12292025 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
December 29, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approve meeting minutes from the November 25, 2025 Planning Commission
Meeting.
4. Public Hearings
a. CASE No. 2025-16 Planned Unit Development Amendment (Preliminary
Development Plan) Application of Chase Real Estate (on behalf of Condor Living /
Lexington Heights Apartments), requesting a Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) via a Zoning Amendment, and Amendment to an existing PUD (Lexington
Heights Apartments) for a new 84-unit multi-family apartment building and
associated underground parking and site work at the property located at 2300
Lexington Avenue
5. New and Unfinished Business
a. Approval of 2026 Meeting Calendar
6. Updates/Staff Comments
7. 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 64
This page is intentionally left blank
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 25, 2025
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
November 25, 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 Patrick Corbett,
Cindy Johnson, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of October 28, 2025, Minutes
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2025.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A)PLANNING CASE 2025-16
CHASE REAL ESTATE (ON BEHALF OF CONDOR LIVING/LEXINGTON
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, 2300 LEXINGTON AVENUE – PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (PRELIMINARY)
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that Chase Real Estate, LLC,
requests approval of an amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development (PUD)
to allow for the construction of a new 84-unit apartment building on the property at 2300 Lexington
Avenue in addition to the existing structures. The subject property consists of five parcels
containing three multi-family buildings, a common leasing office and community building, and
site amenities. The PUD Amendment is being processed as a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development under the procedures for a Zoning Amendment as required by City Code Title 12:
Zoning.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no
comments or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a
presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the
City’s website).
Page 2 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 12
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there was any discussion about tree mitigation as a result of the
retaining wall.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that they had not yet reached that level
of detail, noting that would be part of the final development plan.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the table provided of existing apartments and asked how those
apartments were approved. He did not believe that would set a precedent, as he believed that each
case is considered on its own merit. He stated that perhaps there is a procedural issue if this number
of apartments exceeds the maximum density for R-3.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that in recent years, the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) tool has been used to provide flexibility in density, as the Comprehensive
Plan allows that. She stated that the range of allowed density has varied throughout time.
Commissioner Corbett asked and received confirmation that the density allowed has decreased
over time, noting that this seems to conflict with a request to exceed the allowed density for R-3.
He asked about the impervious surface coverage.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the impervious surface coverage is
within the allowance for the R-3 district and can be found within the report.
Commissioner Corbett thanked the applicant for the data on current vacancy rates. He noted that
there is still an apartment building to be constructed in phase three of another development and
another building that recently came online in Mendota.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Joe McElwain, representing the applicant, provided background information on the Riley family,
Chase RE, and projects they have completed and continued to manage in the metro. He explained
the demand for the project and provided more information on the Lexington Heights property. He
noted that this proposed project would add more variety in unit styles and would be constructed of
high-quality material that still blends into the existing development. He stated that there would be
proper landscaping developed in the next phase of design with the retaining wall.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a plan for invasive species removal.
Mr. McElwain replied that they will include that in their study.
Commissioner Johnson asked if dogs would be allowed.
Mr. McElwain replied that they are currently projecting that pets would be allowed.
Page 3 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 12
Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not see an identified area for dogs and would like to see
that addressed. She asked if any units would be ADA-compliant.
Mr. McElwain replied that five percent of units and parking would be ADA compliant.
Commissioner Johnson recognized that the property abuts R-1 zoning and the desire to provide
buffering with landscaping.
Mr. McElwain commented that the neighboring property owner did attend the neighborhood
meeting.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the conditions proposed by staff, noting additional comments
related to landscaping, native plants, and tree preservation. She noted that there is nothing included
in the parking plan to avoid the heat island effect and requested that the applicant consider that.
Mr. McElwain replied that they could enhance the planting islands.
Commissioner Johnson expressed a concern related to watershed management and the impact that
construction could have on Lake Augusta, as that is a severely impaired lake.
Mr. McElwain replied that any new impervious surface would be managed onsite.
Commissioner Johnson referenced comments about structural issues and sinking due to water
levels that were provided in a letter and asked if that would be addressed during construction.
Mr. McElwain replied that he spoke with the management team the previous night, and it is a well-
maintained property. He noted that he does have a letter to provide to staff in response to those
comments.
Commissioner Corbett also referenced the letter and recognized that could not be substantiated
without further review. He asked if the applicant had spoken with the tenants.
Mr. McElwain replied that they have spoken with residents, and some are interested in moving to
the new building.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the comments from some tenants that their view would be
blocked by the new building.
Mr. McElwain replied that they would have a follow-up meeting with the tenants.
Commissioner Corbett recognized that a PUD can be approved or denied and should be a privilege
for those doing well.
Mr. McElwain commented that a PUD is a common tool for apartments that provides the City with
something it wants in return for the development. He noted that 80 percent of the apartments they
have developed in the last ten years have been through PUDs.
Page 4 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 12
Eliot Seide, resident of 2300, commented that he has lived in the building since 2003 and is in his
second apartment within the building. He stated that he is learning for the first time that his view
would be partially blocked by the new building. He stated that the tenants had not had a meeting
or been informed about these details until he saw a notice two days ago that was posted in the
elevator. He asked the Commission to consider how they would feel if something were built in
front of their home. He stated that this is the first time he has been able to learn about the details
and provide his input. He stated that he hopes to live in the property for the remainder of his
retirement, but was unsure whether he wants to live through two years of construction to end up
with a partially blocked view. He asked the Commission not to approve this tonight and provide
the tenants with the opportunity to receive more details on the project and how it would impact
them. He commented that he has been a resident of the property for 23 years and worked within
the community as well prior to retirement. He was curious as to the trees that would be removed.
Caitlin Noseworthy, 2300 resident, stated that she lives with her mom at the property and has also
lived in two different apartments during that time. She stated that when they renew their lease,
they have to plead for upgrades to the apartment. She commented on the lack of affordable housing
in the area. She confirmed that they only found out about the potential project because of a posting
in the elevator. She stated that she does not take the elevator and only learned of the posting from
her mother. She stated that the communication is poor within Lexington Heights and believed that
there should be work on the existing buildings before they are allowed to build a new building that
some of the existing residents could not afford.
Allison Runchey, 2300 resident, stated that the trees and greenery that currently surround the 2300
building are some of the reasons she chose to live at the property. She noted information within
the staff report, which states that eight trees would be removed, and asked for more information
on the replacement of those trees. She asked how much of the natural wooded area would be
destroyed or whether that would be protected during and after the construction period. She asked
for a stronger commitment from the City to require a Forest Management Plan. She stated that
there are structural issues with the 2300 building, noting flooding that occurs in the garage and
lower level during times of rain, which creates visible mold. She believed that the additional
hardcover on the site would only increase the water issues that exist for the 2300 building. She
stated that the proposed building would more than double the number of units on the 2300 parcel,
which would increase noise, traffic, and congestion while limiting the views. She referenced the
neighborhood meeting, which was mentioned, and asked how that was publicized, as she did not
see a notice or any mention of it within the typical methods of communication from Lexington
Heights. She stated that the property manager stated that she was not aware of the meeting herself.
She stated that the only notice about the proposed project appeared in a single paper posted inside
the elevator. She asked that another neighborhood meeting and public meeting be held, with
sufficient advertising to the residents. She asked that the Commission postpone action on the
request until the residents of the property can be engaged.
Mr. McElwain stated that he cannot speak for Condor Management but acknowledged that these
are valid concerns being brought forward by the residents. He believed that it would be more than
fair to hold a meeting on-site with the residents.
Page 5 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Johnson agreed and noted that would also provide the applicant with the
opportunity to answer some of the questions that arose.
Mr. McElwain commented that some of the questions from Commissioner Johnson were more of
things that would be worked out in the final design rather than the preliminary design. He was
unsure of the best path forward and whether that would be postponement or a recommendation
from the Commission, with time before the next meeting in the review process to meet with
residents.
Chair Field recognized the concerns from public testimony as well as from the Commission.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided more information on the review
timeline. She stated that the Commission can vote to table the request and direct the applicant to
complete more resident engagement. She stated that if there is a decision to table, the Commission
will need to discuss availability for the December meeting, as the regular meeting date would be
December 23rd. She stated that if a recommendation was provided by the Commission tonight, it
would not need to go to the next available Council meeting, and there could be time for a resident
meeting to occur. She stated that the current 60-day review period would be the first week of
January, which could be extended.
Mr. McElwain commented that he would prefer to have a recommendation from the Commission
and noted that they could then follow up with a resident meeting prior to the review by the City
Council.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Stone commented that he believes that this should be tabled to provide the
opportunity for a resident meeting to be held.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he supports that action and would like to see additional
information related to the maintenance claims and density.
Commissioner Stone asked if there is someone from the City who can inspect these properties.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the first step would be to bring the concerns
forward to the landlord. He was unsure if there would be an enforcement issue. He noted that the
complaints were followed up with comments that the residents enjoy living there.
Page 6 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 12
Commissioner Stone stated that perhaps it would make sense for someone from the City to inspect
the property.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he did not believe that would be within the purview
of the City unless it is an issue of condemnation.
Chair Field asked if this should be tabled with the public hearing open.
Commissioner Corbett stated that they could do that within a motion or reopen the public hearing
at a later date.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the public hearing was closed, and
she would provide notice for a new public hearing.
Chair Field asked how the noticing could be improved.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that she sent copies of the notice to the
property manager to post at each building, and where they chose to post those were the decisions
of the property manager. She noted that was a choice and not a statutory requirement, as the notice
is required to be provided to property owners. She provided additional details on the notice
requirement and the review timeline.
Commissioner Goldade referenced comments received related to the watershed issue and asked if
the City shares those concerns.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that while Lake Augusta is an impaired waterbody, the
development would improve the water treatment onsite and reduce the runoff from the site.
Commissioner Goldade recognized the comments from Commissioner Corbett that there is an
expectation related to density and units per acre, but there seems to be a variation from that. He
asked if the suggestion would be to change the eight to nine units per acre.
Commissioner Corbett commented that his statements were that this increased density goes against
the intentional decisions of the City to lower its density ranges.
Commissioner Goldade recognized the proximity to the highway and asked if the State would have
any comments on this potential project.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that when adjacent to State highways,
the application is sent to MnDOT for comments. She stated that no comments were received, but
stated that sometimes MnDOT holds its comments until a later stage in design.
Commissioner Goldade referenced the units at 62 and Dodd and the discussion that occurred
related to the impact on traffic. He asked why a traffic study was not provided as part of this
application. He asked if the traffic from Lexington to the new building would go through the
current parking lot.
Page 7 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 12
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the current access would continue
to be the primary access for the new building if approved. She recalled the concept plan reviewed
in May, which showed a northern drive aisle that was removed following comments from the
Planning Commission. She stated that staff did request general information on daily trips and
determined that was not high enough to require a full traffic study.
Chair Field recognized that there is a review deadline and was unsure when the next Commission
meeting would be held.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that if the meeting were moved to
January, other extension requirements would come into play. She stated that they will need to
determine the next available Commission date, which could still be in December, on a date other
than the 23rd. She provided additional details on the application review and the need for the City
Council to have sufficient time for review within the deadline as well. She stated that the inclusion
of existing density is not intended to act as precedent and was meant to be context, as it is realistic
to review what exists in the city, including market demand and standards. She stated that the City
standards are not consistent with market standards. She stated that there is market demand, and
the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that a PUD can be used to increase density.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the excellent work that the staff did on this case. She
agreed with Commissioner Corbett that each application is judged on its own merit, but also
appreciated the comparison information that was provided within the packet. She stated that she
does like the recommendations within the staff report. She stated that if the item is postponed, she
would like to see information on the impervious surface, a dog run, buffering to the north and east,
invasive species removal, mitigation of the heat island effect for parking, confirmation on
watershed management, a surface water management plan to protect residents in the 2300 building,
forest alteration permit, and resident meeting.
