Loading...
01 20 2026 City Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 20, 2026 at 6:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Pledge of Allegiance 4.Approval of the Agenda The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions or deletions to the agenda. These items may be submitted after the agenda preparation deadline. 5.Police Officer Swearing In a.Officer James Walrath swearing in ceremony 6.Public Comments - for items not on the agenda Public comments provide an opportunity to address the City Council on items which are not on the meeting agenda. All are welcome to speak. Individuals should address their comments to the City Council as a whole, not individual members. Speakers are requested to come to the podium and must state their name and address. Comments are limited to three (3) minutes. No action will be taken; however, the Mayor and Council may ask clarifying questions as needed or request staff to follow up. 7.Consent Agenda Items on the consent agenda are approved by one motion of the City Council. If a councilmember requests additional information or wants to make a comment on an item, the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Items removed from the consent agenda will be taken up as the next order of business. a.Approve Minutes from the January 6, 2026, City Council Meeting b.Acknowledge the Minutes of the November 25, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting c.Authorize 2025 Audit Services with BerganKDV d.Approve Agreements for Civil Legal Services and Prosecution Legal Services with Campbell Knutson e.Authorize Out of Metro Travel Request for MCMA Conference Page 1 of 183 f.Approve Resolution 2026-07 Amending the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee Joint Powers Agreement g.Approve Resolution 2026-05 Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County – Fiscal Year 2026 h.Approve Claims List 8.Presentations a.2025 Volunteer Report 9.Public Hearings 10.New and Unfinished Business a.Resolution 2026-04 Appointments to City Advisory Commissions b.Resolution 2026-06 City Council Action on the application of Chase Real Estate for a Preliminary Development Plan and Zoning Amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development at 2300 Lexington Avenue (Planning Case No. 2025-16) c.Municipal Campus Project 11.Community / City Administrator Announcements 12.City Council Comments 13.Adjourn Next Meeting Feburary 4, 2026 at 6:00PM Information is available in alternative formats or with the use of auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities upon request by calling city hall at 651-452-1850 or by emailing cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov. Regular meetings of the City Council are cablecast on NDC4/Town Square Television Cable Channel 18/HD798 and online at townsquare.tv/Mendota-Heights-Streaming Page 2 of 183 5.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Officer James Walrath swearing in ceremony ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Administer the Police Officer Oath of Office BACKGROUND: Officer James Walrath graduated from the University of Wisconsin- River Falls with a Bachelor of Science in Biotechnology and a minor in Chemistry. He was hired into the department’s Cadet program in April 2025. In September, Officer Walrath completed the Cadet program and began his field training with the department. Officer Walrath is joined tonight by his wife, Breanna, daughter Halle, and son Marston. His wife will be pinning on his badge. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 3 of 183 This page is intentionally left blank CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA DRAFT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 6, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, was held at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Levine called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilors Lorberbaum, Paper, Mazzitello, and Maczko were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Levine presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Levine presented the consent agenda and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Lorberbaum moved approval of the consent agenda as presented. a.Approval of December 16, 2025, City Council Minutes b.Approval of December 16, 2025, City Council Work Session Minutes c.Designate Acting Mayor for 2026 d.Designate Official Newspaper for 2026 e.Acknowledge the October Par 3 Financial Report f.Approve Amendment No. 2 to Omnibus Agreement with the Board of Water Commissioners for the City of Saint Paul g.Approve 2026 Financial Items and Authorize Finance Director to Execute Electronic Payments and Prepay Claims Page 4 of 183 7.a January 6, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 3 h.Adopt Resolution 2026-03 Renewing the Emergency Management Joint Powers Agreement Between Dakota County and the City of Mendota Heights i.Approve Purchase of Park AEDs j.Approval of Claims List Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PRESENTATIONS No items scheduled. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS No items scheduled. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming community events and activities. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Paper wished everyone a happy New Year. Councilor wished everyone a happy 2026. Councilor Lorberbaum shared a quote thanking people who make a difference and noted a reception that took place prior to tonight’s meeting for those who have served on commissions in the past year. She wished everyone a safe, healthy, and joyful year. Councilor Mazzitello wished everyone a happy New Year, noting that 2026 is the 250th anniversary of the nation. Mayor Levine wished everyone a happy 2026. ADJOURN Councilor Maczko moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 5 of 183 January 6, 2026, Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 3 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 6:06 p.m. ____________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Nancy Bauer City Clerk Page 6 of 183 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 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 7 of 183 7.b 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 8 of 183 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 9 of 183 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 10 of 183 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 11 of 183 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 12 of 183 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 13 of 183 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 14 of 183 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 15 of 183 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 16 of 183 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 17 of 183 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 18 of 183 7.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize 2025 Audit Services with BerganKDV ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Finance CONTACT: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director ACTION REQUEST: Authorize Finance Director to enter into a contract with BerganKDV for auditing services for the 2025 Audit. BACKGROUND: BerganKDV has been providing the city with auditing services since 2009. They have provided the city with quotes for the 2025 audits for both the city and the fire department relief association: 2025 audit - $47,300 for the city audit plus $6,500 if a Single Audit is needed 2025 audit - $9,600 for the relief association audit The cost of the 2024 audit for the city was $44,600, The quote for the 2025 audit is an increase of $2,700. We are not anticipating the need for a Single Audit. The cost of the 2024 audit for the relief association audit was $9,100. The quote for the 2025 audit has increased $500 from 2024. The city has a good working relationship with BerganKDV. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: These costs are included in the 2026 budget. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 19 of 183 This page is intentionally left blank 7.d REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Agreements for Civil Legal Services and Prosecution Legal Services with Campbell Knutson ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Approve the Agreements with Campbell Knutson for Civil Legal Services (City Attorney) and Prosecution Legal Services. BACKGROUND: The City contracts with outside legal counsel to provide City Attorney and City Prosecution services. These services include legal advice and representation for the City Council, boards and commissions, staff, and prosecution of non-felony cases. The firm of Campbell Knutson has provided city attorney services since 2021 and prosecution services since late 2024. The current agreements are being updated to reflect revised contract terms and updated fee schedules. These updates are part of the City’s regular review of professional service agreements to ensure alignment with operational needs, legal requirements, and market conditions. The agreements are in effect until either party terminates the agreement. The City Attorney serves at the pleasure of the City Council, which may terminate the agreement at any time without cause. Campbell Knutson may terminate the agreement with thirty (30) days written notice to the City. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: City attorney and prosecution expenses are included in the city budget. The city's 2026 budget includes $51,250 across all departments for city attorney services, and the Police Department budget includes $106,500 for prosecution services. The city attorney's fee is increasing 3%, from $180 to $185 per hour. Beginning January 1, 2027, and each January 1 thereafter, the rate will increase by 3%. The fee for prosecution services is billed at the hourly rate of $125 per hour, with a monthly cap of $8,864. Previously, the monthly cap was $5,891. The increase in the cap for prosecution services is related to the Page 20 of 183 increase in the number of cases charged and the work associated with each case. The hourly rate for prosecution services did not increase. The monthly cap and hourly rate will increase by 3% each year on January 1, as long as the agreement is in place. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Civil Legal Services Agreement Campbell Knutson 2026 2.Prosecution Legal Services Agreement Campbell Knutson 2026 CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 21 of 183 1 238258v1 AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association THIS AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES (“Agreement”), effective January 1, 2026, is by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association, a Minnesota corporation (“Attorney”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.Services and Relationship. A.The Attorney shall furnish and perform general civil municipal legal services for the City. Primary attorney will be Amy K. L. Schmidt, with other attorneys assigned as necessary to provide services to the City. The Attorney shall be engaged as an independent contractor and not as a City employee. The Attorney is free to contract with other entities. 2.Term and Termination. A.The terms of this Agreement be effective as of January 1, 2026, following approval by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, and shall remain in effect until either party terminates this Agreement as provided herein. B.The Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the Mendota Heights City Council, and this Agreement may be terminated without cause, at any time, by the Mendota Heights City Council. C.The Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, provided that the Attorney shall give the City thirty (30) days written notice before the termination becomes effective. 3.Payment. A.General Civil Municipal: Designated City Attorney:$185.00 per hour Other Attorneys:$185.00 per hour Paralegals/Legal Assistants/Law Clerk:$100.00 per hour Page 22 of 183 2 238258v1 The Attorney’s minimum increment of time is 0.2 hours. Time will be billed to the nearest 0.1 hours thereafter. Travel time is charged at the hourly rates above. B.Meetings: Attendance at any meeting, including City Council or Planning Commission meetings, will be billed portal to portal at the general civil municipal rate. C.Pass-through Legal Services: The customary hourly rate of the particular attorney or paralegal/legal assistant doing the work currently vary between $225.00 and $400.00 per hour for attorneys and $125.00 and $150.00 per hour for paralegal/legal assistant. The Attorney bill pass-through legal rates for attorneys and paralegal/legal assistants for the following matters: 1.Where the City is reimbursed from a developer or other third party; 2.Public improvement projects involving special assessments or improvements to private property. D.Litigation, Arbitration, and Appellate Matters (excluding code enforcement): Attorneys $210.00/hour Legal Assistants/Law Clerks $115.00/hour E.Costs: City shall pay out-of-pocket costs without mark-up, including the following: 1.Lexis/Nexis legal research: actual cost 2.Recording fees: actual cost 3.Postage over 50¢: actual cost 4.Mileage: IRS rate 5.Photocopies: 20¢ per page 6.Color copies: 40¢ per page 7.Litigation (court filing fees, expert witnesses, acquisitions, subpoenas, service of process, etc.): actual cost F.Annual Adjustment: Beginning January 1, 2027, and each January 1 thereafter, the rates described above shall increase by 3%, rounded to the nearest dollar. G.The City will normally pay for services within thirty (30) days of receipt of a statement for services rendered. 4.Insurance. The Attorney will purchase and maintain sufficient insurance to protect Attorney against claims for legal malpractice. Page 23 of 183 3 238258v1 5.Miscellaneous. A.Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. B.Assignment. The Attorney may not assign or refer any of the legal services to be performed under this Agreement without the written consent of the Mendota Heights City Administrator. C.Amendments. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended without the approval in writing of the Mendota Heights City Council. D.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the City and the Attorney, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreement between the parties regarding civil municipal legal services. E.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Remainder of page left blank intentionally. Signature page follows] Page 24 of 183 4 238258v1 Dated: , 2026 Dated: , 2026 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Stephanie Levine, Mayor and By: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Dated: , 2026 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: Andrea McDowell Poehler, President Page 25 of 183 1 238256v1 AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTION LEGAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTION LEGAL SERVICES (“Agreement”), effective January 1, 2026, is by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association, a Minnesota corporation (“Attorney”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.Services and Relationship. A.The Attorney shall furnish and perform Prosecution Services for the City, as more fully described in the scope of services attached as Exhibit A. B.The Attorney shall be engaged as an independent contractor and not as a City employee. The Attorney is free to contract with other entities. 2.Term and Termination. A.This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 2026 and shall remain in effect until either party terminates this Agreement as provided in B. or C. below. B.The Attorney shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and this Agreement may be terminated without cause by resolution of the City Council. C.The Attorney may terminate this Agreement at any time, provided that the Attorney shall give the City sixty (60) days written notice before the termination becomes effective. 3.Payment. A.Prosecution Services. Effective January 1, 2026, a Monthly Cap for Prosecution Services for calendar year 2026 shall be $8,864 billed at the hourly rates set forth in Paragraph 3.B. B.Hourly Rates. Attorney will send City a detailed monthly billing statement of the actual hours incurred in providing legal services. The minimum billing increment is 0.2 hour. Attorney will bill at the following hourly rates, adjusted as provided in Section 3.A: Page 26 of 183 2 238256v1 ❖Attorneys $ 125.00/hour ❖Legal Assistants/Law Clerks $ 98.00/hour Calendar Year 2027 and subsequent years: The Monthly Cap and Hourly Rates in Section 3.A. and Section 3.B. of the previous year will be increased by three percent 3% each year. Either party may initiate an upward or downward departure to be mutually agreed upon by September 1st. The adjusted Hourly Rates will be rounded to the nearest cent. C.Additional Prosecution-Related Services. Legal Fees for Additional Prosecution-Related Services are not included in Prosecution Services or the monthly cap, and will only be furnished at the specific request of the City. The following are Additional Prosecution Related-Services: (1)Criminal appeals, whether initiated by the State or the Defendant. (2)Criminal records expungements. (3)Matters relating to the Police Department’s issuance of firearms permits. (4)Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), including ERPO petitions and all ERPO litigation work and court appearances. (5)Administrative citations or prosecution of zoning or other ordinance violations initiated by any City department other than the Police Department. (6)Vehicle Forfeitures (7)Dangerous or potentially dangerous dog administrative or criminal proceedings. Legal fees for Additional Prosecution Related Services will be billed monthly at the following hourly rates, adjusted as provided in Section 3.A: ❖ Attorneys $ 185.00/hour ❖Legal Assistants/Law Clerks $ 100.00/hour D.Costs. City shall pay out-of-pocket costs without mark-up, including the following: (1)Lexis/Nexis research (only if used for Mendota Heights matters) (2)Photocopies: 20¢ per page (3)Color photocopies: 40¢ per page (4)Postage: actual cost (5)Court-related costs (court filing fees, expert witnesses (with prior consent of City), subpoenas, service of process, court reporter fees): actual cost (6)Conflict attorneys’ fees and costs: actual cost E.Payments. Payments for legal services provided the City shall be made in the manner provided by law. The City will normally pay for services within thirty (30) days of receipt of a statement for services rendered. Page 27 of 183 3 238256v1 4.Insurance. The Attorney will purchase and maintain sufficient insurance to protect Attorney against claims for legal malpractice. 5.Miscellaneous. A.Annual Presentation to City Council. Upon request of the City, the Attorney will provide the City Council with an annual presentation on prosecution activity and updates. The Attorney will provide other reports upon request. B.Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. C.Assignment. The Attorney may not assign or refer any of the legal services to be performed hereunder without the written consent of the Mendota Heights City Council. D.Amendments. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended without the approval in writing of the Mendota Heights City Council. E.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the City and the Attorney, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreement between the parties regarding civil municipal legal services. F.Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Remainder of page left blank intentionally. Signature page follows] Page 28 of 183 4 238256v1 Dated: , 2026 Dated: , 2026 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Stephanie Levine, Mayor and By: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator Dated: , 2026 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: Andrea McDowell Poehler, President Page 29 of 183 5 238256v1 EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES SCOPE OF PROSECUTION SERVICES The Campbell Knutson prosecution team has a recognized excellence in delivering high quality prosecution services. Our prosecution team will provide Mendota Heights with the following: General Criminal Prosecution. Campbell Knutson’s prosecution team will handle Mendota Heights’ non- felony cases from start to finish. This includes reviewing for charging, drafting formal complaints, all discovery, any pretrial motions, preparation of all notices as required by the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, all pretrial hearings, and any jury or court trial. We will handle any case initiated by the Mendota Heights Police Department, the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office, the Minnesota State Patrol, the Department of Natural Resources, or any other law enforcement agency for offenses occurring within the City of Mendota Heights. Briefings/Officer Training/Ride-Alongs. Our representation will include our attorneys periodically attending roll-call briefings with officers, if requested. We provide Post Board certified quarterly training geared towards new officers but open to all officers. Due to the strong rapport we develop with officers, we are able to educate, inform, and mentor officers, and on occasion offer coaching, especially to new officers, to improve their performance and enhance public safety. Our prosecutors regularly participate in ride- alongs with officers to help understand our client’s culture and practices, to gain insight into local and distinctive patrol procedures, and to increase communication with the officers. Legislative/Case Law Updates. We are committed to providing timely updates to our clients about the important state and federal changes that impact the criminal law and the provision of day-to-day police services, whether the changes arise from new legislation, executive mandates, or judicial decisions. We provide an annual Minnesota Criminal Law Legislative Update. Availability/Response Time. We take extreme pride in client service. Command staff and officers are always able to reach us, day or night. Communication is the touchstone of a strong relationship. Our prosecutors’ cell phone numbers are distributed to all staff. Officers routinely call our prosecutors after normal business hours with questions in the field, and on weekends particularly with respect to the 48-hour hold rule. We are available 24/7 to serve the City’s needs. Page 30 of 183 This page is intentionally left blank 7.e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Authorize Out of Metro Travel Request for MCMA Conference ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Approve out-of-metro travel for the Assistant City Administrator and the Administrative Special Projects Coordinator to attend the Minnesota City/County Management Association (MCMA) annual conference in Brainerd, Minnesota. BACKGROUND: City policy requires that the city council approve any travel to a location outside the metro area for city employees. The Minnesota City/County Management Association (MCMA) annual conference will be held in Brainerd, MN, from April 29-May 1, 2026. The conference is designed for city and county managers, and management assistants. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Attendance at this conference is a budgeted expense. Estimated lodging and conference registration is $1,766 for staff to attend. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 31 of 183 This page is intentionally left blank 7.f REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-07 Amending the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee Joint Powers Agreement ITEM TYPE: Resolution DEPARTMENT: Police CONTACT: Wayne Wegener, Police Captain ACTION REQUEST: Approve the amended 2025 joint powers agreement for the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee. BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City of Mendota Heights, along with ten other cities in Dakota County and the County of Dakota entered into a joint powers agreement (JPA) forming the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee (DCDPC). The DCDPC’s objective is to provide the governing framework for response to large-scale disasters, emergencies, hazardous materials, and technical incidents. This cooperative effort is intended to supplement the existing response capabilities by efficiently providing additional resources and expertise that would be cost prohibitive for each agency to provide individually. The DCDPC also played a key role in the development of the Special Operations Team (SOT), which consists of employees from all 11 cities and the County who receive advanced emergency response training and equipment. SOT is a resource for all members when local response resources require additional specialized assistance. While continuing the SOT program, the DCDPC has taken further steps to improve public safety capabilities within the County. This includes coordinated county-wide planning activities, creation of an Exercise Design Team, as well as development of support products and training for frontline supervisors and responders. In 2016, the JPA was amended to reflect the operational structure needed at that time. Over the past year, the DCDPC conducted a review of the current JPA and proposed several changes to reflect the operational needs of today, including clarification of duties and responsibilities, addressing requests for assistance from political subdivisions outside of Dakota County, and restricting voting rights to parties of the agreement. The 2025 JPA reflects the proposed changes. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Page 32 of 183 None ATTACHMENTS: 1.DCDPC JPA Resolution 2026 2.DPC 2025 Joint Powers Agreement CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 33 of 183 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2026-07 AMENDING THE DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAKOTA COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 471.59 “Joint Exercise of Powers”; and WHEREAS, this requires the governing bodies of the agency enter into an agreement; and WHEREAS, the agreement must address certain items including, but not limited to, liability, purpose of the agreement, disbursement of funds, termination of the agreement; and WHEREAS, the City is currently part of a joint powers agreement to provide assistance in response to large-scale disasters, emergencies, hazardous materials, and technical incidents; and WHEREAS, the City believes continuing to participate in this joint powers agreement will enhance our ability to respond to large-scale disasters, emergencies, hazardous materials, and technical incidents in the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wishes to continue participation in this joint powers agreement to provide assistance in response to large-scale disasters, emergencies, hazardous materials, and technical incidents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Mendota Heights that the amendment to the Domestic Preparedness Committee Joint Powers Agreement between Dakota County and the City of Mendota Heights is hereby approved. Page 34 of 183 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of January, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY_________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: BY______________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 35 of 183 1 DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE 2025 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT The parties to this Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) are units of government responsible for response to large-scale disasters or emergencies in their respective jurisdictions. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minnesota Statutes §471.59. This Agreement amends and supersedes the FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE DAKOTA COUNTY DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS COMMITTEE, 2016 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, and shall become effective only upon the approval and execution hereof by duly authorized officers of all parties. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned governmental units, in the joint and mutual exercise of their powers, agree as follows: 1.Name. The Parties hereby establish the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee. (“Committee”). 2.Parties. The Parties to this Agreement shall consist of the following entities: City of Apple Valley City of Burnsville City of Eagan City of Farmington City of Hastings City of Inver Grove Heights City of Lakeville City of Mendota Heights City of Rosemount City of South St. Paul City of West St. Paul County of Dakota 3.Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint exercise, of the Parties' powers to plan for and to respond to the need of first responders for special response operations caused by the occurrence of Large-Scale Disasters or Emergencies, as defined in paragraph 10.2, both within Dakota County and to other jurisdictions external to Dakota County by providing assistance as requested pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 12. The joint exercise of the Parties' powers pursuant to this Agreement is intended to supplement and complement but not supplant the Parties' joint and individual powers to plan for and respond to the occurrence of other emergency or unforeseen events occurring within Dakota County, as provided in the Parties' respective emergency operations plans and similar plans. Page 36 of 183 2 4.Governance. 4.1 Governing Board. The governing board formed pursuant to this Agreement shall be known as the Dakota County Domestic Preparedness Committee Board (“Board”). The Board shall be constituted as follows: 4.1.1 Voting Board Members. One member and one alternate member appointed by each entity that is a Party to this Agreement listed in paragraph 2. Voting will be allocated as provided in paragraph 5.7. 4.1.2 Non-Voting Board Members. All additional members, and other entities under contract shall be non- voting members of the Board and shall not be counted for quorum purposes. •Representative of Dakota County Emergency Management. •Representative of Dakota County City Managers / Administrators. •Representative of Dakota County Emergency Medical Services Council. •Representative of the Dakota County Special Operations Team. •Representative of Dakota County Public Health. •Representative of the Dakota County Attorney. •Representative of Public Works Directors / Superintendents within Dakota County. •Representative of Dakota 911. •Representative of each entity that has entered into a contract pursuant to paragraph 8.2.1. 4.2 Documentation. Resolutions or other documentation of appointments shall be filed with Dakota County Emergency Management Division. 4.3 Members not Employees. Members of the Board or Committee shall not be deemed to be employees of the Committee and will not be compensated by the Committee for serving on the Committee. 4.4 Terms; Vacancies. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing Party and may be removed only by the appointing Party. Vacancies may be filled only by the appointing Party. Incumbent members serve until a successor has been appointed. Page 37 of 183 3 5 Meetings and Elected Officers. 5.1 In January of each year, the Board shall elect from its members a chair, vice-chair, and secretary to conduct its meetings and affairs. Officers shall serve for a term of one (1) year or until the officer ceases to be a board member, whichever is shorter. In the event of a vacancy mid-term, an appointment to fill the vacancy will be made during the next regular meeting of the Board. 5.2 Chair. The Chair shall preside over all meetings of the Board and shall perform other duties and functions as determined by the Board. 5.3 Vice Chair. The Vice-Chair shall preside over and act for the Board during the absence of the Chair. 5.4 Secretary. The Secretary shall assist the Chair in overseeing the keeping of the record of all proceedings of the Committee's actions. 5.5 Treasurer. A representative of Dakota County Emergency Management shall serve as Treasurer for the Committee. The Treasurer shall assist the Chair in overseeing the Committee's budget and finances. 5.6 Meetings. The Board shall schedule regular meetings at such times and places as the Board shall determine. No action may be taken unless a quorum is present. The presence of a majority of the Voting Members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. All meetings are subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Board Officers will be responsible for determining where all meeting notices and information will be posted. 5.6.1 Special meetings may be held on reasonable notice by the Chair or Vice Chair. The presence of a majority of the voting members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. No action may be taken unless a quorum is present. 5.7 Voting. Each Voting Board Member shall be entitled to one (1) vote per Party. Proxy votes are not permitted. The Board shall function by a majority vote of the Board members present. 6 Duties of the Committee. 6.1 Program. The Board shall formulate a program to carry out the Committee’s purpose. The Committee shall carry out and implement its programs to the extent possible. The program shall include the following: 6.1.1 Promote the development and awareness of response plans and enhance the planning capabilities at all levels of government within Dakota County to prevent, respond to, and recover from Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (“CBRNE”) threats, acts of terror, or natural and manmade disasters. 6.1.2 Establish a process to efficiently use funding to address identified priorities Page 38 of 183 4 with countywide benefits and meet all grant reporting requirements. 6.1.3 Promote the hardening and development of response preplans for critical public and private sector infrastructure within Dakota County based on risk and capability gaps. 6.1.4 Develop and enhance countywide capabilities to respond to the consequences of CBRNE threats, acts of terror, or natural and manmade disasters through training and equipment acquisition. 6.1.5 Demonstrate the countywide capacity and ability to respond to CBRNE events, acts of terror, or natural and manmade disasters through drills, tabletop and functional exercises. 6.1.6 Promote interoperability of emergency voice and data communications throughout Dakota County by incorporating interoperability into plans and exercises. 6.1.7 Promote the public’s understanding of emergency warning and notification capabilities within Dakota County. 6.1.8 Promote the development of plans and exercises to ensure the continuity of county and local governments. 6.1.9 Promote the capability of Dakota County's and the cities' Emergency Operations Centers (“EOCs”) to manage, communicate, and coordinate in the event of CBRNE events, acts of terror, or natural and manmade disasters. 6.1.10 Identify and develop agreements to render mutual aid with political subdivisions outside of Dakota County pursuant to Minnesota Statute §12.27. 6.1.11 Develop a process for requesting and to provide for rendering local assistance to other political subdivisions outside of Dakota County upon request pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §12.29, 12.33, 12.331, 12.37, and any other applicable laws enabling an emergency aid response. 6.2 Special Operations Team. 6.2.1 Establishment. The Committee shall establish a Special Operations Team (“SOT”) with the capability of providing specialized response operations for which specific training and equipment are required, and which are not currently available to all the Parties. The Committee will ensure that the SOT is established, that its members are trained to applicable federal and state standards, and that the necessary and appropriate equipment is purchased and made available for use by the SOT. 6.2.2 Procedures. The Committee will ensure that procedures are established so that the SOT is able to respond to Large-Scale Disasters or Emergencies Page 39 of 183 5 occurring anywhere within the jurisdictions of the Parties to this Agreement. Procedures of the SOT are subject to the review and approval of the Board. 6.2.3 Members. The Parties agree to assign employees and make equipment available to the SOT. Members of the SOT will remain employees of their employing agency and will not be deemed employees of the Committee, the Board, or the SOT. 6.2.4 Team Manager. The Board shall appoint a Team Manager who will be responsible for ensuring that the Committee accomplishes the duties described in paragraph 6.2. The Team Manager is authorized to make budgeted expenditures in accordance with the Dakota County Procurement Policy. The Team Manager shall be an employee of a Party. 6.3 Subcommittees. The Board may create subcommittees to carry out the duties of the Committee as needed to support the Committee. The actions of all subcommittees are subject to approval by the Board. 7 Reservation of Authority. All responsibilities not specifically set out to be jointly exercised by the Committee under this Agreement are hereby reserved to the Parties and each of them. 8 Powers of the Committee. 8.1 General Powers. The Committee is hereby authorized to exercise such authority as is necessary and proper to fulfill its purposes and perform its duties. Such authority shall include the specific powers enumerated in paragraph 8.2. 8.2 Specific Powers. 8.2.1 The Committee may enter into any contract necessary or proper for the exercise of its powers or the fulfillment of its duties and enforce such contracts to the extent available in equity or at law with units of local government in Dakota County that are not Parties to this Agreement, to provide such entities with the opportunity to assign members to the SOT. The Committee may approve any contract relating to this Agreement up to the amount approved in the annual budget and may authorize the Chair to execute those contracts. No payment on any contract invoice shall be authorized unless approved by at least two (2) of the three (3) officers elected pursuant to paragraph 5.1. The Treasurer shall report to the Board any such payments at its next meeting. 8.2.2 The Committee may disburse funds in a manner that is consistent with this Agreement and with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by Dakota County. 8.2.3 The Committee may apply for and accept gifts, grants, or loans of money or other property or assistance from the United States government, the State of Page 40 of 183 6 Minnesota, or any person, association, or agency for any of its purposes; enter into any agreement in connection therewith; and hold, use and dispose of such money or other property and assistance in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant or loan relating thereto. 8.2.4 The Committee shall maintain liability coverage for the actions of the Committee with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (“LMCIT”) with a limit of coverage equal to or greater than the liability limits under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, under standard LMCIT liability coverage forms. The Committee shall also obtain tail coverage following termination of the Agreement to cover the statute of limitations during which a claim could be made against the Committee. Such insurance shall name each Party as a covered party. The Committee may in its discretion procure coverage for automobile liability and damage to or loss of property. 8.2.5 All powers granted herein shall be exercised by the Committee in a fiscally responsible manner and in accordance with the requirements of law. The purchasing and contracting requirements of Dakota County shall apply to the Committee. 9 Budgeting and Funding. 9.1 Budget Adoption. By April 30th of each year, the Board shall adopt an annual work plan and operating and capital budgets for the following calendar year including a statement of the sources of funding. 9.2 Budget and Accounting Services. Dakota County agrees to provide all budgeting and accounting services necessary or convenient for the Committee. Such services shall include but not be limited to management of all funds, payment for contracted services and other purchases, and relevant bookkeeping and recordkeeping. Dakota County contracting and purchasing requirements shall apply to transactions of the Committee. 