Page 31 of 68 2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHLOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,OR GIRDLING ROOTS.BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.L-1101 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL2X ROOT BALL DIA. MINSPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHCONTAINER GROWN MATERIALS SHALL HAVE ROOTS HANDS LOOSENEDUPON PLANTING; PRUNE ANY DEAD OR DESICCATED ROOTSBACKFILL AROUND ROOTS WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.HOLE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED SUCH THAT ROOTS ARE VERTICAL ANDFULLY EXTENDED. SCARIFY BOTTOM OF PIT (6 IN. MIN.)2X ROOT BALL DIA. MIN.SPECIES AS SHOWN ON PLANPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DO NOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCHLOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE ANY DEAD, DAMAGED,OR GIRDLING ROOTS.BACKFILL AROUND ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORK SOILTO SETTLE AND REDUCE VOIDS OR AIR POCKETS.PLACE ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.2 SHRUB & CONTAINER PLANTING DETAIL3 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAILDRIP LINE OF TREE.4 TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL4' HIGH SAFETY FENCE ATTACHED TO STEEL POSTS ATDRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED.4'18"NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110NOT TO SCALEL-110LANDSCAPE DETAILSDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:B0029-0001D:\Midwest Wetland Improvements, LLC\Midwest Wetlands - OneDrive - MWI\Projects\0029 McMillan, Spencer\0001 - Sullivan Estates\5_DESIGN\2_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\L-110 Landscape Details.dwg ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:4/14/2025 1:32:39 PM CLIENT:SPENCERMcMILLANMcMILLAN ESTATES MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PROJECT TITLE:HRMCHK'D BY:LNJAPP'D BY:LNJP.O.BOX 448VICTORIA, MN 55386PHONE: (952) 261-9990WWW.MIDWESTWETLANDS.COMDESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:CERTIFICATION:1707 DELAWARE AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118PHONE: (715) 698-7114DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 52856 04-18-2025Lucius Jonett04-18-20250104/18/2025 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL 01 Page 32 of 68 Page 33 of 68 Page 34 of 68 Page 35 of 68 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEStreet and StormSewer PlanSEE SHEET 10NOTES:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC9Page 36 of 68 RIDGEWOOD DRIVESEE SHEET 9NOTES:Street and StormSewer Plan2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC10Page 37 of 68 Page 38 of 68 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEUtility PlanSEE SHEET 13NOTES:SANITARY SEWER NOTES:ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES (SPRWS) NOTES:GENERAL NOTE:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC12Page 39 of 68 RIDGEWOOD DRIVEUtility PlanSEE SHEET 13NOTES:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC13Page 40 of 68 Future UtilityServicesNOTE:2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC14Page 41 of 68 NOTE:Future UtilityServices2580 Christian Dr.Chaska, MN 55318612-418-6828Land Surveying& Engineering202142MCMILLAN ESTATESMendota Heights, MN1707 Delaware Ave.Mendota Heights, MN 55118715-698-7114Spencer McMillanC15Page 42 of 68 Page 43 of 68 Page 44 of 68 Page 45 of 68 Page 46 of 68 SITE 24 60 149 MARIE AVE. 8DODD RD.WENTWORTH AVE.DELAWARE AVE.WACHTLER AVE.MCMILLAN ESTATES LOCATION MAP SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS SISU LAND SURVEYING KNOW 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 5 5 1010I 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 PLAT Page 47 of 68 Page 48 of 68 Page 49 of 68 Page 50 of 68 Page 51 of 68 Page 52 of 68 Page 53 of 68 Page 54 of 68 Page 55 of 68 Page 56 of 68 6.a Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 27, 2025 Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-06 Concept PUD Application of Condor Corporation for a Planned Unit Development Amendment Concept Plan Review for the property located at 2320 Lexington Avenue Department: Community Development Contact: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Introduction: The applicant, Condor Corporation, is seeking a Planned Unit Development - Concept Plan Review for an addition to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development located at 2320 Lexington Avenue. The subject site is currently zoned R-3 Multi Family Residential, and was developed as a Planned Unit Development in 1983 for a three-building, 225-unit apartment development. Once a PUD has been approved, it typically serves as a form of zoning category (overlay) on a site. However, the apartment complex properties have remained under the R-3 High Density Residential District since their development, as all current and past zoning maps for the City have identified the sites as R-3 Zoning. This does not negate the fact that the City adopted a Resolution for a CUP for a PUD to establish the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development. The City recently adopted a new zoning ordinance that modified the way that the City acknowledges and processes Planned Unit Developments. As this application moves forward in the Planned Unit Development Amendment review process, part of the requested approvals will be a rezoning request to acknowledge the Planned Unit Development Overlay District. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires that any extensions, alterations, or modifications to building envelopes or structures must be approved via the standard review process for a new Planned Unit Development, and that changes in the use of common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the Final Development Plan with a Zoning Amendment. The presentation and discussion this evening is related to the newly outlined process in Code for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development following completion of the Final Development Plan. The first step is a Concept Plan review, which is submitted to the City to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item is intended only to be advisory to the Applicant. The Planning Commission may make recommendations regarding the Concept Plan and give reasons for that recommendation, but the discussion and recommendation is not binding on the City, and no formal determination is made regarding the application request. Formal determinations on the full Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal would follow this Concept Plan review step. Page 57 of 68 Background: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is intended to provide a flexible zoning district for the design and development of land that is appropriate to the physical site characteristics of the development, and surrounding land uses. The flexibility that is granted by the City in approval of a Planned Unit Development is outlined through 'deviations' from City Code which would otherwise not be permitted, or might traditionally require a Variance approval. This flexibility is granted in return for a public benefit to the City and/or community, which may be other areas of zoning and city code requirements where standards are exceeded, or where a policy goal of the City is achieved. The Applicant would like to construct a new multi-family building on their property as part of an expansion of the Lexington Heights development. The new building would be a 4-Story development with parking below, with 67-units of housing, bringing the total unit count within the PUD area to 292 units. The Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development was authorized in 1983 by Resolution No. 1983-95. At that time, the property owner was granted a Variance from the density requirement for approximately 12.4 units per acre. The density today is approximately 13.9 units per acre. This proposed Planned Unit Development will at minium be requesting a deviation to the density requirements of the R-3 Zoning District, similar to what has already been approved on the site. Other deviations from the City Code may be reviewed once full civil and architectural plans are prepared for the site. The applicant has provided information on the existing conditions of the site, and has provided a concept plan showing the location of the new addition, potential layouts of units within the building, and the layout of the underground parking. A full analysis of the development has not been provided for the concept plan, as this application is intended to provide advisory comments and recommendations to the Applicant for their benefit in refining their project. However, the Applicant has provided in their proposed narrative a list of development standards for an R-3 site, and whether or not there is an anticipated PUD deviation, as of this concept stage review. Analysis: Alternatives: Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission is asked to review the Concept Plan for this Planned Unit Development Amendment request, and provide advisory comments and recommendations to the applicant. Staff will compile the development review comments and share them with the City Council at their June 3, 2025 meeting to facilitate their step in this concept review process. Attachments: 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Lexington Heights PUD Concept - Existing 3. Lexington Heights PUD Concept - Concept Plan Page 58 of 68 2999 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55306 PH. (952) 890-6044 JAMES R. HILL , INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS Serving our Clients since 1976 MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2025 To: Sarah Madden Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 From: Brady Busselman, P.E. Project: Lexington Heights Apartments Subject: PUD Amendment – Concept Application Narrative Dear Ms. Madden, On behalf of the property owner, Condor Corporation, we are pleased to submit the application for an amendment to the 1983 Planned Unit Development (PUD) at Lexington Heights Apartments, 2320 Lexington Avenue South. The owner is proposing to construct a 67-unit apartment building on the site, in an underutilized area to the east of the northernmost building in the complex. This will bring the total unit count within the PUD area to 292 units, from the current PUD approved total of 225 units. The current density of 13.9 units per acre will increase to 18.1 units per acre. Required PUD Standards City code chapter 12-2C-2 states that a PUD must demonstrate compliance with the following: 1. That the development and design is an appropriate use for the property and is compatible with surrounding development. The proposed building will be situated in an underutilized portion of the site, between an existing parking lot and I-35E. The building is compatible with the existing multifamily buildings on site, and will provide below ground parking at a rate of 1 stall per unit. The existing parking lot at the north building currently has 126 total parking stalls. The concept plan shows a reconfiguration of the parking lot that provides an additional 38 Page 59 of 68 L e x i n g t o n H e i g h t s C o n c e p t P U D M a y 6 , 2 0 2 5 2 | P a g e stalls, for a total of 164 stalls. With a total of 88 bedrooms, the additional stall count (garage and surface) of 106 stalls (68 garage + 38 surface) exceeds the code minimum requirement of one 1 stall per bedroom. The building elevation will be designed to be consistent with the existing buildings. 2. That the streets and utilities are adequate and do not adversely affect the economical and efficient delivery of municipal services. According to the 1983 PUD approval, a 12” watermain is located adjacent to the site within Lexington Avenue South. Per city as-built plans, a 12” sanitary sewer is also within Lexington Avenue South adjacent to the site. It is anticipated that stormwater management will be accommodated on site via expansion of the existing pond or by utilizing existing open space to create a new pond. The current Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Lexington Avenue South at this location as of 2021 is 2,172. The projected increase in daily trips (see trip generation analysis below) is 364 trips. 