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO TABLE
THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO
ADDRESS THE ITEMS AS REVIEWED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.
Further discussion: Commissioner Udell asked if there is anything that could be done to ensure
that better notice is provided to residents of the property.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she will follow up with the
property manager to discuss that.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that residents can sign up for the weekly
newsletter and notices for City public meetings as well.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
The Commission took a brief recess.
Page 8 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 12
The meeting reconvened.
B) PLANNING CASE 2025-21
HAMPTON COMPANIES LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE – CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the subject property located at 1178
Northland Drive is owned by MH Northland Drive Ventures LLLP. The applicant, Hampton
Companies LLC, requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a memory care
and assisted living facility on the property to be operated by Suite Living Senior Care. The 2.22-
acre site is currently vacant, and the proposal would include a 21,746-square-foot building to house
the proposed use.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no
comments or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided a planning staff report and a
presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the
City’s website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Jeremy Larson, representing the applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions.
Commissioner Goldade asked if the applicant had any other facilities in Mendota Heights.
Mr. Larson replied that they do not, noting that the closest would be in Inver Grove Heights, and
a total of 20 facilities throughout the metro, with four others under construction.
Commissioner Corbett asked for information on signage.
Mr. Larson replied that he did not have that level of detail with him, but typically, they have a
monument sign and signage within a gable.
Commissioner Johnson expressed concern about the language that landscaping is decorative and
can be moved. She commented on the benefits of trees and landscaping. She was pleased with
the trees that were included in the plan.
Mr. Larson stated that they are open to working with the City on that element, noting that they
typically plant more trees than required.
Commissioner Goldade stated that he supports this type of business but noted that it seems to be
an outlier in the area and asked if there are any concerns with neighboring 1174.
Page 9 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 12
Mr. Larson commented that they neighbor residential properties, but also neighbor industrial
properties. He stated that many of the rooms that are first reserved have views of the busiest spots,
as they want to see activity.
Commissioner Goldade noted that 1174 would have truck activity and asked if that is a concern.
Mr. Larson commented that the residents do not drive, and therefore, they do not have traffic
concerns. He stated that this is an end-of-life product with most residents staying two to three
years before passing.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she appreciates the landscape plan and notes provided by the
applicant. She offered a replacement suggestion for the Japanese Lilac. She recommended the
removal of buckthorn if it exists on the property. She asked if the applicant is working with the
City on potential screening for the mechanical equipment.
Dan Brown, Hampton Companies, provided information on the rooftop units and the screening
that is provided. He confirmed that the equipment would be on service platforms on the pitched
roof.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Johnson asked if the screening of mechanical equipment would meet the staff
review comments.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the screening provided would meet
the City requirements, and the suggestion was made for a more attractive option, although that
would not be required.
Commissioner Johnson referenced a condition suggested in the previous case regarding
maintenance and replacement of landscaping and asked if that is something that could apply to this
case.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that in the previous case, the language
was taken from the PUD. She stated that in general, any developer would have responsibilities
per the ordinance and would provide securities to the City for the installation of improvements.
She stated that as part of the Forest Management Plan, there are required replacement trees and
related regulations.
Page 10 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 12
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
HAMPTON COMPANIES, LLC AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1178
NORTHLAND DRIVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 32-UNIT
ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW SITE GRADING, UTILITY, AND
DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY
CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING ON THE SITE.
2. THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL GRADING, UTILITY,
AND SITE PLANS, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR
PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICATION.
3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT.
4. ANY NEW OR EXISTING SANITARY OR WATER SERVICE LINES WILL HAVE
TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND/OR SAINT PAUL
REGIONAL WATER SERVICES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING
PERMIT.
5. 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
IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS SITE.
6. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE CITY’S FIRE MARSHAL TO
IDENTIFY A LOCATION FOR AN ADDITIONAL HYDRANT ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
7. THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SHALL BE RELOCATED TO BE ATTACHED TO AND
ACCESSIBLE FROM THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE
12: ZONING. AN UPDATED PARKING AND CIRCULATION PLAN SHALL BE
PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT TO CONFIRM ADEQUATE
ACCESS ON SITE.
8. A SEPARATE FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION AND FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR
TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE
URBAN FOREST PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT SHALL POST
A TREE REPLACEMENT ESCROW WITH THE CITY AND SHALL MITIGATE
TREE REPLACEMENT IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE PROPERTY AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. IF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE, THE CITY MAY
APPROVE ALTERNATIVE TREE REPLACEMENT MEASURES WITHIN THE
FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT.
Page 11 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 12
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2025,
meeting.
New and Unfinished Business
A) TITLE 11: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the Commission is asked to
review the red line ordinance of Title 11: Subdivision Regulations and provide any comments,
questions, or concerns.
Commissioner Goldade asked for information on the process of review for this.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that this can come back to the
Planning Commission as many times as it is needed before it moves to the City Council.
Commissioner Goldade asked and received confirmation of the most recent subdivision
application reviewed by the Commission.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted inconsistencies, definitions, and other
needed updates within the regulations that are necessary to meet current standards. She noted a
desire to make it more readable and easier to understand. She stated that this draft was reviewed
by the City Council at its June workshop.
Chair Field asked if “certificate of survey” should be capitalized.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that should be capitalized and that
she would make the updates within the draft. She noted some gaps that would need to be filled in
within the draft.
Commissioner Corbett recognized a concern related to fire access and the length of a cul-de-sac
and asked if that is a concern for the Fire Department.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden replied that the Fire Marshal is a part of the
ordinance review, and historically, that was a concern with cul-de-sac length. She commented that
they will get into that in further detail as they work through that section. She noted that in previous
discussions, the larger component was related to turnaround radius and hydrant location. She
confirmed that sprinkling within the home could also be required in certain scenarios.
Commissioner Johnson referenced page 101 and language related to public utilities. She
referenced the condition for underground utilities and asked if that is redundant, as she believed
that is already the standard.
Page 12 of 64
November 25, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 12
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek recognized that is a more recent standard of development, but
believed it would be good to keep that language in, although it may be redundant. He stated that
if there are existing overhead lines, those can be used, but new development would require
underground.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the scheduled meeting for December
is December 23rd and suggested changing that date. She noted that while she has not received any
new applications, they would consider the item tabled tonight. She stated that the meeting could
be held on December 29th if a quorum could be present.
Commissioner Stone commented that they may have the same problem on the 29th, as many people
take a vacation for the week between the holidays.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden believed that December 29th would be the best
date if a quorum could be present.
Chair Field believed that the 29th would give the residents more time, and it would be less conflict
with the Christmas holiday.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden confirmed that she would notice the meeting
date of December 29th. She commented that she would work with the property manager to find a
better location for the notification to be posted. She stated that she would also follow up with the
applicant on a time to host a resident meeting.
Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps notification language should also be reviewed to ensure
tenants are notified in addition to property owners.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided an update on recent City Council
actions on items recommended by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Goldade asked for an update on McMillan Estates.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the City Council did approve the
Preliminary Plat with conditions, and the applicant has filed suit against the City related to those
conditions.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER NATH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:26 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Page 13 of 64
4.a
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: December 29, 2025
Agenda Item: CASE No. 2025-16 Planned Unit Development Amendment
(Preliminary Development Plan) Application of Chase Real Estate (on
behalf of Condor Living / Lexington Heights Apartments), requesting a
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) via a Zoning Amendment,
and Amendment to an existing PUD (Lexington Heights Apartments) for a
new 84-unit multi-family apartment building and associated underground
parking and site work at the property located at 2300 Lexington Avenue
Department: Community
Development
Contact: Sarah Madden,
Community Development
Manager
Introduction:
The subject property located at 2300 Lexington Avenue is owned by Riley Family Lexington
Heights Limited Partnership, and has been owned by the same family since its development.
The site consists of five (5) parcels containing three multi-family buildings, a common leasing
office and community building, and site amenities. The development is known as Lexington
Heights Apartments, and it is managed by Condor Corporation, a company also affiliated with
the property owner. The applicant, Chase Real Estate, LLC, requests approval of an
amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the
construction of a new 84-unit apartment building on the property in addition to the existing
structures. The Planned Unit Development Amendment is being processed as a Preliminary
Planned Unit Development under the procedures for a Zoning Amendment as required by City
Code Title 12: Zoning.
This application has been tabled from the Planning Commission's regular meeting on
November 25, 2025. A duly noted public hearing was held at that meeting, where three
persons spoke in regards to the application, as well as a representative from the applicant
team. The Planning Commission discussed the application and voted unanimously (7-0) to
table the request to the next available Planning Commission meeting. The Commission asked
staff and the applicant to clarify some application details, including impervious surface, pet-
related areas, and landscaping/plant material plans. The Commission also requested that the
applicant and property owner take steps to engage with the residents of the existing
development regarding their request to the City for land use approval for the new building.
The applicant held a resident meeting on December 11, 2025. Approximately 31 residents
were in attendance. The majority of the questions presented by residents to the applicant and
property owner regarded the direct impacts to residents from construction of the building, the
estimated rents for the new units, and any improvements that would be made to the
development as a whole. Related to the application to the City, there were questions about
parking lot turn-around locations both during construction and following completion,
stormwater management, the overall siting of the new building and its height, parking capacity,
Page 14 of 64
building materials and design, and the increase in density on the property.
Regarding questions that arose during the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation
at the November meeting, the applicant has clarified some details as follows:
• Traffic Impacts: The applicant's engineer had prepared trip generation information at
the request of City Staff for review. This memo was inadvertently not included in the
attachments at the November meeting. It is included as an attachment to this report.
Staff determined that the daily and peak hour increase in trips does not warrant a traffic
study for impacts to Lexington Avenue.
• Impervious Surface: The Engineering narrative also included the preliminary impervious
surface calculations for the development on this northern parcel of the PUD, which
would increase impervious surface by approximately .38 acres to total the site
impervious surface at 49%.
• Surface water/stormwater management: The preliminary plans indicate that there will
be a new infiltration basin installed on site. These plans are preliminary, and as
construction documents are developed the exact method of collection for this pond
would be confirmed. However, the applicant did indicate that they would likely install a
stormwater pipe directing the water collected to the new basin adjacent to Lexington
Avenue. Staff does not have concerns with the preliminary plans as proposed. The
development will be required to comply with the City's surface water and stormwater
management provisions, as well as state requirements for disturbance.
• Pet Areas: The property owner and leasing office has confirmed that they do not intend
to allow pets, consistent with the existing buildings in the development.
• Landscaping requirements: Staff has included conditions relating to the final landscape
plan, including a request for the developer to provide additional screening buffers from
Interstate 35E. The exact tree removals will be required to be identified in the Forest
Alteration Permit, and all landscaping removals and new plant materials will be required
to be included on the Final Development Plan, within an updated landscaping plan and
schedule. The applicant has provided preliminary plans for the landscaping design, but
is aware of City Code requirements for the size of any required replacement trees, and
is expected to submit revised drawings with these details, as well as with the increase
in buffer plant materials and any parking lot landscaping as required in City Code. The
question of tree removals did come up at the resident meeting, and the applicant
reiterated that exact removals are still preliminary, however they do not expect to
remove the trees to the north of the site and north of the proposed garage entrance. It
should also be noted that the majority of the wooded area north of this site is not on the
subject property, but is present on neighboring private property.
City staff and the applicant will present an overview of the resident meeting and highlight the
areas previously commented on by the Commission during the next public meeting on this
application request on December 29th. The City has noticed for a 2nd public hearing for this
application on December 29th.
