Loading...
2021-11-16 Council agenda packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 16, 2021 6.00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of November 3, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge October 6, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes c. Acknowledge October 12, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes d. Acknowledge Amended Contract for the Mendakota Park Field Grading e. Approve Resolution 2021-88 Accept a Donation for Trees at Victoria Highlands Park f. Approve Wetland Exemption and No-Loss for the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer and Streambank Stabilization Project g. Approve Resolution 2021-89 Certifying Delinquent Sewer Accounts h. Approve Resolution 2021-90 Certifying Delinquent Water Accounts i. Approve Community Waste Abatement Agreement with Dakota County j. Approve Settlement Agreement and Sanitary Sewer Connection Agreement for 2535 Condon Court k. Acknowledge the October Building Activity Report I. Approval of Claims List 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Presentations a. Firefighter Badge Pinning 8. Public Hearings none 9. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2021-91 Approve Wetlands Permit for 2452 Pond Circle East (Erik & Sarah Iverson) Planning Case No. 2021-18 b. Resolution 2021- 92 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Amend Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development and Wetlands Permit for Planning Case No. 2021-12, the new Phase II / 58-Unit Apartment Building by At Home Apartments, LLC. c. Continued consideration of Planning Case No. 2021-13, a Conditional Use Permit to Amend Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development for new Phase III / 89-Unit Apartments by At Home Apartments, LLC d. Mound Request for Victoria Highlands Field 10. Community Announcements 11. Council Comments 12. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to S minutes per person and topic;presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign stafffor follow up to the issues raised. page 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 5a. DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Wednesday, November 3, 2021 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 Duggan,Paper, Mazzitello, and Miller, 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 requested to add an item between 9a and 9b, titled Council Discussion of Intersection Improvements at TH 149 and TH 62. Councilor Duggan asked if there are supplementary materials for the additional item being added. Councilor Mazzitello commented that it is a discussion item spurred by the subsequent item and therefore there is not a staff report. Councilor Mazzitello moved adoption of the agenda as amended. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Duggan) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Levine presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar,pulling item c for a separate discussion. a. Approval of October 19, 2021 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledge the August 24, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Approve the Banking Authorization Signatory Changes e. Approve the September 2021 Treasurer's Report f. Approval of Claims List page 4 Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS C) APPROVE JOINT WATER RESOURCES APPLICATION OF WETLAND EXEMPTION FOR THE PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE SULLIVAN ACRES DEVELOPMENT Councilor Duggan asked for an update on the activity occurring on the site, noting that he has concern with the potential drainage from the area. Natural Resources Technician Krista Spreiter stated that an application for development has not yet been submitted,therefore this is just an application for a wetland exemption. She confirmed that the activity is just under the threshold needed for an exemption. Councilor Duggan asked if this action should wait for the applicant to submit the development application. Ms. Spreiter explained the process that is followed. She noted that this request would need to be reviewed within the 60-day review period. The City would have the ability to extend the review period by 60 days. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he also desired more explanation and noted that a City wetland permit would still need to be requested which would give the City more time to review. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve the JOINT WATER RESOURCES APPLICATION OF WETLAND EXEMPTION FOR THE PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE SULLIVAN ACRES DEVELOPMENT. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the public wished to be heard. PRESENTATIONS A) RESOLUTION 2021-86 PROVIDING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,630,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF Finance Director Kristen Schabacker provided background information on Resolution 2021-86,providing for the issuance of GO Improvement Bonds. Keith Dahl, representing Ehlers, provided additional details on the City's AAA bond rating and the sale which occurred earlier in the day. He stated that a premium was received in the amount of $210,000 which was used to reduce the amount of the bond to $2,420,000. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 22 page 5 Mayor Levine stated that she is proud and commented that the number came in better than anticipated. Councilor Duggan commended Finance Director Kristen Schabacker. Councilor Mazzitello moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-86 PROVIDING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,420,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2021A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC HEARING A) RESOLUTION 2021-85 ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the Council was being asked to hold a public hearing on the assessments for Ivy Falls East neighborhood improvements, and adopt the assessment roll. Councilor Paper commented that the trail connection will not be completed this year, and asked how that impacts the price. Mr. Ruzek stated that the price is locked in through a contract. Councilor Paper recognized the work the City did to change the interest rate charged on the assessments, which is much more equitable. Councilor Duggan noted a duplicate property on the list. Mr. Ruzek replied that the resident owns an undeveloped lot adjacent to their lot, which is why there are two assessments. Councilor Duggan referenced another name that he believes may be misspelled. Mr. Ruzek replied that he will verify that but noted that the property records are pulled from the Dakota County property records. Mayor Levine commended staff and the additional time they have spent on this project going above and beyond the scope of their work. Councilor Miller moved to open the public hearing. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Therese Radford, 613 Sutcliffe Circle, asked why there is a two percent interest spread that the residents receive on the assessments. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker replied that the bonds are structured with a two percent cost that covers the costs the City incurs. Ms. Radford referenced a letter she received dated October 16th which provided a due date for the assessment payments, which differs from the date in the presentation. Mr. Ruzek replied that the date in the letter is correct. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 22 page 6 Ms. Radford commented that her street was opened in July and was just blacktopped today. She noted that it appears a section of the curb is sinking and may need to be replaced in the near future. Mayor Levine stated that staff is tracking the status of the curbs and any necessary repairs will be made in the spring. She apologized to the residents that this project did not remain on time. Sheila Vanahan, 995 Winston Circle, stated that she would prefer to pay the assessment in full but the cement at the end of her driveway was cracked and will not be repaired until spring. She commented that it seems unreasonable to pay the assessment at this time when her driveway and curb will not be repaired until spring. Mr. Ruzek stated that Mendota Heights assesses projects when substantially complete and he explained how the interest accrues. Councilor Duggan asked if it would be appropriate to assess a person when the project is completed to their satisfaction. Mr. Ruzek replied that typically the goal is to have the project substantially complete at the time of the assessment hearing. Councilor Duggan asked if there is any way the City could work to delay payment to the contractor. Mr. Ruzek explained that payment to the contractor is a separate issue. Councilor Paper commented that he is disappointed that there are cracks in the driveway and curbing, but that there is a commitment to repair the driveway and curb in the spring. He did not feel it would be appropriate to place that interest on the remainder of the City for one resident. There being no one further coming forward to speak, Councilor Mazzitello moved to close the public hearing. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Duggan commented that he believes that if the performance was subpar,people should not be paying until they are satisfied. Councilor Mazzitello asked when the remainder of the work is scheduled for the project to be considered substantially complete. Mr. Ruzek replied that work is scheduled for the following Thursday. Councilor Mazzitello asked if there would be any financial penalty if the assessment is delayed to the next meeting when substantial completion is reached. Mr. Ruzek replied that Dakota County requires assessments to be sent to them by December 1st, which would be earlier than the assessment due date. Councilor Mazzitello echoed the concerns of Councilor Paper. He commented that given the weather forecast he is reluctantly okay with approving the action tonight. Councilor Mazzitello moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2021-85 ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT FOR THE IVY FALLS EAST STREET IMPROVEMENTS. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 of 22 page 7 NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) RESOLUTION 2021-87 APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-20, THE CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA)PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE (STEVE AND MICHELLE MCHALE) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Council was being asked to adopt a resolution approving a critical area permit (CAP) to construct a new single-family dwelling on land situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area(MRCCA)Overlay District, along with conditional use permit(CUP)to allow an oversized attached garage up to 1,444 square feet in size. Councilor Duggan stated there is a lot of roof on this proposed building and asked the estimated runoff that would be generated. Mr.Benetti replied that the stormwater management plan accounts for that runoff. Councilor Duggan asked if the landscaping plan with the neighbors would account for drainage. Mr. Benetti noted the applicant is planning to have a butterfly garden, vegetable garden, and a net zero home. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he would like staff to improve the process of moving planning applications forward. He noted that another item on the October Planning Commission agenda was tabled but seemed to have similar issues to this application. He believed that applicants should be treated equally. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to make a statement. Steve McHale,applicant, commented that they were not aware they were purchasing within the Minnesota River Corridor and that the City had a moratorium that prohibited construction. He stated that he believes that everything they intend to build is reflective of what should be built within this area. He stated that they aim to build a net zero house in order to be good stewards of the property. He stated that they are working with their neighbors to develop a cohesive landscaping plan for the properties. Councilor Paper moved to approve RESOLUTION 2021-87 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA)PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT TH 149 AND TH 62 Councilor Mazzitello commented that he requested to add this to the agenda because of communications the Council has received related to traffic issues at Dodd Road and the TH 62. He stated that he wants to ensure the residents that they are being heard. He believed that it is time the City stops talking about the traffic at this intersection and starts doing something. He referenced a traffic study that was completed in 2016 that did not appear to match the personal experiences. He stated that he has studied the traffic study against what is actually occurring and what is anticipated for the future. He stated that the consulting firm assumed a background daily average traffic,using the worst-case scenario. He stated that the background daily average traffic number of 9,200 vehicles per day was used in the study for Dodd Road. He stated that in September of 2019 the State did an actual traffic count on Dodd Road, between Wagon Wheel and TH 62 which provided a count of 7,700 vehicles per day which is less than what was assumed in the study. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 of 22 page 8 He stated that in reviewing the actual numbers against the traffic study, there are less counts on Dodd Road than the base assumption of the traffic study. He commented that is not to say that is not an issue, as Dodd Road has been a discussion prior to 2008. He provided details on the level of service that is given to an intersection which is based on the wait time.He stated that a grade of F does not mean the intersection fails, it relates to the waiting time. He noted that there are actually two more grades that could be given to an intersection, G and H. He stated that the traffic study, under the worst-case scenario, did rate the intersection as an F for four movements out of 12 in the morning hours. He stated that improvements were made to the I494 and I35E interchange which improved that flow of traffic and detracted traffic from Dodd Road. He stated that if improvements are not made to the intersection, nine of the 12 movements would be rated an F by 2040. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he believed the Council should form a committee to find a solution for Dodd Road and TH 62. He suggested staff members and members of other entities that he believes should participate. He believed that a plan should be mapped out to address improvements for that intersection and throughout the corridor that was included in the study. He asked that this be separate from the next agenda item as this is a regional concern related to traffic. Councilor Duggan asked if there was any discussion related to the difference in the number of trips from the actual traffic count and estimated traffic count in the study. Councilor Mazzitello confirmed that was a part of the discussion and how he was made aware of the improvements that were made to the I494 and 35E interchange. He stated that there are two ways to get this issue on the radar for MnDOT which would be to continue to let the intersection degrade or the City takes the lead. Councilor Mazzitello noted grant opportunities for this type of project. He stated that the City did this in 2009 when it made pedestrian crossing improvements at Dodd/TH 149,using grants from the Metropolitan Council. He stated the City paid for the design, and the construction was paid for by the grant. Councilor Duggan agreed that a committee should be established to develop the appropriate steps that would work for the City, County and State. He stated he appreciates Councilor Mazzitello bringing this forward and proposing a plan to address the issue. Councilor Paper agreed that this is the right time with the State Representatives the community has. He acknowledged that this is a regional problem. Mayor Levine thanked Councilor Mazzitello for the work he did and recognized his expertise in this area. She liked the structure of the committee but believed a citizen representative should be added. She suggested a resident living south of Hwy 62 be on the committee. Mayor Levine recognized that residents came tonight with the intention of sharing comments with the Council. She stated that if anyone wants to speak to the traffic issues,they should speak during this agenda item rather than the next. Mayor Levine noted that the Council has heard the comments made at the previous Planning Commission public hearing and has read and heard the comments made through calls and emails. She asked that comments focus on any new information residents would like to share. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 of 22 page 9 Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, commented that the discussion that Councilor Mazzitello has introduced in view of the hearings was inappropriate. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that the traffic issues at Hwy 62 and Dodd is more complicated than just at the intersection. He stated that access management causes problems with nearby intersections. He stated that North Plaza Drive and the intersection on the other side of the street impact the functions of the intersection. He stated the gas station and South Plaza Drive all factor into the intersection. He applauded the fact that the City wants to look at it. He stated that he would like to be a member of the committee. Mindy Miklya, 2130 Aztec Lane, stated that the traffic study sounds good but asked if there has been thought to the additional people that would be brought in to this area through additional expansion. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that she is glad to hear that the Council supports addressing the issue of traffic. She stated that there is something else on the agenda that would contribute up to 1,000 additional trips per day before the traffic issue is addressed. She stated that perhaps there is a moratorium on development in this corridor until traffic can be addressed. Tamara Will, 788 Hokah Avenue, stated that within the traffic study the intersections were labeled above the critical crash rate and crash severity rate. She thanked Ms. Smith for her suggestion to have a moratorium. She worries that bringing up the issue of traffic prior to the next agenda item would taint the discussion as traffic may not seem to be as much of a factor in that discussion to come. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that about 18 or 20 months ago there was a traffic study done with a grade of F. He stated that rush hour is already a mess and if two apartment buildings are added that would place additional burden on the bad intersection. He stated that townhomes would have a lesser impact on traffic and would provide lifecycle housing. He stated that the residents worked hard to keep Mendota Heights spacious and gracious and would like to see that continue. Joe Betlej, 1335 Riverside Lane, stated that it is disingenuous to separate the traffic discussion from the next agenda item. He asked if the Fire Chief would be a part of that committee. He stated that if traffic worsens at that intersection,the people in the Ivy Falls neighborhood could be at risk if there were a need for emergency services. Allen Olsen, 2153 Fox Place, stated that he has known this intersection throughout his commuting career. He stated that he tracks the time it takes him to get in and out of his neighborhood, the close calls with safety,the delays due to distracted drivers, and other items that are not counted in a traffic study. He stated that he cannot believe the City is even considering adding to that problem. Janine Joseph, 1915 Walsh Lane, stated her commutes have become a nightmare on Hwy 62. She did not think traffic issues on Dodd could be separated out from the item considering the proposed apartments. She stated that bringing in more people that would use the side roads would add traffic on other roads and not just Hwy 62. She stated that she gets up earlier and stays at work later to avoid the traffic. Stacy Styles, 2188 Aztec Lane, agreed that traffic on Dodd Road is less than it has been in the past but that does not mean it will not get worse as people return to work. She has concerns with her children biking because Dodd Road is dangerous. She stated that it feels like Dodd Road should be widened. She believed that adding more apartments would only worsen the situation. She did not agree with high density living in that area and perhaps those apartments could be added to a less congested area. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 of 22 page 10 Glen,resident of The Reserve, commented that his unit looks northwest at the intersection. He stated that traffic is worse in other areas of the cities, where he travels, and where he has lived in the past. He stated that he does not have any problems leaving or coming back to his home. He stated that he would support an additional apartment building in this area because The Reserve is a great place to live. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights, commented that traffic should be considered as an element of negativity and separating the issues is wrong. Councilor Duggan commented that he has noticed that the concern is the left turns that are made after the light has turned, which causes a delay to the other movements at the intersection. Councilor Mazzitello summarized the consensus of the Council to direct City staff to establish a committee to start the process of making improvements to the intersection of TH 149 and TH 62 and other areas in the region. The committee should consist of Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Police Chief Kelly McCarthy, Fire Chief Dave Dreelan, the Assistant County Engineer, MnDOT South Area Manager, two residents living south of 62,and a member of the City Council. He reviewed the purpose of the committee. Mayor Levine thanked the residents that provided input. She stated that regardless of what happens in the next agenda item, traffic needs to be