9.3 Expenses. The Parties understand and acknowledge that the activities and duties of the Committee are to be funded first by grant monies from the federal government, state government, or other associations and agencies. Nevertheless, the Parties agree to contribute to funding, if necessary, for the expenses of the Committee, to the extent not covered by grant funds. Each Party agrees annually to appropriate funds for the expenses of the Committee not covered by grant funds, on a population basis, subject to each city council's or the county board's adoption of a resolution authorizing any such appropriation. For purposes of this paragraph, each Party’s population would be calculated to include the city(s) and/or township(s) they provide police protection for. Population basis means the most current decennial federal census or the most recent Metropolitan Council population estimate, whichever is the most recent. 9.4 Federal and State Grant Funds Available to Counties. The Parties understand and acknowledge that federal and state grant funds have been and may continue to be Page 41 of 183 7 made available for improving and enhancing local government units' capabilities in responding to the occurrence of Large-Scale Disasters or Emergencies. The Parties further understand and acknowledge that some such federal and state grant funds may be made available directly to counties with the intention that the funds be expended for the benefit also of cities within the county. Dakota County specifically agrees that federal and state grant funds for such purposes which the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to Committee recommendation and proposed budget, applies for and receives will be applied for and received on behalf of the cities who are Parties to this Agreement and will be appropriated to the Committee for expenditure in accordance with the terms of the applicable grant agreement and budget approved by the County Board. The Committee will expend any such funds only in accordance with the terms of any applicable grant agreement, approved budget, laws, and rules. This paragraph does not prohibit Dakota County from unilaterally applying for, receiving, and expending grant funds made available for the purposes identified in this paragraph. 9.5 Accountability. All funds shall be accounted for according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). A report on all receipts and disbursements shall be forwarded to the Parties in advance of each Committee meeting and on an annual basis. 10 Special Operations Team Activation and Use. 10.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the deployment of the SOT established pursuant to paragraph 6.2, so that the SOT may be utilized by any Party to this Agreement in the event of a Large-Scale Disaster or Emergency within their jurisdiction. It is not the purpose of this section to provide for or address in any way requests by one Party of another Party for other services, or to supplant other mutual aid agreements to which any of the Parties may be signatory. 10.2 Definitions. SOT Manager - the person designated by the Board who is responsible for exercising tactical control of personnel and equipment provided by the SOT. Large-Scale Disaster or Emergency - an unforeseen exigent circumstance requiring specialized response operations. Requesting Party - a Party to this Agreement who has requested that the SOT provide specialized response operations. Special Operations Team (SOT) - a group of personnel assigned by the Parties who will be trained and organized to provide special response operations to any Party who requests them, and which may include personnel of other entities that have entered into an agreement with the Committee pursuant to paragraph 8.2.1. Specialized Response Operations - specialized rescue services for problem-specific emergencies, including, but not limited to structural collapse, technical rope rescue, hazardous materials, wildland rescue, confined space rescue, trench Page 42 of 183 8 rescue, water rescue, vehicle/machinery disentanglement, and the like, including training events for such services. 10.3 Requests for Assistance by a Party to the Committee. Whenever a Party, in its sole discretion, determines that the conditions within its jurisdiction cannot be adequately addressed by that jurisdiction because of a Large-Scale Disaster or Emergency, the Party may request orally or in writing that the SOT provide specialized response operations to the Party. 10.3.1 Emergency Management Assistance Compact (“EMAC”). The SOT Manager may submit a Mission Ready Package (“MRP”) in response to an EMAC request after consultation and approval from the Chair or Vice- Chair. 10.4 Requests for Assistance through Mutual Aid Agreement. For any Mutual Aid Agreement that the Committee is party to, requests for aid from the Committee shall be made by following the terms for activation as outlined and identified in the specific Joint Powers Agreement. 10.5 Requests for Assistance by Political Subdivisions Outside of Dakota County. Any political subdivision from outside of Dakota County in order to request assistance from the Committee, shall follow the Committee procedure developed for rendering local assistance to other political subdivisions outside of Dakota County, consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes §12.29, 12.33, 12.331, 12.37, and any other applicable laws regarding requesting emergency aid response from a political subdivision. 10.6 Response to Request for Assistance from a Party to the Committee. Upon a request for assistance of the Committee, the SOT Manager, or designee, may authorize, direct, and permit the SOT to assist the requesting Party following the SOT activation process. Whether the SOT shall provide such assistance, and the extent of such assistance, shall be determined by the SOT Manager, or designee. Failure to provide assistance in response to a request made pursuant to this Agreement will not result in any liability to the SOT or to any other Party. The SOT Manager, or designee, shall notify the Chair or Vice-Chair any time consent to assist a governmental unit, is granted. 10.7 Recall of Assistance. The SOT Manager, or designee, may at any time and in its sole judgment terminate and recall the SOT or any part thereof. The decision to recall the SOT provided pursuant to this Agreement will not result in liability to the SOT. 10.8 Direction and Control. Personnel and equipment of the SOT shall remain under the direction and control of the SOT Manager. 10.9 Exercise of Police Power. Any member of the SOT who is a licensed peace officer and who is assisting pursuant to this Agreement has the full and complete authority of a peace officer as though appointed by the requesting Party and licensed by the State of Minnesota provided the officer meets the requirements set forth at Page 43 of 183 9 Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, subds. 12(1) and (2). 10.10 Compensation. 10.10.1 Parties to this Agreement. When the SOT provides services to a requesting Party, the personnel of the SOT shall be compensated by their respective employers just as if they were performing the duties within and for the jurisdiction of their appointing Party. Except as provided in paragraph 10.10.2., no charges will be levied by the Committee for specialized response operations provided to a requesting Party pursuant to this Agreement unless that assistance continues for a period exceeding twenty-four (24) consecutive hours. If assistance provided pursuant to this Agreement continues for more than twenty-four (24) consecutive hours, the Committee shall submit to the requesting Party an itemized bill for the actual cost of any assistance provided, including salaries, overtime, materials, and supplies incurred following the initial 24-hour period. The requesting Party shall reimburse the Committee for the billed amount. When received by the Committee those funds will be paid out to each appropriate entity in the amounts documented in the itemized bill. 10.10.2 Private Third Parties. In the event that the SOT is activated and deployed at the request of a Party to this Agreement, to provide specialized response operations at a Large-Scale Disaster or Emergency for which a private third party may bear financial responsibility, the Committee shall submit to the requesting Party without delay an itemized bill for the actual cost of assistance provided, including salaries, overtime, materials, and supplies. The requesting Party shall reimburse the Committee its proportionate share of funds received from any private third party, if any, for the full cost of the assistance. 10.11 Workers' Compensation. Each Party to this Agreement shall be responsible for injuries to or death of its employees. Each Party shall maintain workers' compensation coverage or self-insurance coverage, covering its personnel while they are assisting a member of the SOT. Each Party to this Agreement waives the right to sue any other Party for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its employee or their dependents, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party or its officers, employees, or agents. 10.12 Damage to Equipment. Each Party shall be responsible for damage to or loss of its equipment occurring during deployment of the SOT. Each Party waives the right to sue any other Party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party or its officers, employees, or agents. 11 Liability. The Committee is a separate and distinct public entity to which the Parties have transferred all responsibility and control for actions taken pursuant to this Agreement. Page 44 of 183 10 With the exception of workers' compensation liability, which is addressed in paragraph 10.11 of this Agreement, the Committee shall defend and indemnify the Parties, and their officers, employees, volunteers, and agents, from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising from Committee activities or operations, including deployments of the SOT, and decisions of the Committee. To the fullest extent permitted by law, actions by the Parties to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and the Parties intend that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, as outlined in Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, subd. 1a (a), provided further that for purposes of that statute, each Party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of any other Party. The Parties to this Agreement shall not be liable for the acts or omissions of another Party to this Agreement except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the statutory liability limits outlined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, or a waiver of any available immunities or defenses. Under no circumstances shall the Committee or a Party be required to pay on behalf of itself and any other Parties any amounts over the limits of liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any third-party claim. The statutory limits of liability for some or all of the Parties may not be added together or stacked to increase the maximum amount of liability for any third-party claim. Any excess or uninsured liability shall be borne equally by all the Parties, but this does not include the liability of any individual officer, employee, or agent that arises from his or her own malfeasance, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. Nothing herein shall be construed to provide insurance coverage or indemnification to an officer, employee, or volunteer of any member for any act or omission for which the officer, employee, or volunteer is guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. 12 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be effective only when all the parties have signed this Agreement. The Chair of the Board shall notify the Parties in writing of the effective date of this Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in effect until terminated in accordance with paragraph 13.2 or December 31st, 2030, whichever first occurs. 13 Withdrawal and Termination. 13.1 Withdrawal. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement upon 12 months' advanced written notice to the other Parties. Withdrawal by any Party shall not terminate this Agreement with respect to any Parties who have not withdrawn. Withdrawal shall not discharge any liability incurred by any Party prior to withdrawal. Such liability shall continue until discharged by law or agreement. 13.2 Termination. This Agreement shall terminate upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: (a) when necessitated by operation of law or as a result of a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) when a majority of Parties agrees to terminate the Agreement upon a date certain. Page 45 of 183 11 13.3 Effect of Termination. Termination shall not discharge any liability incurred by the Committee or by the Parties during the term of this Agreement. Upon termination property or surplus money held by the Committee shall then be distributed to the Parties in proportion to the contributions of the Parties. 14 Miscellaneous. 14.1 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only in writing and upon the consent of the governing bodies of all of the Parties. 14.2 Records, Accounts and Reports. The books and records of the Committee shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Statutes §16C.05, subd. 5. All books and records shall be retained by Dakota County pursuant to a data retention policy adopted by the Committee. 14.3 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Counterparts shall be filed with Dakota County Emergency Management. 14.4 Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Parties shall not discriminate against any individual necessary to perform the services under this Agreement because of race, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. 14.5 Severability. Should a court of competent jurisdiction rule any portion, section or subsection of this Agreement invalid or nullified, that fact shall not affect or invalidate any other portion, section or subsection, and all remaining portions, sections or subsections shall remain in full force and effect. 14.6 Assignment. The Parties may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the written agreement of all Parties. 14.7 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written. 14.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota. 14.9 Venue. The venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement must be in the appropriate court with competent jurisdiction in Dakota County, Minnesota. 14.10 Electronic Signatures. Each party agrees that the electronic signatures of the parties included in this Contract are intended to authenticate this writing and to have the same force and effect as wet ink signatures. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below. Page 46 of 183 12 Approved by the City Council CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 47 of 183 13 Approved by the City Council CITY OF BURNSVILLE Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 48 of 183 14 Approved by the City Council CITY OF EAGAN Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 49 of 183 15 Approved by the City Council CITY OF FARMINGTON Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 50 of 183 16 Approved by the City Council CITY OF HASTINGS Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 51 of 183 17 Approved by the City Council CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 52 of 183 18 Approved by the City Council CITY OF LAKEVILLE Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 53 of 183 19 Approved by the City Council CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 54 of 183 20 Approved by the City Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 55 of 183 21 Approved by the City Council CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 56 of 183 22 Approved by the City Council CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL Date ____________________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 57 of 183 23 Approved by Dakota County Board COUNTY OF DAKOTA Resolution No. _______________ By ___________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Attest ________________________________ Date of Signature _______________________ Page 58 of 183 This page is intentionally left blank 7.g REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Approve Resolution 2026-05 Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Application through Dakota County – Fiscal Year 2026 ITEM TYPE: Consent Item DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-05 supporting and approving an application for the Dakota County Community Development Agency’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year 2026. BACKGROUND: Dakota County receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which is a federal program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program is designed to assist local governments with various community development projects and programs that primarily aid low- and moderate-income residents. Dakota County is considered an “Entitlement County”, and, as such, receives an annual allocation of federal CDBG funds. The Dakota County Board of Commissioners has chosen to allocate the CDBG funds amongst the various cities in the county; while the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) administers this program on behalf of Dakota County. The CDA will continue to administer all aspects of the loan program. Each year, the city’s CDBG allocation is rebalanced to account for updated information in the American Community Survey provided by the Census Bureau for each city. Per HUD rules, the CDBG allocation is based on three factors: a community’s population, people in poverty, and overcrowded housing units. Because these factors change over time, the allocation each city receives will change over time. The total CDBG allocation Dakota County will receive for the 2026 Program Year is not yet known; however, it is anticipated the County will receive an amount similar to what was received in the 2025 Program Year, which was $1,893,442. The amount each city will actually Page 59 of 183 receive for the upcoming 2026 Program Year is not known until the federal budget is approved. The estimated allocation for Mendota Heights is approximately $15,892 for FY 2026. In previous years, the city has used these CDBG funds to renovate or improve up to two (2) qualifying residential properties per year, and whose owners meet the criteria set forth in the program. The CDA requests every city that participates in this annual CDBG Program, to adopt a resolution of support and approval, which is attached. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: There are no impacts to the city budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Estimated Fiscal Year 2026 funds letter 2.Program Year 2026 CDBG Application - Mendota Heights 3.Resolution 2026-05 Resolution Approving the Application for Fiscal Year 2026 Dakota County Development Block Grant Funding CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 60 of 183 November 21, 2025 Ms. Sarah Madden City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: CDBG Program Year 2026 Allocation Estimate Dear Ms. Madden, Dakota County receives an annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, which is a federal program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program is designed to assist local governments with various community development projects and programs that primarily aid low- and moderate-income residents. Dakota County is considered an “Entitlement County”, and, as such, receives an annual allocation of federal CDBG funds. The Dakota County Board of Commissioners has chosen to allocate the CDBG funds amongst the various cities and townships in the County, as well use the funds for certain County programs. The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) administers this program on behalf of Dakota County. Each year, the city’s CDBG allocation is rebalanced to account for updated information in the American Community Survey provided by the Census Bureau for each city. Per HUD rules, the CDBG allocation is based on three factors: a community’s population, the number of people in poverty, and the number of overcrowded housing units. Each city receives a percentage of the annual Dakota County CDBG allocation based on the three factors. Because these factors change over time, the allocation each city receives will change over time. The CDBG allocation Dakota County will receive for Program Year 2026 is not yet known and won’t be known until Congress passes and the President approves the Federal Fiscal Year 2026 federal budget. However, we believe it is prudent for each city to anticipate that the County will receive a similar amount to what was received for Program Year 2025, which was $1,893,442. The final Dakota County CDBG allocation affects the amount each city will receive for Program Year 2026. This amount may be more or less than what your city received for 2025. With that in mind, the estimated allocation for Mendota Heights for Program Year 2026 is $15,892. Please provide a contingency plan in your CDBG Program Year 2026 application that specifies which program(s) will receive more or less funding based on the final allocation. Please note that funding for any public service activities that the city may choose to fund with CDBG may be further reduced to ensure that the amount used for public services does not exceed 15 percent of the total Dakota County CDBG allocation. Page 61 of 183 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 675-4464 or mdykes@dakotacda.org. Best Regards, DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Margaret M. Dykes Asst. Director of Community and Economic Development Page 62 of 183 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS APPLICATION FOR PROGRAM YEAR 2026 Application must be received by the Dakota County Community Development Agency NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 2026 For July 1, 2026 – June 30, 2027 General Information Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights UEI #: JYKCB2PFC9Y7 Contact Name: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager Applicant Address:1101 Victoria Curve City, State, Zip: Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651-255-1142 Email: smadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov Proposed Activities Activity Requested Funding Amount #1 Title: Housing Rehabilitation Loans CDBG Request: $ 15,892 #2 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #3 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #4 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. #5 Title: Click or tap here to enter text. CDBG Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. Total Request: $ Click or tap here to enter text. Contingency Funding Request: Note the funding levels for activities if there is an increase or decrease in federal funding levels. Specify which activities should be fully funded at the requested level and which should be increased or decreased. Click or tap here to enter text. PLEASE NOTE: AT LEAST 50% of the proposed funding must qualify as a LOW/MOD benefit. NO MORE THAN 35% of the any one community’s proposed funding can be for PUBLIC SERVICES. Because public services may not account for more than 15% of the County’s total funding, public service requests may be decreased once all applications are submitted and reviewed by CDA staff. NO MORE than 10% of any one community’s funding can be used for PLANNING. Page 63 of 183 Certification I certify that the information contained in this application is true and correct and that it contains no misrepresentations, falsifications, intentional omissions, or concealment of material facts. I further certify that no contracts have been awarded, funds committed, or construction begun on the proposed project(s), and that none will be made prior to notification from the Dakota County CDA based on HUD’s issuance of a Release of Funds Notice. Signature of Authorized Official Date Title of Authorized Official PLEASE ATTACH THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BODY SHOWING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR CDBG FUNDS. Page 64 of 183 1 Please complete the following Sections I-V for EACH proposed activity. (For example, if 3 activities are being proposed, there will be 3 sets of the following pages.) Activity # 1 Activity Title: Housing Rehabilitation Loans II. Activity Information Has this Activity received CDBG funding before? ☒ Yes ☐ No Check the eligible activity category of the proposed activity: (See attached definitions) I. Activity Title Describe the proposed activity in detail. Please be specific about purpose, location, number of people or households served, etc. The Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program provides loans in amounts up to $35,000 to homeowners in Mendota Heights who meet equity and credit requirements and low/moderate income requirements. Those who qualify for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program will benefit from the structural integrity of the redevelopment of their properties. Residents of the City will also benefit from the increased market value and subsequent increased tax revenues generated from improved properties. The City of Mendota Heights is committed to supporting the continued viability of existing residential structures and neighborhoods throughout the entire community. Page 65 of 183 2 Affordable Rental Housing ☐Rehabilitation of Multi-Unit Residential ☐Fair Housing Activities ☐Energy Efficiency Improvements Public Services ☐Senior Services ☐Youth Services ☐Transportation Services ☐Operational Support Affordable Homeowner Housing ☐Homeownership Assistance ☐New (Re)Construction Homeowner Housing ☒Rehabilitation/ Energy Efficiency Improvement of Single Unit Residential ☐Fair Housing Activities Public Facilities ☐Recreational Parks ☐Public Water/Sewer Improvements ☐Street Improvements ☐Sidewalks ☐Assessment Abatement ☐ADA Improvements Homelessness ☐Coordinated Access to Services & Shelter ☐Housing Stabilization ☐Emergency Shelter Operation Neighborhood Revitalization ☐Acquisition of Real Property ☐Clearance and Demolition ☐Clean-up of Contaminated Site Economic Development ☐Employment Training ☐Economic Development Assistance ☐Rehabilitation of Commercial/Industrial Buildings ☐Micro-Enterprise Assistance ☐Relocation Planning and Administration ☐Planning ☐Administration Page 66 of 183 3 Describe the activity schedule: Is this a continuation of a previously funded activity? ☒Yes ☐No Is this a time-specific project? ☐Yes ☒No If this is a time-specific project, please note the start and end dates below: Proposed Activity Start Date: July 1, 2026 Proposed Activity Completion Date: June 30, 2027 CDBG funded projects/activities must meet one of the following program objectives. Check the objective for which the CDBG funds will be used. If you checked the Low/Mod Housing Benefit box, please answer the following: How many Low/Mod Households will benefit? 2 Households (Income eligibility must be verified by written documentation) Where will this activity occur? (Address of property, neighborhood, or citywide) To be determined by Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) by application submittals Click or tap here to enter text. III. CDBG National Objective ☐Low/Mod Area Benefit ☐Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit ☒Low/Mod Housing Benefit ☐Low/Mod Jobs Benefit ☐Slum/Blight Area Benefit ☐Slum/Blight Spot Benefit ☐Urgent Need (extremely rare; used only for emergencies): (Please explain) Click or tap here to enter text. If you checked the Low/Mod Area Benefit box, please answer the following: In what Census Tract/Block Group(s) do beneficiaries of your Activity live? (Please include map) Click or tap here to enter text. How many residents live in this area? Click or tap here to enter text. What is the percentage of low and moderate-income beneficiaries? Click or tap here to enter text.% How was this documented? ☐ HUD Data ☐ Survey (Please include a copy of survey) Page 67 of 183 4 If you checked the Low/Mod Limited Clientele Benefit box, please answer the following: How many Low/Mod People or Households will benefit? Click or tap here to enter text. People Click or tap here to enter text. Households (Please choose either People or Households for each project). How will income be verified? ☐Income Verification Request Forms ☐Eligibility Status for other Governmental Assistance program ☐Self Certification (Must request source documentation of 20% of certifications and must inform beneficiary that all sources of income and assets must be included when calculating annual income) ☐Presumed benefit (HUD presumes the following to be low and moderate-income: abused children, battered spouses, elderly persons (62+), severely disabled persons, homeless persons, persons living with AIDS, migrant farm workers) If you checked the Low/Mod Jobs Benefit box, please answer the following: To meet the requirements of the “Jobs” National Objective, the business being assisted must enter into an agreement showing commitment that at least 51% of jobs created or retained will be available to low/mod income persons. The business must also be prepared to provide a list of all jobs, detailed information about the jobs being created or retained, the selection and hiring process, and demographic information about the employees. Will this activity create or retain full time equivalencies (FTEs)? ☐ Create ☐Retain For job(s) that are being retained, please provide evidence that the assisted business has issued a notice to affected employees or that the business has made a public announcement to that effect, OR an analysis of relevant financial records that shows the business is likely to cut back on employment in the near future without planned intervention. Will the job(s) created or retained require a special skill? ☐ Yes ☐No What percent of permanent FTEs will be held by or available to low/mod income persons? Click or tap here to enter text. % If you checked the Slum/Blight Area or Slum/Blight Spot Benefit box, please answer the following: What are the boundaries of the slum/blight area or the address of the slum/blight spot? Click or tap here to enter text. (Please provide letter from building inspector or other documentation noting deficiencies and include photos) What deficiency will be corrected or the public improvement be? Click or tap here to enter text. If Slum/Blight Area, what percent of buildings are deteriorated? Click or tap here to enter text.% Page 68 of 183 5 IV. Proposed Objectives and Outcomes Indicate the proposed objective and outcome of the activity/project. Outcome #1 Availability/Accessibility Outcome #2 Affordability Outcome #3 Sustainability Objective #1 Suitable Living Environment ☒Accessibility for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment ☒Affordability for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment ☒Sustainability for the purpose of creating a suitable living environment Objective #2 Decent Housing ☒Accessibility for the purpose of providing decent housing ☒Affordability for the purpose of providing decent housing ☒Sustainability for the purpose of providing decent housing Objective #3 Economic Opportunity ☐Accessibility for the purpose of creating economic opportunities ☐Affordability for the purpose of creating economic opportunities ☐Sustainability for the purpose of creating economic opportunities Indicate how the activity outcome will be measured and projected number of beneficiaries. ☐People ☐Households ☒Housing Units 2 ☐Public Facilities ☐Jobs ☐Businesses ☐Organizations V. Project Budget Provide the total project cost and CDBG request. Total Project Cost: $ 15,892 Total CDBG Request: $ 15,892 CDBG Percent of Total Cost: 100% Describe all funding sources. Source of Funds Amount Committed Pending CDBG $ 15,892 ☐☒ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. ☐☐ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. ☐☐ Total: $ 15,892 ☐☐ Page 69 of 183 6 Please itemize project expenses, using the following guidance as applicable: • Acquisition & Improvement Costs - Include purchase price, closing costs, site improvements, clearance of toxic contaminants, and other acquisition and improvement costs • Construction/Rehabilitation Costs - Include site improvements, construction (labor, materials, supplies), installation, permits and other construction/rehabilitation costs • Professional Fees and Personnel Costs - Include architectural, engineering and code inspection fees, surveys, appraisals, legal fees, hazardous materials surveys, project management, and other professional/personnel fees • Other Development Costs - Include relocation, financing costs, environmental reviews, environmental studies, and other development costs • Eligible Costs for Planning Projects - Include professional services, project management costs, and other planning costs * * * * * Please review each section for completeness. Each activity should have separate Sections I through V. Itemized Use of Funds/Expenses Costs CDBG Funds Requested Other Funding Sources Home Improvement Loans $ 15,892 $ 15,892 $ Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. $ Click or tap here to enter text. Total: $15,892 $ 15,892 $ Click or tap here to enter text. Page 70 of 183 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES Please Note: Although an activity may be deemed eligible for CDBG funding, it does not guarantee funding. The Community Development Needs for the CDBG Program in the Consolidated Plan lists the priority of needs and dictates which types of eligible activities may be funded in a given year. All activities must meet a National Objective. CDBG funds may NOT be used for costs attributable to a building used for the general conduct of government, general government expenses, or political activities. Acquisition/Disposition: Includes acquisition of real property, in whole or in part, by purchase, long-term lease, donation, or otherwise for any public purpose. Real property to be acquired may include land, air rights, easements, water rights, rights-of-way, buildings and other property improvements, or other interests in real property. Demolition/Clearance: Includes clearance, demolition, and removal of buildings and improvements including movement of structures to other sites. Economic Development Activities: Includes but are not limited to: (1) construction by the grantee or subrecipient of a business incubator designed to provide inexpensive space and assistance to new firms to help them become viable businesses, (2) loans to pay for the expansion of a factory or commercial business, and (3) training for by persons on welfare to enable them to qualify for jobs created by CDBG-assisted special economic development activities. The level of public benefit to be derived from the economic development activity must be appropriate given the amount of CDBG assistance. Homeownership Assistance: Includes financial assistance for down payments, closing costs or other part of the purchase process and counseling for pre-purchase, post-purchase or foreclosure prevention. Rehabilitation: Includes single-family rehabilitation, multi-family rehabilitation, energy efficiency improvements, public housing modernization, and rehabilitation of commercial properties. Relocation: Includes relocation payments and assistance to displaced persons, including individuals, families, businesses, non-profits, and farms, where required under section 570.606 of the regulations (pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Act). Public Facilities/Improvements: CDBG funds may be used by the subrecipient or other public or private nonprofit entities for the acquisition (including long term leases for periods of 15 years or more), construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation (including removal of architectural barriers to accessibility), or installation, of public improvements or facilities. This includes neighborhood facilities, firehouses, public schools, libraries, and shelters for homeless people, as well as water and/or sewer treatment plants. Buildings for the general conduct of government cannot be acquired or improved with CDBG funds. Public Services: CDBG funds may be used to provide public services (including labor, supplies, and materials), provided that each of the following criteria is met: 1) The public service must be either a new service or a quantifiable increase in the level of service; and 2) The amount of CDBG funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities may not exceed 35% of a city’s allocation and the total public services of all subrecipients may not exceed 15% of the total grant awarded to Dakota County for that year. Planning: Includes studies, analysis, data gathering, preparation of plans, and identification of actions that will implement plans. The types of plans which may be paid for with CDBG funds include but are not limited to comprehensive plans, individual project plans, community development plans, capital improvement programs, small area and neighborhood plans, environmental and historic preservation studies, and functional plans (such as plans for housing, land use, energy conservation, or economic development). Except for small cities and townships, the amount of CDBG funds obligated within a program year to support planning activities may not exceed 15% of a community’s allocation. General Grant Administration: CDBG funds may be used for general administration costs incurred by a subrecipient to administer its CDBG program. CDBG grant funds obligated to general grant administration may not exceed 10% of the community’s allocation. Administration costs directly associated with a CDBG activity should be part of the activity as project administration and are not considered general grant administration expenses. Please talk to the Dakota County CDA before you allocate funds to grant admin. Planning and General Grant Administration Activities may not exceed 20% of the total grant awarded to Dakota County for that year. Page 71 of 183 8 SAMPLE RESOLUTION – SUBMIT WITH FY 2026 CDBG APPLICATION CITY OF _____________ DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of ___________ is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2026 (starting July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) is a Subgrantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County CDA has requested Fiscal Year 2025 CDBG applications be submitted by January 16, 2026, based on an allocation of funds approved in the Annual Action Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of _________ hereby approves the following: 1.The Fiscal Year 2026 CDBG application is approved for submission to the Dakota County CDA. 2.The _________ (Mayor, City Administrator, City Clerk, etc.) for the City of ____________ is authorized to execute the application and all agreements and documents related to receiving and using the awarded CDBG funds. 3.The Dakota County CDA is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG program on behalf of the City of ___________, subject to future Subrecipient Agreements that may be required for specific CDBG-funded activities. ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________, 202___. By: ATTEST: Page 72 of 183 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-05 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is a participating jurisdiction with the Dakota County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Program for Fiscal Year 2026 (starting July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027); and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency is a sub-grantee of Dakota County for the administration of the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Development Agency has requested Fiscal Year 2026 CDBG applications be submitted by January 16, 2026, based on allocation of funds approved in the Annual Action Plan. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the following points be approved: 1.The Fiscal Year 2026 CDBG application is approved for submission to the Dakota County CDA; 2.The City Administrator for the City of Mendota Heights is authorized to execute the application and all agreements and documents related to receiving and using the awarded CDBG funds; and 3.The Dakota County CDA is designated as the administrative entity to carry out the CDBG program on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights, subject to future Subrecipient Agreements that may be required for specific CDBG-funded activities. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of January, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 73 of 183 This page is intentionally left blank Page 74 of 1837.h Page 75 of 183 Page 76 of 183 Page 77 of 183 Page 78 of 183 Page 79 of 183 Page 80 of 183 Page 81 of 183 Page 82 of 183 Page 83 of 183 Page 84 of 183 Page 85 of 183 Page 86 of 183 Page 87 of 183 8.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: 2025 Volunteer Report ITEM TYPE: Presentation DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Informational Only. Staff will review the contributions to the Mendota Heights Volunteer Program and recognize the contributions made by volunteers to the City of Mendota Heights. BACKGROUND: The City’s Volunteer Program provides opportunities for community members to engage with, contribute to, and serve the residents of Mendota Heights. Volunteer opportunities support a variety of city functions, including Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources, and the Police and Fire Departments. In addition to providing meaningful support to city staff, volunteers gain insight into the behind-the-scenes work required to deliver a wide range of municipal services. The City aims for the Volunteer Program not only to supplement service delivery, but also to strengthen connections between community members and the work of the City. In 2025, the City documented 719 hours of volunteer service. The City continued its strong partnerships with organizations such as Master Gardeners to coordinate volunteer efforts. In addition, volunteer participation in city events expanded significantly. As the Volunteer Program has evolved over the past several years, staff have identified event-based volunteering as one of the most effective ways to engage volunteers in city initiatives. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1.2025 Service Summary Hours CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 88 of 183 Service Summary City of Mendota Heights 2025 Place Assignment Hours Natural Resources 28:00 68:00 0:00 216:00 0:00 18:00 247:45 T o t a l 577:45 Parks and Recreation 63:00 2:00 0:00 T o t a l 65:00 Police Department Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) Event Volunteer Invasive Species Removal Volunteer Master Gardener Native Restoration Volunteer Tree Planting Volunteer Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) Event Volunteer Landscaping Volunteer Park Clean-Up Volunteer Police Reserve (18+)76:30 T o t a l 76:30 Grand total 719:15 Page 1 Page 89 of 183 10.a REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-04 Appointments to City Advisory Commissions ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Noel Mills Ford, Administrative Special Projects Coordinator Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Approve Resolution 2026-04 Appointing City Advisory Commission Members. BACKGROUND: The city's advisory commissions include the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Natural Resources Commission, and Airport Relations Commission. The City Council appoints members of these commissions. On Jan. 8, the City Council held interviews to select appointees to two vacant positions — one on the Natural Resources Commission and one on the Airport Relations Commission. The Council received six applications and applicants identified their desired commission. The City Council also selected an appointee to a vacant position on the Parks and Recreation Commission based on interviews held Oct. 20, 2025. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2026 - 04 Appointments to City Advisory Commissions CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure, Inclusive and Responsive Government Page 90 of 183 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-04 APPOINTING CITY ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERS WHEREAS, the city’s advisory commissions include the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Airport Relations Commission, and Natural Resources Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights benefits from the active participation of citizens in representing the City on boards and commissions; and WHEREAS, vacancies on the Natural Resources Commission and Airport Relations Commission were advertised and six interested residents submitted application materials for consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council held interviews on Jan. 8, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered previous applicants for the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that it hereby reappoints the following residents to city advisory commissions with terms expiring as indicated: Parks and Recreation Kirsten Ramirez January 31, 2029 Natural Resources Charlie Weier January 31, 2029 Airport Relations Harvey Arbit January 31, 2028 Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 20th day of January, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ______________________________ Stephanie B. Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 91 of 183 10.b REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 2026-06 City Council Action on the application of Chase Real Estate for a Preliminary Development Plan and Zoning Amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development at 2300 Lexington Avenue (Planning Case No. 2025-16) ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Community Development CONTACT: Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager ACTION REQUEST: Adopt Resolution 2026-06 (Version 1), Approving the application request for a Preliminary Development Plan and Zoning Amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development; OR Adopt Resolution 2026-06 (Version 2), Denying the application request for a Preliminary Development Plan and Zoning Amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development; OR Direct staff to return at the next available meeting with a single version of Resolution 2026-06, incorporating any revisions needed as directed by the City Council BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 2300 Lexington Avenue, and is owned by Riley Family Lexington Heights Limited Partnership. The development is known as Lexington Heights Apartments, and it is managed by Condor Corporation, a company affiliated with the property owner. The site consists of five (5) parcels over 16.31 acres, and has been owned by the same family since its original development. 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 eastern 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 reportedly underutilized. Page 92 of 183 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 from the north by a new driveway extending from the north end of the existing surface parking lot. The main entrance to the building will be on the western façade of the structure facing into the shared surface parking lot area. The proposed building will include sixty-two (62) 1-Bedroom units, eighteen (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 1,149-1,259 sq-ft, and the four 3-Bedroom units anticipated to be 1,300 sq-ft in size. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE The applicant/ developer is requesting the following actions for construction of a proposed multi-family apartment building on the subject property: 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, a Zoning Amendment. 2. PUD – Preliminary Development Plan City Code Title 12: Zoning, in section 12-5B-8: Planned Unit Development outlines the procedural provisions and minimum requirements for all Planned Unit Developments. Subsection (J) of this ordinance outlines the controlling measures for a Planned Unit Development following its completion. This applies to the application request proposed under Planning Case No. 2025-16, as the subject property is an existing Planned Unit Development approved by City Council Resolution 83-95 on November 1, 1983. Within 12-5B-8(J)3: Changes to Final Development Plan, the City Code requires that changes in the use of common open space within a completed PUD to be processed by an Amendment to the Final Development Plan pursuant to the same procedures for approval of a Zoning Amendment. The application request modifies green space on the subject property, which is why the City is processing this request under the same procedures for approval as a Zoning Amendment. Additionally, the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance requires in all new PUDs, that the full extent of the property be rezoned with a “Planned Unit Development Overlay District”. Because this site was developed as a PUD prior to this Overlay District requirement, this Amendment also utilizes the Zoning Amendment procedural steps to formalize and correct the property’s zoning designation as within the Overlay District. Also within 12-5B-8(J)3: Changes to Final Development Plan, the City Code requires that all other changes in the Final Development Plan (excluding minor extensions or alterations, new uses not covered in the initial approvals, and common open space changes), must be approved by the City Council under the procedures authorized by the Planned Unit Development ordinance for all Planned Unit Developments. The application request includes a new structure, an 84-unit apartment building, which does not meet the parameters for minor changes, and which continues the same approved use of multi-family residential. This proposal Page 93 of 183 requires the full Planned Unit Development procedure be conducted as established in 12-5B-8. That procedure has three major review steps: 1) Concept Plan 2) Preliminary Development Plan 3) Final Development Plan The City uses its legislative authority when considering action on a Rezoning or Zoning Amendment request and has broad discretion; the limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. If this Preliminary Development Plan is approved by the City Council, the applicant/developer will continue on to the Final Development Plan, which includes a Rezoning/Zoning Amendment to “Planned Unit Development Overlay District”, as required by the Planned Unit Development ordinance. The City uses its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on a PUD zoning request, and the City Council has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUDs. The City may impose reasonable requirements or conditions in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area or to enhance the proposed development. Application Review History The property owner began the full Planned Unit Development procedural steps by submitting for a Concept Plan review in the spring of 2025. This Concept Plan was presented by the property owner to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on May 27, 2025, and was then discussed by the City Council at their Regular Meeting on June 3, 2025, in accordance with that required first step. At both meetings, the property owner received feedback relating to landscaping and screening, the location of the underground parking entrance, and resident amenity or recreational space. The property owner selected Chase Real Estate to act as the applicant/developer for the application to amend the Planned Unit Development. An application for the Preliminary Development Plan was submitted to the City, which did incorporate some feedback from the Concept Review, such as the elimination of the additional drive aisle access to the underground parking in the proposed new building. The unit count and unit type distribution was also finalized as an 84-unit building. Staff requested that the applicant host a neighborhood meeting prior to the Planning Commission meeting. This meeting was held on October 21, 2025, at the Lexington Heights Apartments clubhouse. Property owners within 350-ft were invited, and one neighbor attended this meeting. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 25, 2025, to review the Preliminary Development Plan. Letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-ft of the site, a legal notice was published in the Pioneer Press, and copies of the notice were sent Page 94 of 183 to the property manager of the building to display for residents. There were three residents who spoke at the public hearing, all who stated that they were residents of the existing apartments on the property and who felt that they were not provided adequate notice of the City meetings, due to the location of the notices within the apartment building, as well as due to the holiday. The Planning Commission discussed the application materials and voted unanimously to table the request to the next available meeting, with comments for staff to provide additional information on some application items, but also with direction to the applicant to hold a resident meeting rather than a property owner/neighbor meeting. The resident meeting was held on December 11, 2025, at the Lexington Heights Apartments clubhouse, where the developer provided an overview of their proposal and answered many questions from residents. There were approximately 31 residents in attendance at this meeting. The Planning Commission held an additional public hearing at their December 29, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Five residents spoke during the public hearing. Following the public hearing, questions for the applicant and staff, and Commissioner discussion, a motion was made to recommend denial of the application with stated findings that the need for the PUD request was not urgent, other multi-family developments were still under construction making the demand as yet unknown, and due to the extent of the density request above the permitted maximums. This motion received a second, but following deliberation the motion failed (2-4). The Commission continued to discuss the application request and a 2nd motion was made for recommendation of approval with a modification to Condition #7 to include updated planting plans for areas adjacent to northern property line at the shared boundary with the R-1 District, as well as at the proposed retaining wall and turnaround adjacent to the parking garage entrance. The motion received a second, but resulted in a tie vote (3-3). The Planning Commission considered the tie vote and determined that the application should be sent on to the City Council for their review without a majority recommendation. RECOMMENDATION At the December 29, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented an overview of the planning report, expanding on the discussion items requested by the Commission at their previous November meeting. The applicant and property owner were in the audience and were present to speak to the application and to answer questions from the Planning Commissioners. A copy of the staff report and an excerpt from the unapproved minutes have been included as attachments to this report. Staff had recommended approval of the application with findings-of-fact and certain conditions. Following the public hearing and listening to resident comments, the Planning Commission discussed the landscaping on the property, including the need for additional buffer areas, as well as the overall scale and scope of the project and the requested flexibility to residential net density. Following their discussion and later a failed motion to deny the application, a vote to recommend approval of the application resulted in a tie vote (3-3) by the Planning Commissioners present. A simple majority for a recommendation to the City Council was unable to be reached and the Commission determined that the application should be sent Page 95 of 183 to the City Council for their deliberation. Two Resolutions have been prepared for the City Council to consider regarding this application request under Planning Case No. 2025-16. Version 1 includes findings-of-fact for approval with conditions as presented in the staff report to the Planning Commission, with the added language that the Planning Commission discussed regarding additional landscaping buffers. Version 2 of the drafted Resolution includes findings-of-fact for denial based on the general discussion of the Commissioners opposed to the application request. The City Council is asked to discuss the application request and make a motion to approve either Resolution option following their discussion. The City Council also may choose to table this application request once their discussion has concluded, and direct staff to return with a single Resolution at the next available City Council meeting, with any recommended changes to the drafted Resolution including changes to findings-of-fact or to possible conditions of approval. The statutory review deadline for this Preliminary Development Plan application request is March 5, 2026. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2026-06 Approving a Zoning Amendment & Preliminary Development Plan - Amendment to the 1983 Lexington Heights (Version 1 for Approval) 2. Resolution No. 2026-06 Denying a Zoning Amendment & Preliminary Development Plan - Amendment to the 1983 Lexington (Version 2 for Denial) 3. Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes 12-29-25 4. December 29 2025 Planning Commission Packet CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Economic Vitality & Community Vibrancy Page 96 of 183 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-06 RESOLUTION APPROVING A ZONING AMENDMENT AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AMENDMENT TO THE 1983 LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 LEXINGTON AVENUE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2025-16] WHEREAS Chase Real Estate (or “Applicant” or “Developer”) in cooperation with Riley Family Lexington Heights Limited Partnership (Condor Living / Lexington Heights Apartments and as “Owner”) has applied for a Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Development Plan to amend the 1983 Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), as proposed under Planning Case 2025-16 (84-Unit Apartment Building) (“Project”) for the property located at 2300 Lexington Avenue and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan to amend the PUD as presented herein would authorize the construction of a new four-story multi-family apartment building containing 84-units and associated resident amenities and exterior site improvements including a fitness area, patio space, common lounge space, new landscaping, and stormwater management improvements; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided HDR-High Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the R-3 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 1983, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development for Lexington Heights Apartments, as well as a Variance from the density requirement to construct 225 units on an 18.2 acre site; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1984, the City Council approved the Final Plat for LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION, which dedicated additional right-of-way and reduced the size of the property to 16.3 acres; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2025, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened, held, and closed a public hearing on the application request at their regular meeting, and whereupon receiving the presented staff report and hearing testimony from three (3) residents on the application, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to table the requested subdivision plat application to December 29, 2025; and WHEREAS, on December 29, 2025, The Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened, held, and closed the second public hearing on the application request, and the tabled application was presented by staff with follow-up on discussion items from the prior meeting, and following Page 97 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 1 for Approval) Page 2 of 6 discussion on this item a motion was made and seconded to deny the application which failed by a 2-4 vote. A second motion to approve the application with findings-of-fact and conditions was made which resulted in a tied vote 3-3 and through discussion the Planning Commission determined that this tied vote would be sent to the City Council for their discussion and review of the application, including Planning Commission review comments; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Development Plan to amend the 1983 Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development as proposed under Planning Case 2025-16, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: 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. Page 98 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 1 for Approval) Page 3 of 6 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Development Plan to amend the 1983 Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development as proposed under Planning Case 2025- 16, is hereby approved with 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, along the north property line which is shared with the R-1 zoned property, and in the area of construction of the retaining wall and fire turnaround adjacent to the parking garage entrance, by installing additional landscape materials including berms, hedges, or other landscape materials where feasible. Page 99 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 1 for Approval) Page 4 of 6 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of January, 2026. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Mayor Stephanie B. Levine ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Page 100 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 1 for Approval) Page 5 of 6 Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 101 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 1 for Approval) Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID No. 27-44925-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Lexington Heights Addition Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 102 of 183 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2026-06 RESOLUTION DENYING A ZONING AMENDMENT AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - AMENDMENT TO THE 1983 LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 LEXINGTON AVENUE [PLANNING CASE NO. 2025-16] WHEREAS Chase Real Estate (or “Applicant” or “Developer”) in cooperation with Riley Family Lexington Heights Limited Partnership (Condor Living / Lexington Heights Apartments and as “Owner”) has applied for a Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Development Plan to amend the 1983 Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), as proposed under Planning Case 2025-16 (84-Unit Apartment Building) (“Project”) for the property located at 2300 Lexington Avenue and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan to amend the PUD as presented herein would authorize the construction of a new four-story multi-family apartment building containing 84-units and associated resident amenities and exterior site improvements including a fitness area, patio space, common lounge space, new landscaping, and stormwater management improvements; and WHEREAS, the subject property is guided HDR-High Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and is situated in the R-3 Multi-Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 1983, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development for Lexington Heights Apartments, as well as a Variance from the density requirement to construct 225 units on an 18.2 acre site; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 1984, the City Council approved the Final Plat for LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION, which dedicated additional right-of-way and reduced the size of the property to 16.3 acres; and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2025, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened, held, and closed a public hearing on the application request at their regular meeting, and whereupon receiving the presented staff report and hearing testimony from three (3) residents on the application, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to table the requested subdivision plat application to December 29, 2025; and WHEREAS, on December 29, 2025, The Mendota Heights Planning Commission opened, held, and closed the second public hearing on the application request, and the tabled application was presented by staff with follow-up on discussion items from the prior meeting, and following discussion on this item a motion was made and seconded to deny the application which failed by Page 103 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 2 for Denial) Page 2 of 4 a 2-4 vote. A second motion to approve the application with findings-of-fact and conditions was made which resulted in a tied vote 3-3 and through discussion the Planning Commission determined that this tied vote would be sent to the City Council for their discussion and review of the application, including Planning Commission review comments; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Development Plan to amend the 1983 Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development as proposed under Planning Case 2025-16, is hereby denied with the following findings of fact: 1. The four-story 84-unit multi-family apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be too great in scale and size over the three residential structures initially constructed within the original Planned Unit Development, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 1983 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan. 2. The requested flexibility from density standards of the R-3 Zoning District and HDR Land Use category to allow 18.9 units per acre exceeds the listed density range in the City’s Comprehensive Plan of 6-9 units per acre, and the existing net density of the development at 13.8 units per acre. The proposed density is inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high- density residential developments within the City. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD area. 4. The proposed development is determined to not be a good fit for this location on the property, is not designed as an ideal development for this parcel or within this existing development, and would not be in harmony with the existing development or in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the existing land use and development pattern, and the new high-density residential use and structure would not be in character with other surrounding uses and structures in this High Density Residential project area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Zoning Amendment and Planned Unit Development - Preliminary Development Plan to amend the 1983 Lexington Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development as proposed under Planning Case 2025- 16, is hereby denied. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 20th day of January, 2026. Page 104 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 2 for Denial) Page 3 of 4 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Mayor Stephanie B. Levine ATTEST ________________________________ Nancy Bauer, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 105 of 183 Res. No. 2026-06 (Version 2 for Denial) Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID No. 27-44925-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Lexington Heights Addition Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Page 106 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT FROM DRAFT/UNAPPROVED 12/29/25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES A) PLANNING CASE 2025-16 CHASE REAL ESTATE (ON BEHALF OF CONDOR LIVING/LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS), 2300 LEXINGTON AVENUE – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that 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 application had been tabled from the Planning Commission’s November 25, 2025, meeting. 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. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Joe McElwain, Chase Real Estate, commented that he believed that staff addressed the questions that the Commission previously presented in the presentation, and was present to address any additional questions. He stated that the resident meeting on-site went well. He noted a report dated May 6, 2025, which identified the housing needs in Mendota Heights and recommended 1,290 new residential units over the next five years. He hoped that this application for 84 units would help the cause. Commissioner Johnson appreciated the effort of the applicant to answer most of the questions. She referenced a plan for buffering using plant materials to the north and east and a related letter from MnDOT about noise buffering. She commented that she would like to see additional buffers on the north and east. She recognized the trees that would be removed to the north for the fire turnaround and identified additional opportunities for planting on the site. She recommended native buffering around the infiltration area. Commissioner Corbett asked why this was originally constructed through a PUD. Mr. McElwain was unsure, as the project was constructed in 1984. Page 107 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that part of the reason was related to the density, which was ten units per acre. She stated that she can provide additional information after the questions for the applicant are completed. John Riley, property owner, stated that he is present to answer any property-specific questions. Elliot Side, 2300 Lexington, commented that his bedroom window faces the forest, which will partially be removed. He asked the Commission to consider what it would be like to live across from a construction site. He noted that once the construction is completed, the view to the east will change as they will look at a building, and the new building will have views of the existing building or the highway. He commented on the disruption that this project will create for residents and believed that the additional units would put more pressure on the site. He asked the Commission to reject this project as he did not see a benefit to the residents already living on the site. Harvey Prahl, 2300 Lexington, appreciated the concerns raised by the previous resident but also recognized that it is part of development and economic progress. He stated that buildings are being developed in undeveloped areas and recognized that the community is going through economic growth, which is great for jobs and additional residents. He commented that this community is a beautiful place to live and the service at Lexington Heights has been phenomenal, noting that whenever he has an issue, it is immediately addressed by management. He recognized that construction would be inconvenient and messy, just as a road project is. He stated that while some tweaks could potentially be made to the project, he did not see a need to reject the proposal. Stacia Terrhar, 2370 Lexington, commented that the management has been great at the property. She expressed concerns about safety along Lexington Avenue. Katelynn Noseworthly, 2300 Lexington, commented that the current design has room for large vehicles to turn around and park without blocking anyone in. She stated that in the new design, there still needs to be a turnaround area. She noted that there is a fire hydrant in front of the 2300 building and asked if there could be parking in front of that, as identified in the plan. Allison Runche, 2300 Lexington, commented that it is disappointing to see that some of the wooded area would be removed, as they were told it would not be removed at the resident meeting. She referenced the proposed density, which is calculated over the entire site, although it will be added to the 2300 property. She asked why the City established a density range if it is not going to be kept, and asked for the criteria that are considered for increased density requests. Mr. Riley stated that the trees being removed are to accommodate the required turnaround. He noted that the treed area is not a high-value or high-quality forest. He stated that when the property was constructed, the parking required 2.5 vehicles per unit, which results in Page 108 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES large parking lots that are underutilized, estimating that only about 30 percent of the parking is utilized. Mr. McElwain identified the line that estimates the boundary of the tree survey. He stated that the forest to the northeast is not anticipated to be impacted and simply identifies the boundary of the survey. He stated that the island will be placed in front of the hydrant, and the details of the turnaround will be determined as they move forward and work with the Fire Department. 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 STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett stated that he researched the reasoning for a PUD and understands that it can accommodate multiple variances while also preserving green space. He stated that the space proposed to be built upon is only there because of the original PUD, which created that space. He appreciated the intent of the applicant but also believes there is no urgency to move forward with this, as there are more than enough high-density apartments that have been constructed in the last six years, with additional apartments being constructed in neighboring communities as well. He stated that he would recommend denial of the request as he did not see a need or urgency. Commissioner Goldade stated that one of his main thoughts has been around density, not only for this site but for the city as a whole. He asked if there is a possibility for this site that future buildings could be added if this were approved, or whether this would be the last building on the site. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that part of the initial discussions with the developer at the time the concept was presented included a review of the entire site and that the northernmost parcel had the most available space for a new building that would meet modern construction and needs. She stated that setback flexibility is still requested as part of this request. She stated that when the PUD was originally proposed, the full right-of-way acquisition was growing and changing, and all multi-family developments with multiple buildings were developed under PUDs at that time. She stated that the PUD ordinance at that time did not include the same language it includes today, and explained how the density requirements have changed over time. She also reviewed items of discussion for the original PUD approval. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan of the City today includes density goals and anticipated growth, and noted that the past density ranges of the City have changed over time. She commented that the PUD tool has existed since the 1980s, but has also changed over time to allow flexibility. She stated that exceeding the density is a discretionary authority of the City Council. She stated that the Page 109 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. She noted that increased density is something that has been approved by the City Council in recent years, providing examples. Chair Field asked for information on the fire hydrant issue mentioned. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that this would likely be the location of the landscaping island within the parking lot and will be reflected in the updated plans, as parking is not allowed in front of a hydrant. Chair Field referenced the concerns with the treed area and related comments of the applicant and asked for staff thoughts. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the line shown on the plan is an estimated boundary for the tree canopy, and the majority of the trees fall deeper into the property on private property. She stated that, depending on the needs for the fire turnaround, additional trees may need to be removed, but there would be a requirement for replacement. Commissioner Johnson asked if this building would be at the same elevation as the other building or whether there would be an opportunity for the new building to have a lower elevation. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the buildings will not be at the exact same elevation, noting the grading plan. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Mr. McElwain provided the elevation of the existing building and the proposed elevation of the new building. He explained the changes that would be necessary to dig the new building lower, which would require a higher retaining wall and potentially additional tree impacts. Commissioner Johnson commented that there will be damage to trees from the construction of the retaining wall, again noting the map she created, which identifies areas where additional plantings could occur. Mr. McElwain stated that they would add trees around the fire turnaround to mitigate for headlights. Commissioner Goldade noted that the existing buildings are three stories, and this is proposed to be four stories, so it would be a higher elevation. Page 110 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2025-16 AS THE NEED IS NOT URGENT, THE BUILDINGS EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, AND THERE ARE STILL HIGH- DENSITY HOUSING BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ARE YET TO COME ONLINE. Further discussion: Commissioner Stone commented that he has been in Mendota Heights for 17 years and originally did not support the apartment buildings that have come to the community, but his opinion has since changed as the buildings are nice and allow more residents to live in the community. He stated that he has always been surprised by the amount of green space on this site and completely understands the thoughts of the building owner to want another building on the site. He stated that he would support the request. Commissioner Johnson stated that her concerns are related to the transition from R-1 to R-3 and how that is dealt with. She had concerns about the buffer along the highway and believed that additional trees would assist with buffering from the highway noise. She understood the need and desire of the community for space and trees, and perhaps there are things that can be built into the design to mitigate that impact for existing residents. She stated that the request generally fits within the area, and this could be an area to accommodate additional density, while also preserving the PUD objectives. She noted the additional housing options that this building would provide and stated that while she does have concerns with increased density, she believed this to be a minimal impact and could be a good opportunity. Commissioner Nath commented that the Council continues to approve increased density and asked when that stops. He stated that this is a nicely designed building, but was unsure whether he wanted to continue to support requests above the standard. He recognized that the final decision would be of the City Council, but did not want to support something above the residential standard. He commented that he also did not like that the existing residents would have a view of a new building, but recognized that this is also the result of development. He stated that he probably could not support this as written. Commissioner Johnson stated that while she agrees with the comments related to density, a PUD is a tool that allows flexibility in density. She stated that the Council will have discussions related to the density request, and perhaps additional benefits will be provided in return for that increase. She recognized that this parcel has available land that would allow for additional development with minimal impact on others. AYES: 2 (CORBETT AND NATH) NAYS: 4 Page 111 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Stone asked if a recommendation could be provided to plant additional trees as suggested by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Corbett asked about the urgency in building additional apartments. Commissioner Stone commented that there may not be an urgency, but he understands the why, as the property owner has a large amount of land that could be built upon. He stated that the Riley family constructed the project, and he believes that the family will continue to have a vested interest in the property and maintenance of the property. Commissioner Johnson stated that the question is not why but whether the request fits within the parameters, as outlined in the staff report. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the recommended conditions of approval have not changed from the previous meeting, noting that 11 conditions of approval were recommended with this request. She stated that the Commission could choose to add conditions, as could the City Council. She stated that landscaping is addressed through proposed condition seven in the staff report and noted that the Commission could modify that condition or choose to add additional conditions if desired. Commissioner Goldade asked if there was a discussion related to the number of stories and how four stories were chosen to move forward. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that an early concept was shared four or five years ago, which also included a four-story building, as that is the style of building constructed in this area. She noted that when additional stories are added, different construction materials are required. She stated that the building as designed is compliant with the standards, recognizing that the density is a requested flexibility. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is anything that could be done architecturally to modify the impact the building will have on the existing 2300 residents, whether that is done through a step back or a gap. Commissioner Goldade stated that when there is an existing development and something new is added, it should be consistent in height. He asked if the City would want to add a building one story higher than the existing three-story buildings on the site. Commissioner Johnson agreed that, ideally, it would be a three-story building or a modified version. Chair Field asked if a condition could use the word encourage. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the discussion could include the thoughts that have been expressed, but the conditions are directives and requirements of the applicant and not suggestions. Page 112 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES Chair Field stated that he is unsure there is anything that could be done in that regard, as it is the nature of the application, as this is a preliminary plat. Commissioner Corbett stated that the Commission is making a recommendation, and the City Council will have the final vote. He stated that the Commission could recommend denial because it is four stories instead of three. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND 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 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 GUIDEANCE 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, THE REDUCED SETBACK AREA FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY WITH I-35E, ALONG THE R-1 PROPERTY LINE, AND IN THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALL AND FIRE TURNAROUND BY INSTALLING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE Page 113 of 183 DRAFT/UNAPPROVED MINUTES MATERIALS, INCLUDING TREES, BERMS, HEDGES, OR OTHER LANDSCAPE MATERIALS WHERE FEASIBLE. 8.A PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO AT LEAST ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 ½) TIMES THE VALUE OF SUCH SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND 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. AYES: 3 NAYS: 3 (CORBETT, GOLDADE, AND NATH) Commissioner Johnson asked if this would still go to the Council with a 3-3 vote. Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the Commission could continue to discuss and see if the outcome would change, or this could go forward with the 3-3 vote. Commissioner Stone commented that this should move forward with the 3-3 vote, and the City Council, who are elected officials, can make the decision. The Commission agreed. Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 20, 2026, meeting. Page 114 of 183 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 115 of 183 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 116 of 183 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 117 of 183 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 118 of 183 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 119 of 183 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 120 of 183 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 121 of 183 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 122 of 183 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 123 of 183 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 124 of 183 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 125 of 183 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 126 of 183 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 127 of 183 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 128 of 183 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 129 of 183 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 22. MnDoT Review Letter - 12-23-25 (with Enclosures) 23. Applicant Revised Plans 12-22-25 (with Memorandum) Page 130 of 183 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 131 of 183 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 132 of 183 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 133 of 183 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 134 of 183 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 135 of 183 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 136 of 183 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 137 of 183 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 138 of 183 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 139 of 183 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 140 of 183 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 141 of 183 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts - New ConstructionCOVER 0.0 Lexington Heights Apts - New Construction Page 142 of 183 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 143 of 183 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 144 of 183 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 145 of 183 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionSITE PLAN 2.0 55'-0" 88'-0" 97'-0" 88' 8ooooo 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 146 of 183 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 138ST74 139STSTAIRSTSTAIRSTAIRSTAIR 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 147 of 183 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 148 of 183 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 149 of 183 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 150 of 183 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 151 of 183 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 152 of 183 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 153 of 183 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 154 of 183 kaas wilson architects Lexington Heights Apts -New ConstructionUNIT PLANS 8.2 OUR PROPERTIES | PROPOSED PRECEDENTS Page 155 of 183 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 156 of 183 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 157 of 183 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 158 of 183 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 159 of 183 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 160 of 183 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 161 of 183 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 162 of 183 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 163 of 183 Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 December 23, 2025 Sarah Madden Community Development Manager City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victori Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118, SUBJECT: MnDOT Review # S25-042 Lexington Heights Apts SE Quad I-35E & Wagon Wheel Trail Mendota Heights, Dakota County Dear Ms. Madden: Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for the Lexington Heights Apts. MnDOT has reviewed the documents and has the following comments: Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 stat es that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action d eemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries in Metro District’s Noise and Air Quality Unit at Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us or 651-234-7681. Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit may be required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of Page 164 of 183 MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Upload a copy of this letter when applying for any permits. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1)A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. 2)Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off-site areas that drain to the project area should also be included in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be indicated by arrows. 3)Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2, 10, and 100 year rain events. 4)Time of concentration calculations. 4)An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. 5)See also the attached Drainage Permits Checklist for more information. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed and additional information may be requested. Please direct questions concerning drainage issues to Jason Swenson, MnDOT Metro Water Resources at (651-234-7539) or Jason.Swenson@state.mn.us. Permits: Construction activity shall not encroach into the I-35E right-of-way (ROW). All future access to the east side of the building must come from private property. No access from I-35E ROW will be allowed. Also, as mentioned previously, a Drainage permit may be required. Additionally, any other use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit. Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of this letter when applying for any permits. Please direct questions regarding permit requirements to Jeff Dierberger of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section at 651-775-0404 or jeffrey.dierberger@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1.Email documents and plans to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each email. Page 165 of 183 MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us, and staff will create a shared folder in which files can be uploaded. Please send an accompanying email with a narrative for the development. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234 -7797. Sincerely, Cameron Muhic Senior Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Jeffrey Dierberger, Permits Heather Gardner, Design Jason Swenson, Water Resources Almin Ramic, Traffic Bryant Ficek, Area Manager Robert Jones, Area Engineer Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Mark Lundquist, Right-of-Way Michael Kowski, Maintenance Natalie Ries, Noise Molly McCormick, Multimodal Amrish Patel, Transit Joe Widing, Metropolitan Council Page 166 of 183 April 2014 MnDOT Drainage Permits Checklist Purpose of the MnDOT Drainage Permit MnDOT Metro District regulates activities that impact its drainage systems and its MS4 regulated area. The purpose of the Drainage Permit is to protect State of Minnesota investment in infrastructure including but not limited to roadways, storm water treatment basins, ditches and storm sewer systems. Excess storm water and/or sediment laden storm water added to MnDOT’s drainage systems leads to degradation of these assets. Negative impacts include but are not limited to: sediment deposition, loss of flood storage capacity and also loss of hydraulic conveyance capacity. These impacts may cause premature flooding of the road surface and/or erosion damage on State right-of-way. Technical Requirements of the MnDOT Drainage Permit The permit applicant shall demonstrate that offsite runoff coming to MnDOT drainage system and/or right-of-way will not increase as a result of the proposed project. This is quantified as a “no increase in discharge” criteria for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events. Compliance is demonstrated by applying hydraulic/hydrologic software models. HydroCAD and XPSWMM are the approved models to compare the pre and post project discharge values. Typically, HydroCAD is sufficient to model most proposed projects. However, XPSWMM may be required if the project contains extensive storm water pipe systems connected to MnDOT storm sewer or if HydroCAD cannot in MnDOT’s judgment effectively model pressure flow, complex junctions and/or backwater effects that are present. The 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events shall be based upon Atlas 14 runoff amounts per the NOAA website. In addition, Drainage Permit Applicants shall meet all applicable water quality treatment requirements established by the local Watershed District(s) and the MPCA. Permit applicants should anticipate that specific projects that seek to divert runoff to another sub-watershed or watershed will be denied. It is MnDOT practice to avoid such watershed diversions whenever practicable. Submittal Requirements: Readable/legible watershed maps that show pre and post project drainage conditions. These two separate contour maps shall be large enough in scale so that approximate flow paths can be determined for verifying the Time of Concentrations used in the models. The drainage/watershed maps shall include enough detail so that Curve Numbers used in the hydraulic models may be verified by MnDOT. Page 167 of 183 April 2014 Surface water flow direction and storm water pipe water flow direction shall be indicated on the pre and post project watershed maps. Minimum recommended watershed map scale is 1” =100’. Project applications submitted with smaller scales (e.g., 1”=500’) may be rejected and returned to the applicant. The same would apply for project watershed maps that do not include topographic contours or basic land use information such as the location of buildings, pavement and “green space”. Watershed maps submitted as pdf files or CAD files shall be readily printable at scales that allow for good readability. Pre and post project watershed maps shall be clearly linked to the drainage models such that the names of the sub-watersheds, ponds and drainage structures are the same in the models as shown on the watershed maps. In addition, watershed and sub-watershed boundaries shall be clearly shown. Submission of the actual pre and post project HydroCAD or XPSWMM models is required: pdf copies of the drainage model simulations are unacceptable. In the event that the models cannot be transferred readily by electronic mail or electronic repository site, a hardcopy CD shall be provided. Curve numbers shall be determined per NRCS methodology and should be modified as needed based upon detailed knowledge of soil type and specific conditions on site. HydroCAD modeling software includes NRCS guidance for determining curve numbers based upon land use and condition. Time of concentration (Tc) computations and assumptions that in MnDOT’s assessment clearly overestimate or underestimate this critical runoff parameter will be rejected. Two common assumptions that lead to overestimating Tc include: using the “Lag/CN” method to determine peak runoff from watersheds that have a relatively long and/or diverse flow path, and assuming that sheet flow occurs for a distance exceeding100 feet. Conversely, pre-project Tc shall not be underestimated to offset post project increases in peak discharge. Available freeboard for existing and proposed treatment ponds shall be shown on the watershed maps as well as the normal and 100-year high water levels. All proposed pond treatment systems along MnDOT right-of-way shall have a minimum freeboard of 2.0 feet between the road surface and the proposed 100-year HWL. Infiltration basins, filtration basins and ponds adjacent to MnDOT right-of-way shall be designed to provide at least 2 feet of elevation difference between the 100-year HWL and the crest of the basin berm. The berm crest shall be at least 5 feet wide. The emergency overflow shall be lined from crest to toe of slope with Turf Reinforcement mat or Category 6 or 7 Erosion Control Blanket. Page 168 of 183 April 2014  Best management practices (BMP’s) including infiltration/filtration sites, storm water ponds, etc. shall be clearly labeled on the pre and post project watershed maps.  Plan sheets submitted as watershed maps shall be evaluated as such. They shall be readable and legible and meet all the same requirements including clear delineation of watershed boundaries, readable map scale, and land use shown by an aerial photo background map, or that is clearly depicted based on details on the plan sheet or sheets submitted.  Project plan sheets relevant to the Drainage Permit are required and include: existing site conditions, the proposed grading plan as well as proposed site drainage system plans and profiles. The plans shall include applicable wetland impact/mitigation features and temporary sediment and erosion control measures for the project. In addition, erosion control blanket will be used to stabilize disturbed area on MnDOT right-of-way unless other methods such as rip-rap treatment are called for in the plans and approved by MnDOT.  Pond and basin special structures including weirs and orifices shall be consistent with what is used in the HydroCAD or XPSWMM models submitted and include relevant calculations/details.  A table summary of existing versus proposed site discharge to MnDOT drainage system/right-of-way is required for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year Atlas 14 rainfall events.  Post project storm water discharge to MnDOT ditches or other open channel shall be limited to flow velocities of 6 fps or less for a 50-year Atlas 14 rainfall event.  Project discharge points that will connect to MnDOT ditch or channel shall be located such that they do not cause erosion or conflict with the grade of the existing ditch or channel.  Proposed access road culverts on MnDOT right-of-way shall be designed for the 10-year Atlas 14 rainfall event unless they are part of a significant drainage ditch along the roadway in which case a 100-year or 50-year design will apply.  Direct connections to MnDOT storm system shall be avoided. Connection to open ditch, or channel is preferred. If direct storm sewer connections cannot be avoided, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide a good connection typically via a new structure. Furthermore, MnDOT offers no warranty that there will not be a hydraulic backwater effects on the new storm line upstream that is connected to MnDOT’s existing storm sewer. Page 169 of 183 April 2014  For all disturbed areas that sheet flow to MnDOT right-of-way and any disturbed areas within MnDOT right-of-way, either Erosion Control Mat or Bonded Fiber Matrix shall be used for temporary/permanent erosion control.  