The public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice
letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The City also sent
the notice to the property manager for the apartment buildings to provide to the residents of
the development to be informed of the second public hearing. The city has not received any
new formal comments or objections to this land use request as of the submittal of this report,
however three written public comments were received for the November 25th meeting and
have been included as attachments to this report.
Page 15 of 64
Background:
The subject property where the new apartment building construction is proposed is located on
Lexington Avenue and is approximately 240,952 sq-ft. (5.53 acres) in size. The entire site
consists of five parcels across 16.31 acres, and the subject site is the northernmost parcel
within the development. This parcel contains one of the three apartment buildings within the
development (known as Building A) as well as a surface parking lot. The full Lexington Heights
site abuts Lexington Avenue to the west, and Interstate 35-E to the east. Each apartment
building has its own drive aisle access point from Lexington Avenue and contains
underground parking to serve the residents. The subject site currently maintains two access
points, with a direct access to the underground parking garage for Building C onto Lexington
Avenue at the north end of the property.
The property is zoned R-3 Multi Family Residential and is guided HR – High Density
Residential in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The property was developed as a Planned
Unit Development in 1983 for a three-building, 225-unit apartment development. Typically,
once a PUD has been approved, it serves as a form of zoning category (or overlay) on a site.
However, at the time that this PUD was approved, a Planned Unit Development was not
considered a separate zoning district and the apartment properties have remained under the
R-3 zoning since their approval and development, as is reflected on current and past zoning
maps for the City. 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 in 1983. This is
discussed further in the “Planned Unit Development – Procedural Review” section of this
report.
The property to the south shares R-3 zoning and HR guidance in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, and is developed with rental townhomes constructed in 2001 (Hillside Gables). The
properties to the north of the site are zoned R-1 Low Density Residential and guided LR – Low
Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The property immediately abutting the north
end of this development contains a single-family home built in 1952. Across Lexington Avenue
to the west is the Catholic Cemeteries property which is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential
and within the Public/Semi-Public Overlay District, and is guided P/S – Public/Semi-Public in
the Comprehensive Plan. To the west of the development is Interstate 35-E with Rogers Lake
on the other side of the highway, greater than 550-ft away.
Site History
The PUD for Lexington Heights was approved under Resolution 1983-95 (attached to this
report), which notes approval by “Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned Unit
Development” for the three buildings containing 225 dwelling units. At that time, the property
was unplatted and was 18.2 acres in size. The Resolution also granted a Variance approval
for the development for the density of 225 units on the 18.2 acres, amounting to 12.4 units per
acre.
The density component was evaluated by the City leading up to the Planned Unit
Development application, with the City’s Engineering and Planning consultants at the time
providing a memo in 1972 indicating that sewer capacity and water systems within the Village
of Mendota Heights would need to be evaluated if the potential project was in excess of 27
persons per acre. There was no calculation by number of dwelling units, but rather individual
persons. When the formal application was received by the City in 1983, the City staff at that
time indicated that the impact on public (utility) facilities would be minimal, and instead
provided comments on stormwater ponding and fire department access.
Page 16 of 64
The 1983 application initially included two alternative site plans for multi-family development,
one of which was for 225 total units and would require a Variance request for density (the plan
which was approved under Resolution 1983-95). The maximum density within the R-3 zone at
that time was 10 units per acre. It was noted in the staff report dated October 25, 1983 that the
amount of land which was required per unit was relatively large compared to metro standards,
and that typical multi-family construction was about 15 units per acre. The applicant at that
time was proposing the 225 unit plan as it was what would have been approved within the
density range if there had been no additional highway taking for I-35E. Because the site could
technically handle the same number of units from a services standpoint, staff was supportive
of the Variance request for 12.4 units per acres and noted that a more intensive development
would be beneficial to the City from a tax perspective and a potential reduction in cost to the
occupants of the building.
With the language within the Zoning Ordinance in place at the time, and because MNDoT had
acquired right-of-way from the original property prior to the application for development, the
City processed the density request from the applicant as a Variance to City Code. The City
Council’s discussion at the time of approval primarily focused on mortgage revenue financing
(a requirement of the time period), as well as comments from Catholic Cemeteries on
drainage from the site following construction. The number of units and the density request
appears to have been discussed from the standpoint of the MnDoT right-of-way acquisition for
Interstate 35-E, rather than by discussing general standards for density within City Code.
Following approval of the Planned Unit Development, building permits were issued for the site
and began construction in 1984. Since their construction, no major modifications have been
made to any of the buildings. The City has records of the swimming pool permit in 1985, and
long term maintenance improvements such as re-roofing or heating and mechanical permits
as needed.
The Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development (PUD) site was platted as Lexington
Heights Addition in April 1984, following approval of the development plan for the PUD by the
City of Mendota Heights in the year prior and the issuance of building permits to begin
construction. The three apartment properties are each located on their own platted lot of
record, and the leasing office and community room building, and the tennis court are both
platted as Outlots. During the Plat review process, Dakota County requested additional
dedication for a future trail. The Riley family consented to this right-of-way which resulted in
the total acreage seen within the development today of 16.31 acres, resulting in 13.8 units per
acre existing today.
The property owner first approached the City about the possibility of constructing a new
building on the property a number of years ago. In 2025, the property owner moved forward
with submitting a formal application, and the Planning Commission reviewed a Concept Plan
for this PUD Amendment at their May 27th regular meeting, followed by a City Council
discussion on the concept on June 3rd. The property owner received feedback from members
of the Planning Commission and City Council and determined that they would proceed with
the full Planned Unit Development Amendment as requested in this planning case proposed
by Chase Real Estate.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Lexington Heights leasing office and
Clubhouse on October 21, 2025. One resident attended the meeting who lived in the single
family home immediately adjacent to the development site. The resident had questions about
dust management and construction noise, and asked about overall project siting of the lot and
how much of the surface parking would remain. The resident indicated they had no concerns
Page 17 of 64
or complaints with the development as proposed. No residents of the apartment buildings
were present at the neighborhood meeting, however an effort has been made to invite them to
the public hearing for this planning case. No formal comments or written letters have been
received by the City, however one resident of the apartment development has reached out to
city staff with questions about the project.
Proposed Use
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 4-story, 84-unit apartment building with its own
underground parking, amenities, and outdoor seating space on the northernmost parcel of the
Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development at 2300 Lexington Avenue. The new building
would be constructed on the western side of the property adjacent to Interstate 35-E and
partially on top of the existing surface parking lot for the 2300 building which is currently
underutilized. The City Code considers multi-family attached development containing greater
than 25 units as a Conditional Use in the R-3 zoning district. Because this application request
is part of an existing Planned Unit Development, and the City processes Planned Unit
Developments as individual zoning Overlay Districts, this application request is processed
under the same parameters of a Zoning Amendment to consider a Planned Unit Development
Amendment. Greater detail and context on the development process for this planning case is
discussed in the “Planned Unit Development – Procedural Review” section of this report.
The proposed development will include a 116,920 sq-ft. building with 84 underground parking
garage stalls (74 individual and 10 tandem spaces), and 61 surface parking stalls. The new
building will be accessed by the existing drive aisle which serves the 2300 Lexington building
and the north access to the leasing office and community building. The underground parking
garage will be accessed form the north by a new driveway extending from the north end of the
surface parking lot. The main entrance to the building will be on the eastern façade of the
structure facing into the shared surface parking lot area.
The proposed building will include 62 1-Bedroom units, 18 2-Bedroom units, and four (4) 3-
Bedroom units. All of the proposed units will meet the minimum square footage of 700 square
feet required in the zoning ordinance, with 1-Bedrooms ranging from 711-962 sq-ft, 2-
Bedrooms ranging from 1,50-1,260 sq-ft, and the four 3-Bedroom units anticipated to be 1,300
sq-ft in size. The three existing buildings within the PUD contain 75 units each, with 30 1-
Bedroom and 45 2-Bedroom units per building.
Site improvements will include a retaining wall north of the ramp into the parking garage
entrance, patio and courtyard seating space amenities, new utility extensions, a new
infiltration basin adjacent to Lexington Avenue, and site landscaping around the perimeter of
the new building. The applicant has provided preliminary civil plans including site paving,
grading, utility, and landscaping plans for this Preliminary Development Plan. If this application
moves forward in the process, more detailed plans will be reviewed as part of the City’s
evaluation of the Final Development Plan for this PUD Amendment.
Water connections will be made at the north end of the property extending from a connection
at the north end of the new building, across the property to connect at utilities within Lexington
Avenue. A sanitary sewer connection is shown on Sheet C101 to cross the shared property
line to the leasing office and community building parcel, with intent to construct a new
manhole over the existing 12” sanitary sewer and make a connection at that point. A new
infiltration basin is proposed in between the existing apartment building on the subject site and
Lexington Avenue. The applicant is proposing to modify grades in that area to accommodate
capacity of 2,766 CF in the basin, utilizing an area that is already sloped towards trail and
street level.
Page 18 of 64
The first step in the Planned Unit Development Amendment process was a Concept-level
review conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council in May-June of 2025.
Following the City’s evaluation of this Preliminary Development Plan, the applicant intends to
move forward with developing Final Development Plan drawings for the City to review in
December. If approved, the development team would plan for an early Spring construction
start with 14-15 months of construction before being substantially complete by Summer 2027.
Market Feasibility
The City Code requires an economic feasibility report or market analysis when submitting for a
Preliminary Development Plan for a PUD. The applicant has provided in their narrative letter
an analysis of nearby residential properties in Mendota Heights, Eagan, and Inver Grove
Heights which shows high rates of occupancies as of June 2025. The property owner has also
noted that Lexington Heights has maintained full occupancy for numerous years, and currently
the apartment development is 99% occupied. The applicant has indicated that demand for
apartments in the area is high and continues to gros and new construction costs rise and can
be expensive for first time buyers.
The applicant has also cited the 2024 Dakota County Housing Assessment which reported
that 8 of the 11 submarkets (cities) in Dakota County have vacancy rates which are lower than
the County’s total vacancy rate, and identified the lack of available multi-family rentals as a
county-wide issue. The 2024 Housing Assessment identified Mendota Heights’ market-rate
vacancy rate as 1.9%.
Planned Unit Development – Procedural Review
The City Code states that the purpose of the Planned Unit Development is to “encourage
flexibility in the design and development of land while limiting development to a scale that is
appropriate to the physical characteristics of the land and surrounding land uses”. Approval
and Administration of PUDs are regulated by a Development Agreement, and when the City is
reviewing such applications the standards for approval include a unified treatment of the
development possibilities on a project site including preservation of unique natural amenities,
planned and harmonized development with existing development in the surrounding area, and
consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
At the time this development was approved, City Code outlined a process for PUDs to be
processed as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This was common for that time period as the
procedural step for the PUD zoning tool. At that time a PUD was not considered a separate
zoning district or a separate overlay district, but was still used as a flexible review tool for a
variety of development possibilities on a piece of land.
The City’s zoning ordinance in 1983 did not address what’s now commonly referred to as
“deviations” from City Code within a PUD. Instead, the ordinance outlined a process for
Variances to be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, but the
ordinance was developed “to allow substantial variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance” and noted that “certain regulations contained in this Ordinance do not realistically
apply to the proposed development due to the unique nature of the proposed development”.
The Ordinance also called for the City to review these variances “for a reasonable and
practical physical development”. (Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance, November 1981)
The current PUD process is intended to provide a flexible zoning Overlay District. In the case
of the Lexington Heights PUD, the site is already established as an approved Planned Unit
Development, but due to its age the property was never placed into an Overlay Zoning District.
