Loading...
12 16 2025 City Council Work Session MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Tuesday, December 16, 2025 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the work session to order at 4:30 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Maczko, Mazzitello, and Paper were in attendance. Others present included: City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Parks & Recreation Director/Assistant Public Works Director Meredith Lawrence, Community Development Manager Sarah Madden, Assistant City Engineer Lucas Ritchie, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, City Attorney Amy Schmidt, and City Clerk Nancy Bauer. Also, in attendance was Sean Doyle from SD Custom Homes and Scott Buell from Buell Consulting, CONCEPT PLAN DISCUSSION Community Development Manager Madden reported that the City Council is being asked to provide feedback tome developer on a conceptual development plan for the property at 750 Mohican Lane. This is an early concept plan consisting of 21 single-family lots, a new cul-de- sac extension of Pueblo Lane, a stormwater pond, and trail access from the new subdivision to Pagel Road. The redevelopment of the property may require a Zoning Amendment, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and possibly a Planning Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District application. Mayor Levine noted background information on the concept plan discussion and stated that this is a newly developed process for the City Council. can Doyle from SD Custom Homes presented a concept plan for developing detached villa - style townhome units on smaller lot sizes. He added that this would be an alternative housing product for the city aimed at homeowners wishing to downsize or have a smaller home. Councilor Paper asked if it would be a townhome development with an HOA. S. Doyle responded that it would have an HOA. December 16, 2025, City Council Work Session Minutes Page- 1 Mayor Levine asked about the lot size. S. Doyle replied that the lots would be 60-foot-wide lots. Councilor Mazzitello asked about the square footage of the lots. S. Doyle responded that the smaller lots would be 7,000 square feet and the larger lots 14,000 square feet. It was noted that the proposed lot sizes do not meet the R-1 standard of a 100-foot minimum width and 15,000 square foot lot minimum, and that the simplest way to redevelop the property would be through a PUD overlay. Community Development Manager Madden noted that the density of the development is 2.9 units per acre. The lots are narrower, smaller, and irregularly shaped, which does not meet city code requirements. Madden explained that a PUD Overlay District would need to be part of the development. R-1 or low -density residential category is not a listed base zoning district for planning and development. The property would need to be rezoned to R-2 to qualify for a PUD Overlay District. If rezoned to R-2, the Comprehensive Plan would also need to be amended for the guided land use to medium -density residential. Councilor Paper asked if there was an idea for a price point for the units. S. Doyle responded that they would be over $1 million but less than $2 million. Councilor Maczko asked about the square footage of the homes. S. Doyle replied that they would be between 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. He noted that some homes would be walkouts, depending on the grade of the lot, and all of them would have basements. Councilor Lorberbaum stated she is concerned that the proposed development is near an existing R-1 area and the small lot sizes. Councilor Maczko expressed his concern with the density of the area and with the proposed cul- de-sac. Councilor Mazzitello noted a variance would be required for a through street. Street access to the proposed lots was also discussed. Mayor Levine expressed her concern for the cul- de-sac, and the urban design principles intended to be reflected throughout the city. Councilor Mazzitello asked whether the graded contours had been considered for the proposed development. S. Doyle responded that they had not yet been considered. Councilor Mazzitello noted that he is familiar with the product and that it is popular with empty nesters who do not want large yards. He added that there is currently nothing like this in Mendota Heights and questioned whether this type of development is something the city wants. Mayor Levine asked whether approval of this concept plan would set a precedent for future redevelopment projects. Councilor Mazzitello noted that there are at least half a dozen large, undeveloped R-1 properties in Mendota Heights. He also inquired whether the spot zoning rule would apply to this property. City Attorney A. Schmidt generally explained that spot zoning occurs when residential zoning meets commercial zoning. She would like to review the concept pIan before providing comments. December 76, 20260 City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 2 Councilor Maczko stated that he was fine with the variance for the street. He added that he was worried about changing the zoning and placing a PUD in the middle of an R-1 area district. Councilor Paper stated he liked the idea of creating a different type of housing stock. S. Doyle asked if the Comprehensive Plan calls for alternative housing products and stated there are limited areas suitable for this type of development. Councilor Lorberbaum stated there is a desire for a different type of housing in the city, but believes this is not the right place for it. She also expressed concern about the property's grade. Mayor Levine noted that when the Comprehensive Plan was developed, this property was considered but was not designated for higher density. She is unsure whether the proposal fits the area but said the developer is welcome to pursue the concept. Councilor Mazzitello echoed that the developer may pursue the concept but warned that there will be challenges. He expressed interest in having this type of product in the city and requested clarification regarding spot zoning, since other developers may propose similar projects in the future. City Administrator Jacobson asked about the project timeline. S. Doyle indicated he was considering summer 2026 and acknowledged there would be potential challenges. Councilor Mazzitello noted that the concept plan would require both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning. Community Development Manager Madden noted that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would require a