3. That the scale of the development is compatible with adjacent land uses and is consistent with the standards established in Chapter 4 of this Zoning Ordinance. The underlying zoning district is R-3. The proposed building will be four stories over a subsurface garage. The current concept shows minimum unit size of 663 SF for one- bedroom units. However, the owner intends to update this design in the next submittal phase to meet the minimum area of 700 SF. Below is a summary of the current anticipated deviations under the PUD; these may change as the plans advance to the final application stage. Anticipated PUD Deviation?* A Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet No Minimum Lot Size Per Unit 3,500 square feet per unit Yes B Front Yard Setback 50 feet No C Side Yard Setback 40 feet No D Rear Yard Setback 40 feet No Height (maximum)60 feet; may exceed maximum with CUP No Impervious Surface Coverage (maximum) 50%, or up to 65% with approved Best Management Practices (BMPs)No Parking (minimum)One (1) space per unit or one (1) space per bedroom, whichever is greater No Enclosed Parking One space must be enclosed per unit No Surface Parking minimum setback 40 feet from public ROW and 10 feet from any Principal Building No Design Standards See Section [12-4B-3E.]No Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Principal Building Standards Parking and Other Standards Table 12-2B-5.1 R-3 Dimensional and Lot Standards *As of Concept stage; subject to change at final application Page 60 of 68 L e x i n g t o n H e i g h t s C o n c e p t P U D M a y 6 , 2 0 2 5 3 | P a g e Proposed Financing The owner intends to self-finance the project. Schedule of Development The owner anticipates starting construction either in the fall of 2025 or spring of 2026. This schedule is primarily dependent on approval timing. Projected Traffic Below are daily and AM/PM peak hour trips based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10thEdition: Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 67 Dwelling Units 5.44 364 0.36 24 0.44 29 Totals: 364 24 29 Impervious Area For the purpose of impervious area calculation at this stage, the site is assumed to be the existing northern parcel, approximately 5.5 acres. Existing impervious area = +/-2.3 acres Net impervious area increase = +/-0.7 acres Total proposed impervious area = +/-3 acres Total proposed percent impervious = +/-54% Page 61 of 68 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTSCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120PROJECT NO. 24282 CAD FILE 5/6/2025 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY Page 62 of 68 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)COVER 0.0 11/15/21 Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza) 11/15/21 UNIT MIX - GROSS AREA Name Count Unit Gross Area Total Area %Main Floor 1BR Unit A1 23 663 ft² 15,243 ft² 34% 23 15,243 ft² 34% 1BR +D Unit B1 23 884 ft² 20,324 ft² 34% 23 20,324 ft² 34% 2BR Unit C1 13 1,037 ft² 13,483 ft² 19% Unit C2 8 994 ft² 7,953 ft² 12% 21 21,436 ft² 31% Grand total 67 57,004 ft² 100% PARKING Level Type Count Level -1 Garage Stalls 68 Garage Stalls 68 Level 1 Surface Stalls 164 Surface Stalls 164 232 GROSS AREA - TOTAL Level Area Level 4 17,446 ft² Level 3 18,032 ft² Level 2 18,032 ft² Level 1 18,032 ft² Level -1 21,793 ft² Grand total 93,335 ft² *1-BEDROOM UNITS WILL RANGE FROM -650-750sf **1-BEDROOM + DEN UNITS WILL RANGE FROM -850-950sf ***2-BEDROOM UNITS WILL RANGE FROM -1000-1250sf *** *** ** * *SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DESIGN DEVOLVEMENT OF UNITS AND THE BUILDING FACADES, LIKE BUMP-OUTS OR OTHER BUILDING ARTICULATIONS. * Page 63 of 68 1 2 3 4 E X I S T I N G 3 -S T O R Y B U I L D I N G E X I S T I N G 3 -S T O R Y B U I L D I N G E X I S T I N G P O O L B U I L D I N G PROPOSED 4-STORY 67 UNIT BUILDING 164 PARKING STALLS COLORED SITE PLAN PALETTE ASPH ALT SIDEW ALK 1 SIDEW ALK 2 GRA SS 1 GRA SS 2 WA TER BUILDI NG 1 BUILDING ENTRANCE 2 GARAGE ENTRANCE 3 ROOFTOP DECK 4 PLAZA BELOW SITE PLAN KEY kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)SITE PLAN 2.0 11/15/21 1" = 60'-0"1 SD Site Plan Page 64 of 68 CoreSta irsGarage - 68 Parking Stalls Color Scheme Legend Circulation Core Garage StairsPlaza Above kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.0 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level -1 Page 65 of 68 Unit B1Unit A1Unit B1Unit C1 Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit A1 Unit A1 CoreS tairsStairsColor Scheme Legend 1BR 1BR +D 2BR Circulation Common Area Core Fitness Corporate Offices Unit C2 Lobby/Mail Corporate Offices / Community Room Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit A1 Unit B1 Unit B1 P l a z a kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.1 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 1 Page 66 of 68 StairsStairsColor Scheme Legend 1BR 1BR +D 2BR Circulation Core Unit B1Unit A1Unit B1Unit C1 Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit A1 Unit A1 Core Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit C1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit A1 Unit B1 Unit B1 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.2 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 2 (Level 3 Similar) Page 67 of 68 Color Scheme Legend 1BR 1BR +D 2BR Circulation Common Area Core StairsStairsRoof Deck Sky Lounge Unit B1Unit A1Unit B1Unit C1 Unit C1 Unit B1 Unit A1 Unit A1 Core Unit B1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit C1 Unit C2 Unit A1 Unit A1 Unit B1 Unit B1 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts. -Option 1 (4-Story + Plaza)FLOOR PLANS 3.3 11/15/21 1" = 30'-0"1 Level 4 Page 68 of 68