Page 19 of 64
An application for a rezoning serves as a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance,
and is considered an act of legislative capacity even though the rezoning application may only
relate to one parcel of land owned by one individual. This remains true for new Planned Unit
Development applications, and in this case for an amendment to the prior PUD approval, that
the City must process the application as it would a Zoning Amendment, and the amendment
must be adopted by Ordinance and not just by Resolution.
The Zoning Code Update which went into effect in 2025 formalizes the Overlay process for
identifying and maintaining PUDs, and clarifies the rezoning process and the Development
Agreement which would outline the uses and areas of flexibility from the Base Zoning District,
and any development terms and conditions. This process will be followed for the current
planning case application as a rezoning application was never processed previously for
Lexington Heights due to the City Code not requiring so at the time of its approval and initial
development.
This property is currently zoned R-3 Multi Family Residential, and the Planned Unit
Development Amendment’s approval would be considered a “HR-PUD” type under City Code.
The HR-PUD is intended to provide the opportunity to develop a Planned Unit Development of
a nature and intensity equivalent to the R-3 Base Zoning District with the permitted,
conditional, and accessory uses in this District being the same as those for the R-3 district.
This practice of either Overlay Zoning Districts, or separate PUD Zoning Districts, is the most
commonly applied methodology for the Planned Unit Development zoning tool in the metro
region and has been standard for many years.
As mentioned previously in this report, the administration of the Planned Unit Development
once approved in through the approved Development Agreement for the site. This
development agreement will outline the areas of flexibility from the R-3 Base Zoning District.
Specifically, this application request includes a density to request to further exceed the density
standard of the R-3 Zoning District from the existing 13.8 units per acre, to 18.9 units per acre.
The apartment building proposal would increase the total number of units from 225 to 309
apartment units over the 16.31 acre site.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting a reduced setback for the apartment building from the
east property line abutting the Interstate 35-E right-of-way. The above-ground portion of the
building is illustrated at 25.2-ft setback from the rear property line, as opposed to 50-ft
required in the R-3 Base Zoning District.
These deviations requests are discussed in greater detail in the “Flexibility from Base Zoning
District” section of this report.
Similarly to the established procedures for processing a Planned Unit Development rezoning
request, the City must act on this application as an Amendment to an existing Planned Unit
Development. Because the Lexington Heights development is an existing Planned Unit
Development, changes to the PUD and Final Development Plan are required to be processed
depending on the scope of the proposed changes. The ordinance outlines some possibilities
for how these amendments may be processed following the completion of an approved PUD:
•Minor alterations of the building envelope can be authorized by a majority vote of the
City Council
•New uses may require a Conditional Use Permit to be incorporated into the Final
Development Plan
Page 20 of 64
o This Planned Unit Development already has established multi-family attached
residential structures as a permitted use throughout the development. No
Conditional Use Permit is required for the processing of this application.
•Changes to common open space within a Final Development Plan must be processed
as a Zoning Amendment
•All other changes (exclusive of minor changes or additions) must be approved by the
City Council under the full procedures outlined in 12-5B-8: Planned Unit Development.
Because this proposal includes a new structure within the common open space, the City is
required to process this planning case as a Zoning Amendment. This procedure is consistent
with the rezoning procedure described earlier in this section of the report to establish the
Overlay District on this existing Planned Unit Development.
Planned Unit Development – Flexibility from Base Zoning District
•Density
The City’s HR – High Density Residential land use category outlines a density range of 6.0 to
9.0 units per acre. This range is less than the City’s previous density standard for the R-3
District and High Density land use category during the approval of the 1983 Planned Unit
Development for the subject property, which was established as 10 units per acre in the 1979
Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s density standards did decrease from the time of this site’s original approval, then
remained stagnant with minimal increases in allowable density ranges over the last 30+ years.
The City’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan established a maximum density within the HR land use
category of 8.54 units per acre. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan established a density range
between 5.3 and 8.4 units per acre.
These density ranges are contrasted by conflicting calculations in the Zoning Ordinance for
the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for an R-3 zoned property. In the 1981 Zoning
Ordinance which was in effect at the time of this development’s initial approval at 12.4 units
per acre, 4,080 sq-ft of land area was required for each 1 bedroom apartment within a 3-story
building. This would have amounted to 194 units permitted which exceed the maximum 10
units per acre at that time.
Similar conflicting calculations exist in the City’s zoning ordinance today. The minimum lot size
per unit in the R-3 Base Zoning District is 3,500 square feet. Based on the 16.31 acre site
within this Planned Unit Development, the zoning ordinance would permit 12.4 units per acre
permitted by right, without the need for a Variance or for a Planned Unit Development. This
calculation is consistent for the apartment building development as it currently exists, but the
total number of units permitted is in excess of the density range outlined in the HR High
Density Residential Land Use category in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan does address the flexibility provided in a Planned Unit
Development zoning tool, and notes that Mendota Heights zoning ordinance “includes PUD
regulations that allow for varied and compatible development of property by encouraging
reasonable flexibility from applicable standards, including higher densities than would be
allowed under the underlying zoning district and/or future land use designation”
The Comprehensive Plan also outlines policies for the City relating to land use and growth
Page 21 of 64
goals within developed residential neighborhoods, stating that the “Redevelopment of existing
MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be limited
to densities consistent with the Future Land Use Plan”. This planning case does not constitute
a full redevelopment of the site, but rather should be considered a modification or alteration of
a portion of the existing development, procedurally outlined in the Planned Unit Development
ordinance as a Zoning Amendment. Because the Future Land Use Plan identifies the City’s
ability to utilize the Planned Unit Development tool to encourage flexibility of higher densities,
staff does not see a conflict with this Comprehensive Plan policy.
The applicant has provided additional context on densities within the City as support for their
request for a density deviation from City Code. The applicant indicates that the proposed
density of 19 units per acre is the least among recent approved city housing developments,
including the three phases of The Reserve development and the Linden Apartments which all
range between 29 and 63 units per acre. City Staff previously analyzed existing multi-family
residential densities in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update process, and found that the
majority of existing multi-family properties in both R-3, Mixed Use, and PUD Districts across
the City exceeded the density ranges outlined under the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
The calculated densities per parcel are identified in the chart below:
Based on this analysis, staff is supportive of the requested deviation from the R-3 Base
Zoning District for a proposed density of 18.9 units per acre.
• Setbacks
Civil Sheet C100, Preliminary Paving and Dimensional Plan illustrates the proposed setback
of the new multi-family building from the east property line abutting I-35E. The above-ground
portion of the building is shown to be setback 25.2-ft from the “rear” property line, as opposed
to 50-ft as required in the R-3 Base Zoning District. The actual requirement for a rear property
line setback in the R-3 District is 40-ft. However, the nature of the alignment of this property
between Lexington Avenue and Interstate 35-E establishes the parcels as a Through Lot. A
Through Lot is defined in the zoning ordinance as “A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines
abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot,
both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying this”. The parcel’s status as a through lot
requires that the City evaluate this “rear” property line as an additional front lot line for the
purpose of applying setbacks and yard requirements.
In addition to the above-ground portion of the structure setback at 25.2-ft, the below-ground
portion of the parking garage structure is proposed to be setback 15-ft from this property line.
Page 22 of 64
At the surface level, this area will be staged as a courtyard outdoor amenity space for the
residents of the building, however beneath that space is a portion of the underground parking
garage. This feature is illustrated on the Garage Level Floor Plan attached to this report.
This lot does not contain a perimeter drainage and utility easement along the shared property
line with I-35E. Staff has worked with the applicant to adjust this dimension from a previously
requested 7-ft distance from the property line in order to accommodate construction impacts
for the grading and excavation work needed to pour the parking garage and foundational walls
in place without encroaching onto the MnDoT right-of-way.
The right-of-way is approximately 80-ft. in depth from the property line to the edge of I-35E’s
shoulder. When looking at the Planned Unit Development site as a whole, the other structures
on the property generally range between 60-70-ft setback from this property line. City Code
does not have a separate parking setback for enclosed or underground parking spaces from
property lines, but the Screening standards of the zoning ordinance to require that off-street
parking facilities within 50-ft of a right-of-way must install a buffer along the property line. The
applicant does have a preliminary landscape plan that would include tree plantings along this
property line.
Staff’s recommendation for this deviation request would be to require additional landscape
buffer between the proposed multi-family structure and the right-of-way line for I35-E to
minimize the appearance and impact of the reduced setback request. The Preliminary
Landscape Plan is discussed in greater detail in the “Tree Removals and Landscaping”
section of this report.
Parking and Access
The proposed site plan includes 61 surface parking stalls for the new building, and maintains
45 of the existing parking stalls for the existing apartment building on the property. The
applicant is also proposing space for 84 parking stalls in the underground parking garage,
accommodating one covered space per dwelling unit in the building. This is consistent with the
1-to-1 ratio provided in the existing building on the property, and with the requirement within
City Code for a minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit to be enclosed within a
parking structure of garage.
Of the 84 parking spaces provided in the underground parking garage, the applicant is
proposing that 10 of the stalls be designed as tandem spaces, which would allow residents
within the building with two vehicles to share a deeper parking stall for their vehicles. The
applicant has indicated that this style of parking provision would be able to adequately serve
the residents based on their evaluation of the current parking use in the existing building on
site (referred to as Building C). Building C is 99% occupied, but sees 81% occupancy within
the parking garage as 14 residents do not park in the garage, while other residents park two
cars in the garage. While this building provides a parking stall either within the garage or on
surface parking for each bedroom within the building, there is a lesser demand for parking
spaces. The applicant has indicated that the site overall sees similar levels of parking demand
and is proposing to provide 1.73 parking stalls per unit for the new building, or 1.32 parking
stalls per bedroom.
When the full Planned Unit Development is evaluated for parking, the applicant has indicated
that through an audit of the parking on the full site in Summer 2025, approximately 240 stalls
of the 600 total stalls on the property are not utilized or underutilized.
The current parking is provided at a rate of 1.67 stalls per bedroom in the development. The
Page 23 of 64
applicant is proposing that with the addition of the new building, a total of 662 parking stalls
will be provided on site which is equal to providing 1.41 parking stalls per bedroom, or 2.14
parking stalls per dwelling unit. City Code requires 1 space per dwelling unit, or 1 space per
bedroom, whichever is greater for a multi-family residential use. Even with the reduction of
surface parking on the subject site to allow for the construction of a new apartment building,
the new constructed parking garage for the proposed building is still able to provide adequate
parking above the minimum requirements for R-3 Zoned properties, and the full Planned Unit
Development parking plan remains consistent with City Code requirements.
Screening and Buffers
City Code design standards for multi-family building construction requires that parking areas
contiguous to or across the street from lower density residential properties must be screened
with fencing at least 4-ft in height. This standard is not currently met on the property, however
the existing surface parking is not immediately adjacent to the abutting single-family
residential property. The surface parking lot has been designed to orient the parking of
vehicles towards both the existing building and the proposed building. No parking stalls are
oriented to face the adjacent residential property. Additionally, the existing surface parking is
screened from view of the adjacent single family home by the existing apartment building on
the 2300 Lexington parcel. Staff does not see a conflict with this provision in the design of the
property’s surface parking facilities.
Staff has suggested in the “Planned Unit Development – Flexibility from Base Zoning District”
that additional landscape buffers should be included on the Final Development Plan. A
condition is recommended to increase the plant materials within a buffer area between the
proposed courtyard and reduced setback area from the east property line boundary with I-35E
by installing additional landscape materials including berms, hedges, or other landscape
materials where feasible. The Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan on Sheet C101 does
illustrate that there is a significant change in grade between the property line and the
proposed building already, which will be regraded as part of the construction impacts for this
development if approved. The elevation drops from 906-ft north/northeast of the proposed
patio area to 894-ft immediately east of the proposed courtyard. This slope may not allow for
proper spacing of additional new plant materials, but the graded slope of the property will
provide an element of buffering to supplement any new plant materials.