supermajority vote of the Council, which is why it is being discussed tonight. Councilor Maczko noted there is support for the product, but expressed concern regarding the location and stated the price point was surprising. WENTWORTH PARK CELL TOWER Public Works Director Ruzek stated that the Wentworth Park cell tower had been discussed at a previous work session, where the consensus was to build a monopole cell tower. Items for discussion include the terms of the lease, including rent, increases, lease duration, space, and future revenue sharing. Councilor Maczko asked about the four-year implementation period. Public Works Director Ruzek replied that it could take up to four years to install the cell tower, with an additional year for construction. The lease term is five years, with a proposal for nine renewals. Existing leases are typically for a 25-year term, and this could be negotiated December'16, 2025, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 3 Mayor Levine asked for clarification on the rent and revenue sharing. She asked if there is a way to incentivize multiple carriers on the pole. S. Buell stated that the concept has been used by some tower developers to encourage others to share the upfront cost of the tower. The first carrier pays more initially, and as additional carriers join and pay rent, the anchor carrier's rent decreases. Rent sharing helps cover the economics of the tower and allows the ground owner to receive additional revenue as more carriers join. Vertical Bridge does not pass revenue sharing costs on to the tenants. Additional revenue needs to be paid in the future could hurt tenants economically. To encourage more tenants on the tower, revenue sharing could be eliminated. An alternative would be to increase the monthly rent now rather than implement revenue sharing later. That is what Vertical Bridge would like to see. Councilor Mazzitello asked if a base rent scale has been used to encourage carriers to collocate on the tower. S. Buell stated that, to his knowledge, it has not, and stated the city is interested in seeing multiple carriers on the tower. Councilor Paper stated he would like to see the tower built as it is a critical project. Councilor Lorberbaum stated that she would like to see the tower built to improve the coverage. Mayor Levine recapped that the Council is interested in completing the project as quickly as possible and having staff work out the details. Public Works Director Ruzek stated he would like to see revenue sharing eliminated altogether and run the Option to Lease proposals from the city back to Vertical Bridge which would include a $5,000 upfront fee, reduced to 12 months, and $1,250 rent. S. Buell stated that he would like to see a 40-year term, because that is how long it takes for an investment like this to pay off. Councilor Maczko stated he liked Councilor Mazzitello's idea of incentivizing carriers as this is needed for the community. S. Buell noted that the pole would be built for three or four carriers. Councilor Maczko stated that the priority is to get the coverage for residents as quickly as possible. S. Buell suggested starting with a 20- to 30-year term, and if another carrier is found, the city could agree to extend the lease. Public Works Director Ruzek stated that the city is willing to forego the revenue sharing to get the project started as soon as possible. S. Buell stated the 12-month option could be acceptable and then it could be renewed for an additional year. December 76, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page - 4 CODE ENFORCEMENT — ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS City Attorney Schmidt provided a memo outlining City Council authority, current enforcement options, and minimum requirements regarding the administrative enforcement of city code violations. She noted this is not a straightforward legal process and involves some grey areas. She explained that if the Council chooses to pursue administrative citations, the approach must be carefully considered and supported by a clear framework. While the Council has implied authority, state statutes place limitations on the use of administrative citations for code enforcement violations. She noted that several factors would need to be addressed in city code, including constitutional protections, a policy rationale for adoption, and clarification of the intended goals and outcomes. City Attorney Schmidt emphasized the importance of reviewing City Code provisions to assess what provisions are currently in place, determine what new framework could be applied, and ensure that the city's administrative citations do not duplicate state law. Councilor Lorberbaum asked why the city would adopt an administrative citation process. City Attorney Schmidt explained that it would serve as an additional enforcement tool for the city. One key advantage is that violations would be handled within the city's administrative process rather than through the court system, allowing for faster and more efficient resolution. City Administrator Jacobson noted that staff are currently working on code enforcement efforts and a comprehensive overhaul of the City Code. She added that the potential incorporation of administrative citations would be considered as part of this process and noted that the topic was previously discussed by the Council in 2024. Mayor Levine stated that this topic has been discussed previously. She would like to see a report on code violations and also wanted to know if the City Council was still interested in pursuing administrative citations. It was the consensus that the City Council would receive a report on code violations and pursue administrative citations. City Administrator Jacobson inquired about staff priorities. It was the consensus that the priority of the Community Development Manager was to rewrite city code Title 11 regarding subdivisions. Police Chief McCarthy suggested that the City Council review monthly reports of code violations to determine whether to move ahead with administrative citations. Community Development Manager Madden handed out a report of year-to-date data for code enforcement violations, which was reviewed. I_UaL�D1idRl�l�ti1 December 16, 2025, City Council Work Session Minutes Page- 5 Councilor Lorberbaum made a motion to adjournthe work session, and the motion was seconded by Councilor Mazzitello. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Stephanie . Levine, Mayor ATTEST: N ncy EUier, City Clerk December 16, 2026, City Council Work Session Minutes Page- 6