Silt fence shall not be used for erosion control at the proposed project site perimeter. Rather, continuous Wood Chip or compost Sediment Control Logs shall be implemented. Permit applicants are encouraged to contact MnDOT Metro Water Resource Engineering with questions/concerns. Questions posed early in the permit application process help to avoid project delays. This is particularly true for large project Drainage Permits with significant complexity. Page 170 of 183 -MEMO #01 - Lexington Heights Addition December 22, 2025 Sarah Madden, Community Development Manager City of Mendota Heights, MN RE: Lexington Heights Apartments Addition - Preliminary PUD Ms. Madden: Please find attached updated Civil 100 and Civil 101; adding impervious surface math and parking lot islands to meet 10% parking lot landscaping code. Also, please find the Civil Overlay Exhibit showing the proposed building footprint over the existing Survey for visual purposes. Additionally, in response to our PC meeting on December 11th; please see below items per Commissioner Cindy Johnson’s questions: 1)Provide Impervious Surface Data. a.Provided per Civil Plans (highlighted, attached) b.Note only 16,383 SF of additional impervious added: i.Existing parking lot repurposed into new project = (13,000 SF) ii.Added bldg. footprint outside Existing Parking Lot = 14,000 SF iii.New garage door drive lane = 2,383 SF 2)Heat Island Effect; review parking islands to meet the 10% code. a.Added islands and 10% SF. See updated Civil Plans. 3)Will Dogs be allowed? a.No. Condor Management has decided to continue keeping Lexington Heights unique in that the property is especially quiet and dog-free. 4)Look into Evasive Buckthorn Removal. a.This will be reviewed and addressed with the professional landscape company who installs the new project landscaping. 5)Address Surface Water Management at Existing Building. a.Condor Management addressed at Resident Meeting and will consider reducing amount of irrigation around the building. 6)Will ADA Units be provided? a.Yes; two (2) of the apartments will meet Type A (ADA) requirements as required by code. Final Unit Plans will be drawn prior to Building Permits. Page 171 of 183 7)Schedule a Resident Meeting. a.All 225 apartments were provided notices in advance. b.The Resident meeting was held December 11th at the Club House. Thank you, Joe McElwain Development Director Chase Real Estate Page 172 of 183 ooooo o9'TYP30 9'TYP29 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 REV 2025-12-19 CITY COMMENTSPRELIM. PAVING & DIMENSIONAL PLAN24282PAV C100 EPF DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY GROSS PROJECT AREA (LOT 1, BLOCK 1 & OUTLOT A) 6.71 AC/ 292,409 SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 2.36 AC/102,677 SF NET IMPERVIOUS AREA INCREASE 0.38 AC/ 16,383 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 2.74 AC/119,060 SF (40.7%) FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND IMPERVIOUS AREA 2,236 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 59 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 PARKING STALL AREA (INCLUDING ADA ACCESS) = 9,882SF REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA (10%) = 988 SF PROVIDED LANDSCAPED ISLAND AREA = 1,141 SF 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 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ISLAND AREA Page 173 of 183 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 REV2025-12-19 CITY COMMENTSPRELIM. 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 CONTOURBOUNDARY OF EXISTING TREESPage 174 of 183 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. 1-25-036James 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 175 of 183 10.c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: January 20, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: Municipal Campus Project ITEM TYPE: New and Unfinished Business DEPARTMENT: Administration CONTACT: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator ACTION REQUEST: Approve the establishment of a Municipal Campus Project Oversight Committee; and Review Municipal Campus Project Communications and Engagement Plan BACKGROUND: The Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project is the construction of a new city hall/police department facility and the revisioning of the site to meet the current and future needs of Mendota Heights residents. The new building will replace the current facility, which faces significant health, safety, infrastructure, security, and accessibility challenges. The project aims to create a modern, welcoming, and resilient civic hub that supports city operations and public safety. Key goals include improved safety and security, inclusive and accessible design, flexible and functional spaces, and responsible, sustainable use of public resources. Project Oversight Committee: The Municipal Campus project represents a significant long-term investment for the City and will require coordinated oversight throughout the planning, design, and construction phases. Best practices for municipal capital projects of this scale include the use of a dedicated oversight committee to provide focused review, timely input, and a structured connection between City Council, staff, consultants, and the community. Establishing a Project Oversight Committee will allow for regular review of project progress and delegated decision-making within parameters established by City Council, while preserving Council’s role as the final decision-making authority on major policy and financial matters. The City Council is asked to discuss the proposed formation of the Municipal Campus Project Oversight Committee, including its role and membership. Following discussion, the Council action requested is to formally establish the committee and authorize staff to proceed with the recruitment process. Page 176 of 183 Communications and Community Engagement Plan: Public engagement is a critical component of the Municipal Campus Project. Meaningful engagement helps the project reflect community priorities and respond to resident ideas and concerns in a manner that allows for the project to be influenced and shaped by their insights. The Municipal Campus Communications and Community Engagement Plan outlines how the City will communicate project updates, gather resident feedback, and provide opportunities for community involvement throughout the project lifecycle. Engagement opportunities range from keeping residents informed to inviting feedback and, where appropriate, ongoing participation. As engagement deepens, community members may be asked to invest additional time and commitment, and in return gain a stronger voice in shaping project outcomes. City staff will provide an overview of the Municipal Campus Project Communications and Community Engagement Plan. FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT: The establishment of the Project Oversight Committee and review of the Municipal Campus Communications and Community Engagement Plan does not have a budget implication at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Municipal Campus Project Oversight CommitteeDescription 2.Municipal Campus Project Communications and Engagement Plan CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY: Premier Public Services & Infrastructure Page 177 of 183 Municipal Campus Project PROJECT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project is the construction of a new city hall/ police facility and the re-envisioning of the site to meet the current and future needs of Mendota Heights residents. The new building will replace the existing facility, which faces significant health, safety, infrastructure, security, and accessibility challenges. The project aims to create a modern, welcoming, and resilient civic hub that supports city operations and public safety. Key goals include improved safety and security, inclusive and accessible design, flexible and functional spaces, and responsible, sustainable use of public resources. PROJECT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE DESCRIPTION: The Project Oversight Committee will be established to provide transparent, accountable, and community- focused oversight of the planning, design, financing, construction, and commissioning of the new City Hall and Police Department municipal campus. The Committee will help ensure the project aligns with adopted City goals, approved budget parameters, operational needs, and community expectations. Committee membership will include two members of the City Council; City staff, including the City Administrator, Police Chief, City Engineer, and City Finance Director; residents; and project consultants as appropriate. The Project Oversight Committee will serve in an advisory and oversight capacity, working collaboratively with the City Council, City Administration, and professional design and construction teams. The Committee will provide an additional level of review and community perspective throughout the project lifecycle and will report regularly to the City Council. The Committee is charged with the following duties: •Project oversight: Monitor progress, milestones, and adherence to the approved scope, schedule, and budget. •Budget review: Evaluate financial reports, cost estimates, change orders, and funding strategies. •Design evaluation: Review architectural concepts, site plans, sustainability features, and operational functionality. •Risk management: Identify potential risks, delays, or cost escalations and recommend mitigation strategies. •Community engagement: Support transparent communication with residents, including public updates and opportunities for input. •Reporting: Provide regular written and verbal updates to the City Council, including recommendations requiring Council action. •Compliance monitoring: Ensure the project complies with applicable laws, procurement requirements, and City policies. The Committee may meet as frequently as every two weeks or as infrequently as monthly for an estimated 18– 24 months, depending on the project phase. Page 178 of 183 Municipal Campus Project COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT LEVELS The Mendota Heights Municipal Campus Project is the construction of a new city hall/ police facility and the re- envisioning of the site to meet current and future needs of Mendota Heights residents. The new building will replace the current facility which faces significant health, safety, infrastructure, security, and accessibility challenges. The project aims to create a modern, welcoming, and resilient civic hub that supports city operations and public safety. Key goals include improved safety and security, inclusive and accessible design, flexible and functional spaces, and responsible, sustainable use of public resources. Public engagement is a critical component of the Municipal Campus Project. Meaningful engagement helps the project reflect community priorities and respond to residents’ ideas and concerns in a manner that allows the project to be influenced and shaped by their insights. Residents have multiple opportunities to engage in the Municipal Campus Project. Some opportunities focus on staying informed, while others invite feedback or ongoing involvement. As engagement deepens, community members are asked to invest more time and commitment, but they also gain a stronger voice in shaping project outcomes. The following engagement levels outline a progression from lower to higher commitment, with corresponding increases in influence on project direction and decision-making. Level 1: Informed The Informed level represents the lowest level of commitment. At this level, residents stay up to date by reviewing project materials on the City’s website and following updates through the City’s social media and digital communication channels. This option allows residents to engage with the project on their own schedule while remaining informed about key developments. Level 2: Engaged The Engaged level involves a moderate level of commitment and provides opportunities for residents to join the public dialogue. This includes attending public meetings, tours, or information sessions, as well as providing input through online engagement portals. While meeting materials are typically available online for review, participation at this level requires additional time to attend events or for the public to submit comments. Level 3: Involved The Involved level represents the highest level of engagement and commitment. Residents at this level participate in a project oversight committee, contributing to ongoing discussions and helping guide project decisions over time. This level offers the greatest opportunity for influence but requires sustained involvement. Level 4: Elected All of the decision points for the project will be made by the Mendota Heights City Council. As elected representatives, the city council is authorized to speak for residents and make the decisions that will affect them. These decisions will occur in open public meetings that any member of the public is able to attend or review the minutes from. Page 179 of 183 Municipal Campus Project COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES 1. City Website (Level 1- Informed) The City website serves as the central repository for Municipal Campus Project information. Staff will continue to update the project webpage with presentations, reports, and materials developed throughout the project. All project-related communications will be centralized on this webpage: MendotaHeightsMN.gov/MunicipalCampus. 2. Project Vlog (Level 1- Informed) The City will develop regular video blog or “vlog” updates featuring members of the project oversight committee. These videos will provide project updates and context and will be shared through the City’s communication channels. 3. E-Newsletter (Level 1- Informed) The city uses e-newsletters to share information on a variety of topics. Residents opt-in to receive e-newsletters and can sign up to have these delivered via email or through text message. The City has several e-newsletters, for the municipal campus project, we will focus on communication efforts through two main channels. Friday News: The Friday News is a weekly publication. We will not have updates on the project at that frequency, so we will not plan to include the Municipal Campus Project in every week’s issue – however, substantive updates and items that have wide interest in the community will be shared through the publication. Municipal Campus Project – Infrastructure Updates : This publication targets residents with a strong interest in infrastructure projects. Staff will work with the project consultant to provide regular updates as project activity progresses. 4. Social Media (Level 1- Informed) Social media will be used to share key project updates and promote upcoming engagement opportunities, particularly public meetings and open house events. 5. Open House and Community Engagement (Level 2- Engaged) Public open houses and design update meetings are anticipated during the following project phases in 2026: • March/April – Schematic Design • May/June – Design Development • August and October – Construction Documents 6. Monthly Project Office Hours (Level 2- Engaged) Monthly project office hours will provide residents with an informal opportunity to ask questions, review project materials, and share feedback directly. 7. Project Oversight Committee (Level 3- Involved) Best practices for municipal capital projects of this scale include the use of a dedicated oversight committee to provide focused review, timely input, and a structured connection between City Council, staff, consultants, and the community. Page 180 of 183 Municipal Campus Project COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN CALENDAR January 2026 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 The City Council will establish and recruit for the Project Oversight Committee – Anticipated January 20, 2026 X X Friday News – Sharing Application for Project Oversight Committee X City Website will be updated with Council Actions and Project Updates X Social Media Posts sharing updates on project X February 2026 City Council approves project architect – Anticipated February 4, 2026 X Project Oversight Committee facility tours X Social Media Posts sharing updates on project schedule/ anticipated updates and available resources X Friday News – Updates from City Council X City Website will be updated with Council Actions and Project Updates X Infrastructure E-News Updates from Consultants and City Council X Project consultants begin meeting with focus groups X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X March 2026 Schematic Design Thought Exchange – Site Layout X Project Oversight Committee Begins meeting (1x-2x per month) X Public Open House / Design Update X City Council Presentation to review Schematic Design Estimate and Open House Feedback – Anticipated March 17, 2026 X X Social Media Posts sharing updates on project X Friday News – Updates from City Council X City Website will be updated with Council Actions and Project Updates X Infrastructure E-News Updates from Consultants and City Council X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X April 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing engagement opportunities X Friday News – Sharing engagement opportunities X Infrastructure E-News – sharing engagement opportunities X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X Design Development User Group Focus Group Meetings X Page 181 of 183 May 2026 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Design Development Estimate reviewed by Project Oversight Committee X Open House - Design Update X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing engagement opportunities X Friday News – Sharing engagement opportunities X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Thought Exchange – Design Development X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X June 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X City Council Presentation to review Design Development Estimate and Open House Feedback – Anticipated June 2, 2026 X Friday News – Updates from City Council and sharing engagement opportunities X City Website will be updated with Council Actions and Project Updates X Infrastructure E-News Updates from Consultants and City Council X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing engagement opportunities and council updates X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X July 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing engagement opportunities X Friday News – Sharing engagement opportunities X Infrastructure E-News – sharing engagement opportunities X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X August 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing engagement opportunities X Friday News – Sharing engagement opportunities X Infrastructure E-News – sharing engagement opportunities X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X Open House - Design Update X City Council Presentation to review project progress and Open House Feedback – Anticipated August 18, 2026 X September 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing engagement opportunities X Friday News – Sharing engagement opportunities X Infrastructure E-News – sharing engagement opportunities X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X Page 182 of 183 October 2026 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Open House/ Design Update X Project Oversight Committee Pre-Bid Conference X Project Oversight Committee Reviews Bids and Makes Recommendation to City Council X City Council Presentation to review Construction Design Estimate and Open House Feedback – Anticipated October 20, 2026 X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing project updates X Friday News – Sharing project updates X Infrastructure E-News – sharing project updates X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X Project Oversight Committee Reviews Construction Design Estimate X November 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Social Media Posts sharing project updates X Friday News – Sharing project updates X Infrastructure E-News – sharing project updates X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X December 2026 Project Oversight Committee Meetings (1x-2x per month) X Project Oversight Committee Vlog X Project Office Hours – Open to the Public X January 2027 City Council Presentation Award Bids – Anticipated January 19, 2026 X Note: Dates identified above are estimates and will be updated as the project progresses. Before Each City Council Presentation/ Decision Point the Council will have the opportunity to review the following as it is available: -Recommendation from the Project Oversight Committee -Updates from previous engagement and other efforts -Meeting minutes and project updates from consultants Page 183 of 183