Tree Removals and Landscaping
The applicant’s provided Certificate of Survey illustrates that the majority of existing trees on
the property were planted as part of the initial development’s design at the time the apartment
buildings were constructed in 1984. There are at least eight trees identified on the survey
which are within the planned impact area for the construction of the new apartment building.
Based on the number of trees on site, it is possible that a Forest Management Plan will be
required for the property for planting replacement trees. However, the City will require that a
Forest Alteration Permit be submitted with a tree inventory identifying all trees which are to be
removed as part of this development proposal, to be evaluated with any building permit
application.
The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan and has indicated that the new
building plans will include perimeter plantings of perennials and shrubs, as well as plans for
new tree plantings at the northwest corner of the surface parking facility, the northeast edge of
the site abutting Interstate 35-E right-of-way, and adjacent to the patio amenities as a buffer
from the right-of-way and adjacent leasing office structure.
City Code Title 15: Environmental Regulations provides requirements within the Urban Forest
Page 24 of 64
Preservation Ordinance for required tree plantings in the event of a removal threshold being
reached, or in the event that a heritage tree is removed from a property. The zoning ordinance
outlines the minimum size of required plant materials, but does not provide guidance on the
quantity of plants which must be included in a development plan. The primary area that the
ordinance provides zoning regulations on regarding landscaping is a requirement that at least
25% of the land area must be landscaped (which this existing site and proposed development
plan would comply with), and an additional requirement that at least 10 percent (10%) of any
surface parking lot area must contain landscape medians, tree trenches, or other pervious
landscape areas. The preliminary landscape plan illustrates an intent for building perimeter
landscaping, and some tree installation at the edge of the parking areas, but does not amount
to 10% of the parking area. When this provision is evaluated throughout the entire site, the
existing surface parking areas do not contain many areas for parking medians with adequate
room for landscaping. The applicant should consider the inclusion of additional parking lot
islands or medians to provide additional landscaping areas within the surface parking lot. A
condition has been included in the recommendation section of this report that the Final
Development Plan include an updated landscape plan with a detailed landscaping schedule
for planned plant materials.
Exterior Design and Floor Plans
A color graphic of what the building will look like from the front entrance (facing west towards
the existing Building C) is provided on the Lexington Heights Apartments over Sheet included
as an attachment to this report. The applicant has also provided exterior elevations, a sample
sheet of the planned exterior materials, and architectural floor plans of the garage level,
ground level, and levels 2-4 of matching unit layouts. The proposed building is 4-stories tall
over one level of underground parking which includes 84 enclosed parking stalls (10 of which
are tandem-style). The total building size is proposed to be 116,920 sq-ft, with each floor
measuring 22,571 sq-ft in size, exclusive of the underground parking level which is planned to
be 26, 634 sq-ft in size with a proposed patio area over top the additional underground
building area. The 84-unit building will contain a mix of unit types, including 62 1-Bedrooms,
18 2-Bedrooms, and 4 3-Bedroom units. The new building will be one floor taller than the
existing buildings on site and contain an additional 9 units over the three existing 75-unit
structures.
The Garage level Floor Plan indicates that the parking stalls will measure 9x18, with the
exception of the 10 tandem spaces measured at 9x32. Trash handling is located on the
garage level adjacent to the north stairwell.
The unit mixes will be spread out throughout the building, with the four 3-Bedroom units
located at the southeast corner of the building on each floor overlooking the courtyard patio
and I-35E with Rogers Lake beyond. Levels 2-4 are designed similarly with a spread of the 1
and 2 bedroom units, and the ground floor will contain a lobby and mail space, a home office
center, a club room, and a fitness area. Two patio amenities are proposed, one of which is
accessible from the fitness and club room are on the east side of the new building, and a
larger landscaped courtyard which is accessible from the sidewalk leading to the leasing office
and community clubhouse building.
In Attached and Multi-family Residential developments, the Ordinance contains performance
standards for architecture and building design. All new construction must be designed with
four-sided architecture, and the exterior façade of any multi-family building must be designed
to eliminate large blank walls without architectural detail or interest. Building design must also
include some articulation or detail between floors such as a change in materials, color,
balconies, or other architectural details. Exterior walls must also not extend more than 40-ft
Page 25 of 64
without a material break. Additionally, each building must include a clear entry and front
façade which faces the primary above-ground access.
The proposal meets the ordinance requirements through the use of windows and balconies at
regular intervals for each dwelling unit. The primary entrance will face the surface parking lot
and west access to the site from the existing drive aisle. The entrance is differentiated with a
cantilevered covered entry and address signage. The building materials consist of a
combination of complimentary brick and copper-colored siding consistent with the color palette
of the existing buildings within the PUD, as well as alternating lap siding in pewter, and accent
siding in black on the top floor of the building, with vertical stripes of the black color at the
primary entrance, stairwell window locations, and on the north façade above the parking
garage entrance. Visual relief is accomplished by incorporating a combination of vertical and
horizontal lines of the three different types of lap siding, contrasting material colors, and
varying depths of the structure for units’ windows and balconies.
The proposed building will measure 48-ft in height to the top parapet which is within the 60-ft
maximum height established in the R-3 Base Zoning District.
Analysis:
Pursuant to Title 12-5B-8, the City establishes provisions for the creation of a Planned Unit
development project by encouraging flexibility in the design and development of land while
limiting development to a scale that is appropriate to the physical characteristics of the land
and surrounding uses. Such flexibility shall achieve at minimum two of the following
objectives:
1.Preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas; or,
2.To facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; or
3.To encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development; or
4.To permit a mixture of several Zoning District uses within a development project or
5.To permit modification and flexibility from of the strict Zoning District requirements so
that a more efficient use of land or design may be employed.
The subject site is an existing Planned Unit Development which was established in 1983
under a different zoning ordinance and regulatory framework. The planning case under review
by the Planning Commission is for a Zoning Amendment to amend the existing Planned Unit
Development to accommodate a new 84-unit multi-family residential building. Multi-family
residential structures are a permitted use within this Planned Unit Development. The applicant
has identified two areas of flexibility requested as deviations from the R-3 Base Zoning
District: to allow a net residential density of 18.9 units per acres, and to allow a building
setback of 25.2-ft from the east property line abutting I-35E.
The proposed Amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development encourages a
diversity of housing types with a given development by incorporating a mixture of unit types
within the proposed building, including 1-Bedroom + dens and 3-Bedroom units, which do not
currently exist within the Lexington Heights development. The proposed amendment also
requests modification and flexibility from the strict Zoning District requirements so that a more
efficient use of land may be employed, by requesting the above-mentioned deviations from the
R-3 Base Zoning District. Specifically, the requested density deviation of 18.9 units per acre is
a permitted flexibility from the R-3 Zone allowing a more efficient use of space by constructing
new in-demand housing units on a portion of the property containing underutilized parking.
Staff has indicated support for the requested deviations from the City Code in the “Planned
Page 26 of 64
Unit Development – Flexibility from Base Zoning District” section of this report, and has
suggested conditions of approval for inclusion in the staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update included numerous discussions with the Planning
Commission at the time and city staff to identify key planning issues. Among those issues was
housing. Its noted that the City recognizes the need for a range of housing choices including
but not limited to 1) life-cycle opportunities for people of all generations and stages of life, and
2) workforce housing to support people working in a wide range of careers. In addition to the
analysis already provided in the background section of this report, the following
Comprehensive Plan goal statements and policies should be noted by the Planning
Commission and City Council to aide in their evaluation of the application request.
Chapter 2: Land Use and Growth of the Plan provides the following goal statement:
Goal 2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods
and character of the community.
Policy 1. Subdivision and zoning standards will require high quality site and building design
in all new developments.
Policy 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on
aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings.
Chapter 5: Housing of the Plan provides the following goal statements:
Goal 2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products
Policy 1. Encourage life-cycle housing opportunities in Mendota Heights of various forms
and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community throughout their lives. This
includes:
i. Maintenance of existing entry level housing.
ii. Construction of move-up single-family development that supports life-cycle housing.
iii. Construction of various types of senior housing, including senior ownership units,
senior rental units, memory care and assisted living units.
iv. Support the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income
levels, age groups, and special housing needs.
Policy 3. Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and distinct
neighborhood characteristics in the community.
Policy 4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing housing
stock.
Policy 5. Periodically assess the housing needs in the community, including for the elderly,
disabled, active retirees, and other groups with special housing needs to determine
development priorities and to formulate strategies to assist those needs and maintain an
adequate and quality housing supply
Staff Comments:
The applicant has provided a high quality site and building design which will add new housing
units to the community, allowing for residents to access a variety of housing types depending
on their need. The additional unit count within the City will support the development of a mix of
affordable housing opportunities for residents of Lexington Heights Apartments and of the City
as a whole, and provides a development product that is attractive. The approval of this
Planned Unit Development Amendment supports the maintenance of the City’s existing
housing stock and provides an opportunity for a long-term apartment operator to expand their
Page 27 of 64
housing stock and provide additional residential housing units to the community.
Staff affirms that the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages investment within existing
neighborhoods, and encourages a variety of housing types and affordability levels. The site
plan provides for an efficient use of space by replacing a portion of underutilized parking with
in-demand housing units, and the development product is consistent with the performance
standards of the zoning ordinance for a well-designed architectural style.
Alternatives:
1.Approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment (Preliminary Development Plan)
for Chase Real Estates (on behalf of Condor Corporation/Lexington Heights
Apartments) based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of
approval; or
2.Deny the Planned Unit Development Amendment (Preliminary Development Plan) for
Chase Real Estates (on behalf of Condor Corporation/Lexington Heights Apartments)
based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a recommendation as determined by
the Planning Commission through discussion; or
3.Table the request and request more information from staff and/or the applicant. Staff
will extend the application review period an additional 60-days, pursuant to MN State
Statute 15.99.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan, to
authorize an amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development (PUD) allowing
for the construction of a new 84-unit apartment building at 2300 Lexington Avenue, based on
the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions:
1.The Applicant/Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of
Mendota Heights.
2.The new building shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans
certified by registered architects and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with
all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-4B-3, Subpart E
“Architecture and Building Design Standards”
3.The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional
Water Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior
to final City Council approval.
4.The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading, utility, and site plans, and
architectural construction drawings for permitting, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Department and Engineering Department as part of any building permit
application. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to
construction commencement of any work.
5.All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in
compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
6.The Final Development Plan shall include an updated landscape plan with a detailed
landscaping schedule for planned plant materials.
7.The Applicant/Developer will work with Planning staff to review and approve additional
plant materials within a buffer area between the proposed patio courtyard and the
reduced setback area from the east property line boundary with I-35E by installing
additional landscape materials including berms, hedges, or other landscape materials
Page 28 of 64
where feasible.
8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount
equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening,
landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development
Agreement.
9. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible
for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and
orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which
are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be
replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must
be irrigated.
10. The Applicant/Developer will work with the fire department personnel in determining
final design, location and specifications to the fire safety access area to the north
portion of the new building.
11. A separate Forest Alteration Permit application and Forest Management Plan is
required to be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance to confirm
compliance with the Urban Forest Preservation Ordinance. The applicant shall post a
tree replacement escrow with the City and shall mitigate tree replacement in
appropriate areas of the property as reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources
Coordinator and Community Development Manager. If compliance with the tree
replacement requirement is not feasible, the City may approve alternative tree
replacement measures within the Forest Alteration Permit.
Attachments:
1. Findings of Fact for Approval
2. Site Location Map
3. Narrative - Lexington Heights Apartments
4. Engineering Narrative
5. Certificate of Survey
6. Lexington Heights Apartments Cover Sheet
7. Site Context and Details
8. Site Map - Existing Planned Unit Development
9. Architectural Site Plan
10. Setbacks Exhibit
11. Garage Floor Plan
12. Level 1 Floor Plan
13. Levels 2-4 Floor Plan
14. Exterior Materials
15. Exterior Elevations
16. Typical Unit Floor Plans
17. Chase Real Estate - Property Examples and Precedents
18. C100 Preliminary Paving and Dimensional Plan
19. C101 Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan
20. L100 Preliminary Landscape Plan
21. Public Comments Received 11-25-25
Page 29 of 64
Planning Case 2025-16 (PUD Amendment for Lexington Heights)
Page 1 of 1
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development
PUD Amendment (Preliminary Development Plan)
for
2300 Lexington Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment – Preliminary Development Plan, is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a
planned development in the R-3 Multi Family Residential Base Zoning District and HR – High
Density Residential Land Use area.
2. The deviations of the Planned Unit Development Amendment include:
a. To allow an increase in density to 18.9 units per acre on the 16.31 acre site
b. To allow a reduced principal building setback from the east lot line of 25.2-ft
3. The proposed project utilizes the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance
development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural
resources.
4. The reduced setback at the east property line for the principal building does not pose any threat to
the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of
the planned development of this property.
5. The increase in residential net density to 18.9 units per acre will be an effective and unified
treatment of the existing Planned Unit Development; will provide additional housing unit types that
are in-demand within the community; and can be developed to harmonize with existing
development in the areas surrounding the project site and within the City as a whole.
6. Construction of the proposed 84-unit multi-family residential building will contribute to a
significant amount of the Metropolitan Council’s forecasted population and household increases.
7. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would
allow for the more efficient use of underutilized surface parking space as part of the proposed
development.
8. With the conditions included herein, the site will provide a significant investment into the existing
Multi-family residential areas of the City and will benefit the City with an increased efficiency in
use of land and increased building activity.
9. The proposed multi-family apartment building supports investment within existing residential
developments, supports the maintenance of the City’s existing housing stock, and provides an
opportunity for an apartment owner within the City to expand their housing stock and provide
additional residential housing units to the community.
Page 30 of 64
6666666666666 6
666666666666666666
6
6
66666666666666666666666666666666*
!
³
!*
*
*
*
!
*
*
!
"!
*
""""
*
""
"
³
*
!
"
!
³
³
**!!
³
*
³"
³³
"
"
³
³³
³³
³³
³
³
!
!
*
!
!
6
666666666666
6!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2 !!2 !!2
2300
2370
2330
2431 1031
2258
1145
2320
1062
2401 949
9491031
1031LEXINGTON AVEINTERSTATE 35EINTERSTATE 35E NB RAMPINTERSTATE 35ENearmap US Inc, Dakota County, MN
Site Location/Aerial MapLexington Heights PUD
Date: 11/21/2025
City ofMendotaHeights0310
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 31 of 64
Lexington Heights Addition
Preliminary PUD (Amendment)
August 25, 2025: Updated 10-6-2025
Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager
City of Mendota Heights, MN
RE: Lexington Heights Apartments - Addition
2320 Lexington Heights Ave S, Mendota Heights
Ms. Madden:
On behalf of Jon Riley and Lexington Heights Apartments, please find attached our Preliminary PUD
application, civil site plan and architectural drawings for our proposed apartment building on the
existing Lexington Heights Apartments property.
Thank you for your input and guidance to date. We look forward to constructing a high-quality project
that will provide opportunities for Mendota Heights residents to stay in the City and enjoy a quiet,
beautiful property with various existing and new proposed amenities. The Riley family has maintained
their property to high standards dating back to 1983 when the Lexington Heights Apartments were first
constructed. This proposal turns a portion of an existing, under-utilized parking lot into a 4-story, 84-unit
new upscale apartment building with its own underground parking, amenities and outdoor courtyards.
We are excited about the initial design, architecture and opportunities for this upscale addition to the
property that will provide residents more diversity in unit plan styles, contemporary interiors and new
features. Jon and I look forward to our next steps with you and the City.
Per our recent meeting, here’s our latest plan updates and submittal additions:
1)CIVIL: added Fire Truck Turning Diagram; increased garage setback to I35E
2)ARCH: increased garage setback, added Setback Exhibit to plans.
3)Narrative: Market demand study, notes added
Thank you,
Joe McElwain
Development Director, Chase Real Estate
Page 32 of 64
Applications provided 8-25-2025:
1. Planning Application – For Prelim PUD
Submitted: Updated 10-6-2025
• Civil Prelim Plans, Prelim Landscape Plan, Survey
o Revised Garage Setback from Interstate Property Line
• Architecture Prelim Overall Plans, Typical Unit Plans, Exterior Elevations
• Architectural Rendering, Precedent Exterior and Interior Design
Rendering of main west Entry:
Schedule Goals: Updated 10-6-2025
Oct 21: Neighborhood meeting schedule at Lexington Hights Clubhouse
Oct 28: Planning Commission Meeting Prelim PUD
Nov 5: City Council Meeting Prelim PUD
Nov-Dec: Final PUD PC/CC Approval Meetings
Dec: Construction Drawings underway
March 2026: Construction Start (14-15 months)
Summer 2027: Substantial Completion | Opening
Page 33 of 64
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MN
PIN: 27-44925-01-010
Address: 2300 Lexington Avenue
Size: 5.53 Acres
PUD Property:
•Bldg A: 4.69 ac
•Tennis Court: 0.35 ac
•Bldg B: 4.56 ac
•Club House: 1.18 ac
•Bldg C + Proposed Bldg D = 5.53 ac
=Total Property: 16.31 acres
BUILDING SETBACKS:
The underground parking garage’s outside corner (completely buried) will be 15’-0” to i35 right-of-way.
The building setback to i35E right-of-way is 25’-2” and this is to the building corner.
The main body of the proposed building will have 62-0 feet setback and grows gradually to 90-0 feet.
Referring to the Setback Exhibit (see ARCH plans); the distance from the building corner to the interstate
paving is 122-0 feet at its closet and typically a minimum of 166-0 feet for the general body of the bldg.
For sake of comparison, The Reserve Phase 2 building was approved with a setback to HWY-62 of 15’-0”
and the entire length of the building is facing the Highway. The distance from the building to the
highway pavement is 90-0 feet.
DENSITY:
Existing Units: 225 Apartments Homes=13.8 units/acre
Proposed Units: 225 existing + 84 proposed addition = 18.9 units/acre
The proposed resulting unit density per acre is the least among recent approved city housing projects:
Mendota Heights – Recent Housing Projects:
The Reserve Phase 1 63 units/acre
The Reserve Phase 2 28 units/acre
The Reserve Phase 3 44 units/acre
The Linden Apartments 29 units/acre
Lexington Heights Addition 19 units/acre
Page 34 of 64
MARKET DEMAND | STUDY:
Demand for apartments in the area is high and continues to grow as single-family homes and new
construction costs continue to be expensive and inaccessible for many first time buyers. Lexington
Heights has maintained basically full occupancy for numerous years. Our site specific, June 2025
Marketing Report generated by CoStar, had these figures:
Property: City: Occupancy:
The Reserve at Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 99.5%
The Linden Mendota Heights 100.0%
Vikings Lakes Residences Eagan 97.1%
Eagan Heights Eagan 96.3%
The Rowan Eagan 98.8%
The Crossings at Inver Woods Inver Grove Heights 99.4%
Lexington Heights Mendota Heights 99.0%
Additionally, the 2024 Dakota County Housing Assessment notes the problematic lack of availability:
Page 35 of 64
PROPOSED UNIT MIX:
A variety of one bedroom, one bedroom + dens/office and 2-bedroom apartment homes will be
provided. Various common rooms will offer residents work from home spaces, club room for hosting,
lounge, gym and back patio for outdoor grilling and dining. The building is designed for a market serving
working professionals, singles, couples without children and empty nesters.
Addition ‘Bldg D’ Qty: Bedrooms: Typ Size:
1 Bed 1 Bath 41 41 711 sf
1 Bed + Den, 1 Bath 21 21 962 sf
2 Bed, 2 Bath 18 36 1050-1260 sf
3 Bed, 2 Bath 4 12 1300 sf
Total: 84 Units 110 Br’s 900 SF
Note : Code Minimum Unit Size = 700 SF
EXISTING APARTMENTS UNIT MIX:
225 Apartments Homes
=(30) 1-br and (45) 2-br per bldg = 120 bedrooms per bldg.
PARKING:
Addition
Bldg D
84 Apartments
111 Bedrooms
Garage Parking 84 stalls
Surface Parking 61 stalls
(w/ 45 shared Bldg C)
Total Parking:
=145 Total Stalls
1.73 / apartment
1.32 / bedroom
Page 36 of 64
EXISTING
Total Property
225 Units
360 Bedrooms
Garage Parking 75 stalls per bldg.
=225 Garage
Surface Parking 375 stalls
Total Parking:
600 total stalls
=2.67 Stalls/Unit
=1.67 Stalls/Bedroom
Parking Audit
Summer 2025:
Existing Demand per 99% Occupancy:
360 Cars on site = 1.60 stalls per unit.
=approximately 240 stalls not used
(33% utilized surface parking lots;
45 cars parked per each 125-stall lots)
Total Parking w/
Proposed Addition:
662 Stalls
309 Apartments
471 Bedrooms
=2.14 stalls/unit
=1.41 stalls/bedroom
Page 37 of 64
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: August 25, 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 –Preliminary Development Plan 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 an 84-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 309 units, from the
current PUD approved total of 225 units. The current density of 13.9 units per acre will increase
to 18.9 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 or 1:1 stall per unit (84
garage stalls for 84 units). The existing parking lot at the north building currently has
128 total parking stalls. The proposed plan shows a reconfiguration of the parking lot
that provides a total of 61 surface stalls for the new building, with 45 stalls remaining for
the existing building. The new building will have a total of 110 bedrooms, the additional
Page 38 of 64
L e x i n g t o n H e i g h t s P r e l i m i n a r y P U D A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 2 5
2 | P a g e
stall count (garage and surface) of 144 stalls (83 garage + 61 surface) exceeds the code
minimum requirement of one 1 stall per bedroom. The existing building also meets
current code requirements, with 75 units and 120 bedrooms, there are 75 garage stalls
and 120 total stalls (75 garage plus 45 surface) stalls. The building elevations have been
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.
The preliminary utility design includes a proposed connection to existing watermain
within Lexington Avenue South and to existing sanitary sewer located just south of the
proposed building, within the existing PUD area. Stormwater will be managed by
construction of a new pond between the existing building and Lexington Avenue South.
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. Below is a summary of the current proposed deviations under the
PUD; these may change as the plans advance to the final application stage.
Schedule of Development
The owner anticipates starting construction either in the Spring of 2026.
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)
84
Dwelling
Units
5.44 457 0.36 30 0.44 37
Totals: 457 30 37
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 = +/-0.38 acres
Total proposed impervious area = +/-2.68 acres
Total proposed percent impervious = +/-49%
Page 39 of 64
oooo
o
7
28 28
16
4
13
12
19
1.Subject property's addresses are 2300 and 2320 Lexington Avenue,
Mendota Heights, its property identification numbers are
27-44925-01-010 and 27-44925-00-010.
2.The bearing system is based on the North line of Lot 1, Block 1,
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION which is assumed to bear North 89
degrees 55 minutes 14 seconds East.
3.Field work was completed 6/16/2025.
4.The building(s) and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground
level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall.
5.No specific title search for existence or non-existence of recorded or
un-recorded easements has been conducted by the surveyor as a part of
this survey. Only easements per the recorded plat are shown.
6.The gross area of the subject property is 6.713 Acres or 292,409 square
feet.
NOTES
Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A, LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all
improvements, easements or encroachments, to the property except as
shown thereon.
Signed this 20th day of June, 2025
Marcus F. Hampton MN L.S. No. 47481
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
The vertical datum is NAVD88.
Benchmark
Top nut hydrant east of building at 2300 Lexington Avenue.
Elevation = 892.69
BENCHMARK 2999 WEST C.R. 42, SUITE 100, BURNSVILLE, MN 55306PHONE: 952.890.6044 www.jrhinc.comPLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS2300 AND 2320 LE;INGTON AVENUEMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTACERTIFICATE OF SURVEYFORCONDOR CORPORATIONDRAWN BY
DATE
REVISIONS
PLM
6/20/2025
CAD FILE
24282s.dwg
PRO-ECT NO.
24282-00
FILE NO.
1-25-036
SHEET 1 OF 1James R. Hill, Inc.LEGEND
FOUND IRON PIPE
AIR CONDITIONER UNIT
AUTO SPRINKLER
FLAGPOLE
BOLLARD
LIGHT POLE
SIGN
HANDICAP PARKING STALL
STONE RETAINING WALL
HANDHOLE
TELEPHONE BOX
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC OUTLET POST
POWER POLE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
GAS METER
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
MANHOLE
DECIDUOUS
CONIFEROUS
TREE LINE
CHAIN LINK FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
PARKING STALL COUNT#
LANDSCAPE MATERIAL
BITUMINOUS SURFACE
CONCRETE SURFACE
PAVER SURFACE
o WOOD FENCE
METAL FENCE
BLOCK RETAINING WALL
WOOD RETAINING WALL
RIP RAP
GARBAGE CAN
GRILL
PRELIMINARY
Page 40 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionCOVER
0.0
Lexington Heights Apts -New Construction
Page 41 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionSITE CONTEXT
0.2
UNIT MIX - GROSS AREA
Name Count
Bedroo
ms
Unit Gross
Area
Total Area %Main Floor
1BR
Unit A1 36 36 711 ft² 25,587 ft² 43%
Unit A2 4 4 700 ft² 2,798 ft² 5%
Unit A3 1 1 717 ft² 717 ft² 1%
41 41 29,102 ft² 49%
1BR +D
Unit B1 21 21 962 ft² 20,193 ft² 25%
21 21 20,193 ft² 25%
2BR
Unit C2 4 8 1,149 ft² 4,594 ft² 5%
Unit C3 4 8 1,174 ft² 4,698 ft² 5%
Unit C4 3 6 1,117 ft² 3,352 ft² 4%
Unit C5 3 6 1,047 ft² 3,141 ft² 4%
Unit C6 4 8 1,259 ft² 5,035 ft² 5%
18 36 20,820 ft² 21%
3BR
Unit D1 4 12 1,367 ft² 5,470 ft² 5%
4 12 5,470 ft² 5%
Grand total 84 110 75,586 ft² 100%
GROSS AREA - TOTAL
Level Area
Level 4 22,571 ft²
Level 3 22,571 ft²
Level 2 22,571 ft²
Level 1 22,571 ft²
Level -1 26,634 ft²HWY 35ELEXINGTON AVE S.LEXINGTON HEIGHTS
APARTMENTS
PARKING
Level Type Count
Level -1 Garage Stalls 73
Level -1 Garage Stalls - Tandem 10
Level 1 Surface 55
138PROPOSED SITEGrand total 116,920 ft²
74
139
61
10
74
145
(45+61=106 Shared)
Existing, 99% occupied Bldg C has 117 total cars per August, 2025 Parking Audit.
Notes: (14) residents / apartment units do not park in the garage (81% garage usage).
Other residents park (2) cars in the garage.
= (72) garage cars
= (45) cars parked outside
= (117) Total Cars = 1.56 cars/apartment demand
PARKING PROVIDED:
55 SURFACE FOR NEW BUILDING
45 REMAIN FOR EXISTING BUILDING
(110 TOTAL PROPOSED SURFACE LOT)
EXISTING BUILDING
75 UNITS (120 BEDROOMS)
GARAGE STALLS = 75
SURFACE PROPOSED = 45
TOTAL PARKING = 120 STALLS
120 STALLS / 75 UNITS = 1.60 STALLS/UNIT
120 STALLS / 120 BEDROOMS = 1.00 STALLS/BEDROOM
61
(106
"C"
145 STALLS / 84 UNITS = 1.73 STALLS/UNIT
110 BEDROOM = 1.32 STALLS/BEDROOM
=900 SF Avg
Page 42 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionSITE PLAN
2.0
124 stalls
123 stalls
Now: 128 stalls
75 Units
75 Units
75 Units
SITE MAP - EXISTING PUD
BLDG A
BLDG B
BLDG C
75 Garage
75 Garage
75 Garage
Existing:
225 Apartments (13.8 units/acre)
600 Parking Stalls (2.67 stalls/unit)
16.31 acres
Proposed: 106 stalls
PROPOSED BLDG D84 Units84 Garage
Proposed:
309 Apartments (18.9 units/acre)
662 Parking Stalls: (2.14 stalls/unit)
Per Parking Audit:
99% Occupancy (August 2025)
Cars on property: 360 (=1.60 cars/apartment) = +/- 240 empty surface stalls
PUD Summary
16.31 acres
Page 43 of 64
1
2
3
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
PROPOSED 4-STORY
84 UNIT BUILDING
4
1 BUILDING ENTRANCE
2 GARAGE ENTRANCE
3 LANDSCAPED COURTYARD
- GARAGE BELOW
SITE PLAN KEY
4 PATIO AMENITY
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionSITE PLAN
2.0
1" = 60'-0"1 SD Site Plan
EXISTING
OFFICE AND
CLUBHOUSE
Extent of underground
parking garage
15-0
Page 44 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionSITE PLAN
2.0
55'-0"
88'-0"
97'-0"
88'
8
ooooo
o
31
30
24'
TYP
EXISTING
BUILDING
EXISTING
CLUBHOU
S
E
POOL
PROPOSED BUILDING
COURTYA
R
D
A
B
O
V
E
PATIO
7'
25.2'
62.3'
44'
18'
TYP
18'
TYP
17
28
45 Stalls
61 Stalls
40'-0"
15'-0"
PROPOSED
BUILDING
15'-0"
25'-0"
62'-0"104'-0"
122'-0"
166'-0"
125'-0"
EXISTING
BLDG "C"
EXISTING
BLDG "B"
OFFICE &
CLUBHOUSE
PROPERTY LINE
Page 45 of 64
6.1
1
6.1
5
6.1 6
6.1
2
6.13
6.1
4
24,946 ft²
Parking Garage
386 ft²
Trash
Color Scheme Legend
Circulation
Core
Garage18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"14'-0"18'-0"26'-0"18'-0"18'-0"24'-0"18'-0"8 '-0 "
8 '-0 "
9 '-0 "
9 '-0 "
9'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0"9'-0"16'-0"16'-0"9'-0"
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionFLOOR PLANS
3.0
1" = 30'-0"1 Level -1
PARKING
Level Type Count
Level -1 Garage Stalls 73
Level -1 Garage Stalls - Tandem 10
Level 1 Surface 55
138ST
74
139ST STAIRST STAIR
STAIRSTAIR
01 10
20
30
40
41
50
6065
6675
7680
51
56
70
84
84 Garage Stalls
MECH
8 '-0 "15'-0"Garage (underground)
Setback to i35E ROW
Landscaped
Courtyard (Above)
Extent of ApartmentBuilding (Above)
Page 46 of 64
Color Scheme Legend
1BR
1BR +D
2BR
3BR
Circulation
Common Area
Plaza
6.1
1
6.1
5
6.1 6
6.1
2
6.13
6.1
4
1,174 ft²
Unit C3
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
962 ft²
Unit B1
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
1,367 ft²
Unit D1
1,149 ft²
Unit C2
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
962 ft²
Unit B1
962 ft²
Unit B1
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
700 ft²
Unit A2
1,259 ft²
Unit C6
1,362 ft²
Club Room
1,047 ft²
Lobby/Mail
962 ft²
Fitness
962 ft²
Work From Home /
Coffee Bar
717 ft²
Unit A3
PATIO AMENITY
L A N D S C A P E D
C O U R T Y A R D
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionFLOOR PLANS
3.1
1" = 30'-0"1 Level 1 STAIRSTAIR
Entry
Office Clubhouse
Page 47 of 64
6.1
1
6.1
5
6.1 6
6.1
2
6.13
6.1
4
1,174 ft²
Unit C3
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
962 ft²
Unit B1
962 ft²
Unit B1
962 ft²
Unit B1 1,117 ft²
Unit C4
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
1,367 ft²
Unit D1
1,149 ft²
Unit C2
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
1,047 ft²
Unit C5
962 ft²
Unit B1
962 ft²
Unit B1
962 ft²
Unit B1
711 ft²
Unit A1
711 ft²
Unit A1
700 ft²
Unit A2
1,259 ft²
Unit C6
Color Scheme Legend
1BR
1BR +D
2BR
3BR
Circulation
Core
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionFLOOR PLANS
3.2
1" = 30'-0"1 Level 2 (Levels 3-4 Sim.)STAIRSTAIR
Page 48 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionEXTERIOR MATERIALS
6.0
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Material Mark Description Image
4.1 04-CMU-AMCON-Splitface-Espresso
4.2 04-Brick-SiouxCity-Running-BadlandsVelour
7.1 07-Siding-AlternatingLap- 4"/4"/8"
-Smooth-AgedPewter
EXTERIOR MATERIALS
Material Mark Description Image
7.2 07-Siding-Lap 8"
Reveal-Smooth-MidnightBlack
7.3 07-Siding-Lap 4" Reveal-Smooth-Copper
8.1 08-Glass
Complimentary / similar brick
color to existing building
Complimentary / similar siding
color to existing buildings
Page 49 of 64
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
89'-4"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
7.2 7.34.2 7.14.1 7.28.14.27.3
48'-0" BUILDING HEIGHTLevel 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
89'-4"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
7.1 7.2 4.28.17.3
BUILDING HEIGHT44'-0" MAINLevel 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
89'-4"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
7.1 4.27.27.3 4.1
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
89'-4"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
7.2 7.14.24.1 8.17.3
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
89'-4"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
4.27.2 7.3 4.1 7.1 8.1 7.3 7.2
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
89'-4"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
4.2 7.3 7.2 4.1
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
6.1
1" = 30'-0"1 Elevation 1
1" = 30'-0"2 Elevation 2
1" = 30'-0"3 Elevation 3
1" = 30'-0"4 Elevation 4
1" = 30'-0"5 Elevation 5
1" = 30'-0"6 Elevation 644'-8"Typ. Max Bldg Height T.O. Parapet48'-0"Typ. Max Bldg Height To Lowest Avg. GradePage 50 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionUNIT PLANS
8.0
x
LIVING ROOM
13' -9"12' -6"x
BEDROOM
13' -4"10' -4"
x
KITCHEN
14' -8"12' -5"
x
CLOSET
8' -4"7' -10"
One-Bedroom
Typical Plan
1,150 SF
Page 51 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionUNIT PLANS
8.1
x
BEDROOM
12' -10"11' -7"
x
DEN
8' -8"11' -7"
x
KITCHEN
13' -11"13' -1"
x
LIVING ROOM
13' -3"13' -1"
x
CLOSET
4' -11"7' -5"
One-Bedroom + Den
Typical Plan
918-960 SF
Page 52 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionUNIT PLANS
8.2
x
LIVING ROOM
12' -5"17' -8"x
BEDROOM
12' -5"13' -7"
x
KITCHEN
12' -0"13' -5"
x
BEDROOM
11' -10"13' -5"
x
CLOSET
6' -5"5' -7"
x
CLOSET
5' -0"7' -1"
Two-Bedroom
Typical Plan
918-960 SF
Page 53 of 64
kaas wilson architects
Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionUNIT PLANS
8.2
OUR PROPERTIES | PROPOSED PRECEDENTS
Page 54 of 64
ooooo
o9'TYP31 9'TYP30
24'
TYP 24'TYPEXISTING
BUILDING
EXISTING
CLUBHOU
S
E
POOL
POND
PROPOSED BUILDING
COURTY
A
R
D
A
B
O
V
E
PATIO
15'
25.2'INTERSTATE 35ELEXINGTON AVENUE(MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 19-37)5'
GARAGE
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN62.3'
44'
18'
TYP
18'
TYP
RETAINING WALL
299.7'FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND AS REQUIRED
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTSCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
8/25/2025
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BY
2025-10-07 BLDG REVPRELIM. PAVING & DIMENSIONAL PLAN24282PAV
C100
EPF
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
GROSS PROJECT AREA 6.71 AC/ 292,409 SF
NET IMPERVIOUS AREA INCREASE 0.38 AC/ 16,659 SF
FRONT SETBACK 50 FEET
REAR SETBACK 40 FEET
SIDE SETBACK 40 FEET
EXISTING ZONING PUD (R-3 UNDERLYING)
PROPOSED ZONING PUD (R-3 UNDERLYING)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 22,571 SF
PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED
61 NEW SURFACE STALLS FOR NEW BUILDING
73 GARAGE STALLS/10 TANDEM GARAGE STALLS = 83 GARAGE STALLS TOTAL
84 UNITS (110 BEDROOMS)
144 STALLS (SURFACE + GARAGE) TOTAL
144 STALLS/84 UNITS = 1.71 STALLS/UNIT
144 STALLS/110 BEDROOMS = 1.31 STALLS/BEDROOM
EXISTING PARKING PROVIDED
45 SURFACE STALLS FOR EXISTING BUILDING
75 GARAGE STALLS
75 UNITS (120 BEDROOMS)
120 STALLS (SURFACE + GARAGE) TOTAL
120 STALLS/75 UNITS = 1.60 STALLS/UNIT
120 STALLS/120 BEDROOMS = 1.00 STALLS/BEDROOM
SITE PLAN NOTES
1.SEE GENERAL NOTES, SHEET C101, FOR ADDITIONAL RELEVANT INFORMATION.
EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES
EXISTING STORM SEWER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING WATERMAIN
EXISTING CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING ASPHALT
EXISTING CONCRETE
LEGEND
PROPOSED CONCRETE
PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE
PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
SB-1
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING TELEVISION BOX
EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
EXISTING CLEANOUT
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS
Page 55 of 64
ooo ooEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGCLUBHOUSEPOOLPONDCOURTYARD ABOVEPATIOGARAGEPROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN
INTERSTATE
3
5
E
LEXINGTON AVENUE
(MNDOT R/W
P
L
A
T
N
O
.
1
9
-
3
7
)12" RCP12" RCP12" CIP 12" CIP12" RCP12" RCP
PROPOSED BUILDINGFFE=896.00GFE=885.33CONSTRUCT MH OVER EXISTING 12" RCP SANITARY SEWERSANITARY SERVICE STUBWATER SERVICE STUBTRENCH DRAIN AT GARAGE DOORCONNECT TO EXISTING 12" CIP WATERMAIN892890888890892892890888886884882880880878882884886888890892886884882884882884886886888890
89289
2
89489689890090290490690891091289089489689890090290490690889289
0
886880 890878 882 884 886888PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASINBOTTOM=878.00OLE=878.50INFIL. CAPACITY=2,766 CF8" PVC 8" PVC C-9008" PVC C-900892CB893.10895.60GS/EOF895.00CB893.20894.95GS890.30HALF-STOP ELEVATORAT MAIN ENTRANCE12" HDPE12" HDPE15" HDPE15" HDPE18" HDPE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
CONDOR CORPORATION
FOR
2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120PROJECT NO.24282CAD FILE8/25/2025DATEREVISIONSDRAWN BY2025-10-07 BLDG REVPRELIM. GRADING & UTILITY PLAN24282GC101EPF PROPOSED CONCRETEPROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACEPROPOSED INFILTRATION BASINPROPOSED WATERMAINPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED CURB & GUTTERPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED CONTOUR923PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSEXISTING TELEPHONE BOXEXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOXEXISTING TREELINE/TREESEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING CURB & GUTTEREXISTING ASPHALTEXISTING CONCRETELEGENDSB-1EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING TELEVISION BOXEXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATIONEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING SIGNEXISTING UNDERGROUND GASEXISTING CONTOURPATIOPage 56 of 64
ooooo
o
EXISTING
BUILDING
EXISTING
CLUBHOU
S
E
POOL
POND
PROPOSED BUILDING
INTERSTATE 35ELEXINGTON AVENUE(MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 19-37)MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTALEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTSCONDOR CORPORATIONFOR2320 LEXINGTON AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120PROJECT NO.
24282
CAD FILE
8/25/2025
DATE
REVISIONS
DRAWN BYPRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN24282LS
L100
EPF
EXISTING TREELINE/TREES
LEGEND
REAR PATIO
AMENITY
4-0 PERIMETER
ROCK MULCH
LANDSCAPED STRIP
ROCKENHANCED
FRONT DOOR
LANDSCAPING
CKCKPATIO AMENITY;
SEE ARCH PLANS
Page 57 of 64
11/24/2025
Anonymous statement from residents at 2300 Lexington Ave. S. who wish to file
written comments and questions for the Mendota Heights planning commission
meeting:
First, it was discovered that the council was told there had been a community meeting on
October 21st and that only one resident was present. We just heard about this today
(11/24/2025) and after speaking with numerous residents, no one was aware of said
meeting! There is one notification regarding the planning commission meeting on
11/25/2025 and it is posted in the elevator.
Concerns regarding new apartment developments.
The 2300 building is currently sinking. The concrete garage floor is crumbling in places due
to the leaking on all sides. When it rains, the water runs down the walls and at times, it can
be heard. The leaking happens when there is a steady rain and is not a periodic occurrence.
There is mold and on occasions, water seepage through the floor tiles in elevator basement
lobby. > Living here for over a decade, has allowed us to witness said leaks and the
increase of mold and water damage. The garage utility doors have shifted due to the sinking
and currently, have a two inch gap. How would a new building impact the current situation
at 2300? Could it be the water problem will increase? Would the new building also have
water issues? Structural problems at 2300 should be addressed before adding another
building.
These are structural concerns and then there are the aesthetic concerns. A four story
building would obstruct the view which is, one of the highlights of this property. Currently,
buildings are set with pleasurable space between them. This new building would drastically
change the landscape.
We are not in favor of the expansion at Lexington Heights.
Page 58 of 64
From:
To:Litton Field; Jason Stone; Patrick Corbett; Cindy Johnson; Jeff Nath; Brian Udell; Steve Goldade; Sarah Madden
Subject:Lexington Heights Addition--Sufficient notice
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 4:45:22 PM
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hello Planning Commission,
I am writing in reference to an agenda item at tonight's meeting re: the zoning of an apartment
building at Lexington Heights Apartments. While I have personal feelings about this proposed
project, I am currently concerned about the effort, or lack thereof, that Lexington Heights
made to inform the community of this hearing.
In the agenda for tonight's meeting, it states that the City sent notices to the property manager
to post for residents to see. I find that only posting one copy in the building that would be
most affected by any construction is incredibly insufficient. Management only posted the
copy in the elevator, which many people do not take. The only reason I found out is from my
mom happening to take the elevator from the garage to the first floor as her hands were full.
Even in a different building was the notice posted in a more prominent place--albeit still
lacking.
I'm not sure if this is something you can do this close to the meeting time, but I ask that this
agenda item be postponed and that Lexington Heights makes a much better effort to inform its
residents about the hearing such as posting it on all entrances that people use.
Also, the buildings are mislabelled in all the plans.
If this email comes up during the meeting, I would appreciate anonymity.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Page 59 of 64
From:Jan Martland
To:Sarah Madden
Cc:Joe Nuñez; Kitty Haight; Barbara Kaufmann; Tom Hanschen; Kenneth Dodge; Jonquil Shipman
Subject:Public Comments re: Lexington Heights Apartments
Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 3:38:34 PM
Attachments:Screenshot 2025-11-25 at 2.11.36 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-11-25 at 2.12.05 PM.png
Screenshot 2025-11-25 at 2.03.03 PM 2.png
You don't often get email from mrfy1219@comcast.net. Learn why this is important
Hi Sarah,
I am submitting the following comments to you regarding the "Notice of Public Hearing to consider a
zoning amendment and preliminary planned unit development to amend a previously approved planned
unit development (Lexington Heights Apartments) for the propery located at 2300 Lexington Avenue.”
I live at 2098 Lake Augusta Drive in Mendota Heights and I am a member of the Lake Augusta
Homeowners Association - Lake Augusta Task Force. As you may know Lake Augusta in Mendota
Heights is rated as one of the lakes in the state with the poorest lake water quality.
Our concern with the proposed Lexington Heights Apartments is if it will have any potential negative
consequences for Lake Augusta. In the 2 photo below (taken from the Barr Report on Lake Augusta
Water Quality Improvement and Outlet Feasibility Study prepared for the Lower Mississippi River
Watershed Management Organization and City of Mendota Heights, December on 2023) it appears that
the Lexington Heights Apartments lie within the watersheds as identified below. If I’m interpreting the
maps below correctly, it appears that the flow direction of run-off could eventually end up in Lake
Augusta. If that is the case, we are hoping that something would be done to mitigate and redirect any
potential run off that could end up in Lake Augusta, further impacting the water level and the water
quality of the lake.
Page 60 of 64
Lake Augusta is a land locked lake with no outlet and it is currently (as of 10-9-2025) at a lake elevation
of 846.62’ according to the DNR. This is up from the Ordinary High Water Level of 832.5 feet. The
elevation of the lake has already flooded a well at Resurrection Cemetery and has killed over1000 trees
along the lake shore due to rising water levels. This is another reason why we are concerned about any
potential run-off adding to an already elevated lake levels.
Page 61 of 64
Bottom line is we want to be sure that the lake will not be adversely impacted by this project or any
future projects. Should you have any questions/concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at 651-295-
4862 or via email.
Sincerely,
Jan Martland
Page 62 of 64
This page is intentionally left blank
5.a
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: December 29, 2025
Agenda Item: Approval of 2026 Meeting Calendar
Department: Administration Contact: Sarah Madden,
Community Development
Manager
Introduction:
Each year the Planning Commission sets their formal meeting dates, following the City's official
schedule designating Planning Commission meetings on the 4th Tuesday of each month. The
schedule below follows this pattern, though the December meeting date may be subject to
change if a quorum cannot be reached.
Below are the proposed meeting dates for the Planning Commission in 2026. All meetings will
have a 7:00pm start time and be conducted at City Hall.
Tuesday, January 27th
Tuesday, February 24th
Tuesday, March 24th
Tuesday, April 28th
Tuesday, May 26th
Tuesday, June 23rd
Tuesday, July 28th
Tuesday, August 25th
Tuesday, September 22nd
Tuesday, October 27th
Tuesday, November 24th
Tuesday, December 22nd (subject to change if quorum not available)
Background:
n/a
Analysis:
n/a
Alternatives:
n/a
Staff Recommendation:
Staff asks that the Planning Commission approve the 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Calendar as presented.
Attachments:
None
Page 63 of 64
Page 64 of 64
This page is intentionally left blank