addressed. C) CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) AND CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE III/89 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECTS WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated the Council was being asked to consider a conditional use permit (CUP) authorizing an amendment to a previously approved planned unit development(PUD) for two separate sites located within the Mendota Plaza Mall project area. At Home Apartments,in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates,is seeking this amendment in order to provide two, new multi-family residential developments. City Code Section 12-1K-6:G requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. Mr. Benetti commented that the findings of fact should be considered after the public input is received. He noted that after discussion, the Council can then direct staff to prepare the desired resolutions to be brought back to the next Council meeting for approval. Mr. Benetti requested that the actions be separated but the discussion could occur together. Councilor Duggan asked for clarification on the statement that there are no typical standards under an MU PUD. He asked how a plan could be developed if there are no typical standards. Mr. Benetti replied that under the PUD ordinance there are different categories. There are certain setbacks under a typical zoning district,but a PUD does not include such standards which allows flexibility for the development. A PUD does not have minimum standards. He stated that the developer is presenting their requests, which the City can then accept or reject. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 of 22 page 11 Councilor Mazzitello commented, that based on that statement, he asked if it would be safe to say there are no variances associated with the PUD. Mr. Benetti confirmed that no variances are included. Under the PUD process, a development plan is presented, which the Council can accept, modify, or reject. Councilor Mazzitello referenced what is referred to as the underlying zoning district, which would be R- 3 and commented that it would appear then that those standards are meant as a guide but are not requirements. Mr. Benetti confirmed that those standards can be used for comparison. Councilor Duggan commented that he does not accept that description that there are no typical standards. He asked how many of the proposed apartments would be less than the 750 square feet required. Mr. Benetti replied that is a standard within the R-3 district. He believed that 16 units were in the range of 674 and 720 square feet in Phase 11 and a number of units were under 750 square feet in Phase III. Councilor Miller commented that 34 units, or 23 percent of the units, are below 750 square feet. Councilor Duggan asked why that number of units are below the threshold of 750 square feet. Mr. Benetti replied that the developer has the right to propose what they would like under the PUD. Councilor Duggan commented that it would seem that things are being juggled to suit the applicant. Mr. Benetti commented that he is presenting the request of the applicant. Mayor Levine commented that the Council should be respectful to staff. She stated that she requested from staff to receive an example of an R-3 development. She noted that an R-3 zone looks very different from a Mixed-Use PUD. She referenced the land use plan as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this area as the only area in the city as Mixed-Use PUD. She commented that there are no standards for MU-PUD,which has residential,restaurants, gas stations,Market Square, and the Plaza. She noted that this is about .7 percent of the land in Mendota Heights and is known as the downtown area. She stated that it is meant to be a place of gathering,walking, shopping, etc. She stated that the developer purchased this property with the intent to develop it and they are bringing forward the last pieces for development. Mayor Levine commented that it is the job of the Council to ensure adequate measures are in place, such as setbacks. She referenced the parcel north of 62 and noted that those parcels do not meet the standards of R-3 because it is also zoned MU-PUD. She stated that 750 square feet is the minimum size of an apartment within R-3, but not for a PUD. Bernard Friel commented that this is meant to be a public hearing and not a dialogue of the City Council. He stated that he has practiced law for almost 60 years and served on the Planning Commission for 12 years and has never witnessed so much ineptitude. Mayor Levine asked Mr. Friel to sit down and noted that if he cannot behave himself, he will be asked to leave. She stated that this is not a public hearing but if the Council decides, they can allow the public to speak. She stated that the Council has decided to allow public comments,following the Council questions. Councilor Duggan asked for the number of parking spaces less than the required dimensions. He believed that is a guideline set by the State and not the City. Mr. Benetti stated that most of the stalls have been revised to meet the standards required by ordinance and noted that some stalls remain shorter to accommodate compact vehicles. He noted that one phase would propose 2.0 spaces per living unit and the other phase proposes 1.76 spaces per living unit. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 of 22 page 12 Councilor Duggan asked the State regulations for the number of parking stalls. Mr. Benetti replied that if the Council feels that parking is not met, the Council can require additional parking. Councilor Miller acknowledged the efforts of the Planning Commission. He stated that he is disappointed on the lack of big picture planning of the City and the disregard for the general welfare of the community on behalf of the applicants. He stated that to date there has been no discussion on the impact to public infrastructure,public safety, or shared public spaces. This plan exceeds density, steps over the regulations of setbacks, and widely deviates from the established PUD plan as well as a disregard for a well- established concern with traffic in this area. He stated that there is a vision for the City and what is wanted, and the City is not obligated to approve this request. He stated that the R-3 zoning regulation was trampled upon in The Reserve which does not provide a free pass for the second phase. He stated that a PUD provides flexibility to zoning but there is still a ceiling that should be recognized when deviations are requested. He stated that in his opinion the applicant is skewing numbers by including land that has already been developed in their math calculations. He stated that while convenient for the applicant, the Comprehensive Plan clearly uses the term undeveloped land. He stated that the math does not pass the density test under three scenarios he reviewed. He stated that The Reserve appears to be a mistake and allowing these projects would only compound the problem that already exists. He stated that these subsequent projects would include 34 substandard units in terms of square footage. He stated that the applicant is proposing setbacks well beyond the established regulations, noting that he could not find one building in this corridor with similar setbacks. He supports the right of the landowner to develop the land, but under the vision that the City has. He stated that he would make a motion to deny the request for both applications. Councilor Miller moved to direct staff to draft a resolution DENYING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) AND CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE IIF89 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECTS WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Duggan asked legal counsel for input related to the standards for PUD and MU-PUD. City Attorney Shana Conklin commented that the way the PUD was described by Community Development Director Tim Benetti and Mayor Levine is accurate. She stated that a PUD provides flexibility as that is the purpose; to allow the City Council to consider a plan that would vary from typical standards. She stated that is not to say the standards in other comparable zoning districts have to be disregarded. She stated that other zoning districts may be looked to as a guide, but the Council is not bound by those standards. She explained that a variance is not required within a PUD as the intent is to provide flexibility. She stated that the Council has the ability to determine what is reasonable and consistent. She stated that it is accurate to say there is not a specific standard within the Code or that a variance would be required. Councilor Duggan asked if a PUD were located in the critical area, would the critical area standards no longer apply. Ms. Conklin replied that certain ordinances may still apply to property zoned PUD. She stated that a PUD zoning district would not be exempt from State Statute or things that govern certain areas. She commented that each PUD is unique on the uses included within,which is where the discretion of the Council comes in to determine whether those uses are appropriate. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 of 22 page 13 Councilor Duggan asked what the underlying guideline would be for mixed use. Ms. Conklin noted that for this PUD there is no stipulation. She noted that the Council can look to other zoning districts as a guide but there are no set standards that must be followed. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan should still be followed as well as ensuring public health, safety and welfare. Councilor Duggan explained that is part of the reason setbacks are established. Ms. Conklin replied that is why setbacks are established in other zoning districts but there is no such regulation within the PUD. Councilor Mazzitello asked for clarification on the process, as a motion has been made. He asked whether public input would still be received. Mayor Levine suggested continuing on in the typical manner. The Council would ask questions of staff, allow the applicant to speak, then accept public comments, have additional Council discussion, and then vote on the motion on the floor. Councilor Mazzitello stated that multiple iterations have been provided on how to calculate density, referencing the term creative math. He stated that he ran calculations and noted that they match that of staff, as the proper method of calculating density. He asked staff to run through their density calculations. Mr. Benetti explained the density calculations as determine by staff including the sites that would be included in the MU PUD site. Councilor Duggan stated that the gas station and McDonalds are part of the land mass but not the land use category. Mr. Benetti explained that the density could be calculated over the entire land use area or the project area. He noted that staff use the project area to determine the density. Councilor Mazzitello stated that he ran a calculation using the assumption of the undeveloped land in the PUD. He stated that the language stated undeveloped, not undevelopable. He stated that he applied that to the entire PUD approved in 2008,including all the different land uses, and 15.08 acres was undeveloped in 2008. He stated that all four ways this density would be compliant under the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the ordinance does allow the Council to set the density, and these are the options provided by staff. Councilor Mazzitello stated that if the motion on the floor moves forward, the findings of fact for denial should be solid. He stated that whatever decision is made,the findings of fact must back up that decision. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to address the Council. Leanna Stefaniak,At Home Apartments, stated that she had a different presentation to provide but because of the direction this has taken she will pivot. She referenced the comments made by Councilor Duggan related to the unit sizes. She stated that Councilor Duggan was a member of the Council when The Reserve was approved which involved a thorough discussion of the trend for unit sizes compared to the 1980s when the Code was written. She noted that Councilor Duggan and the other members of the Council at that time, as well as the Planning Commission, approved The Reserve and recognized that there was a need for some smaller units. She stated that this is the second phase of the development that matches the needs for the market today and what was approved in The Reserve, The Linden and The Heights. She referenced the density requirements and mention of funny math by Councilor Miller. She stated that in the PUD there is 6.83 acres, and the density comes out to 28.71 units per acre. She asked which math Councilor Mazzitello is not buying. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 of 22 page 14 Councilor Mazzitello commented that he is not buying what was testified to or read at the Planning Commission that the density is not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stefaniak stated that The Reserve is a part of the community. Her business partners and herself are members of this community themselves and have provided housing infrastructure that the community needs in an area that makes sense for it. She stated that she would not request this in an R-1 zoning district and is instead requesting to place it in an area identified for this type of housing, to attract young professionals that are needed to keep the community vibrant and support the local businesses; residents enjoy the walkability this area provides. She stated that they are proposing to complete the PUD with the highest and best use in 2021. She stated that the City would go through an RFP if it owned the land and that would show that the highest and best use of these acres is housing. She stated that people in the housing industry have provided comments to the Council stating that this is the highest and best use. She stated that the comments received through email and calls in support of the project are just as important as the verbal comments being provided tonight and should be considered in equal weight. Mayor Levine briefly recessed the meeting. Mayor Levine reconvened the meeting. Councilor Mazzitello stated that if this were going to be approved, he would not want Phase III to begin until Phase II receives its certificate of occupancy. He stated that way the traffic impact would be spread out over a number of years and would provide more time for traffic improvements. Ms. Stefaniak commented that the initial development stated that this would be a phased development. She stated that Phase II would be completed prior to the construction of Phase III beginning. Councilor Duggan stated that the overall site has been described by 20 some acres but recognized that portions of the property have been sold to different entities. He asked if those entities are part of the PUD. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that even if portions of the property are sold to different owners, there is an overlaying operating easement that is placed onto the property and provides control as if it were all under common ownership. She stated that certain standards and conduct are required to ensure that the properties continue to operate in the same manner. Councilor Duggan stated that he would find it smart to wait for a proposal that meets the guidelines and requirements in place but was frustrated to find that there are not standards in place for the PUD. Ms. Stefaniak commented that the PUD allows for accommodations from the guardrails, and they are asking for some deviations from the guardrails, similar to other developments within this PUD and The Village. Councilor Duggan stated that part of his hesitation is the comparison to what has been done in the past. He stated this project does not appear to make sense because he feels it is too large for the site. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not talking about what was done in 1980 or 1990 but recent approvals of projects that have come online in the past year and have set precedent. She believed that applicants should be treated fairly and consistently and would argue that they are not being treated the same as other applicants in the past year. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 of 22 page 15 Mayor Levine stated that she heard the comment that if the Council were to approve these apartment buildings it would open up the opportunity for other apartment buildings in different parts of the City. She commented that it is her understanding that these would be the last two parcels that could be developed as apartment buildings. Ms. Stefaniak commented that these are allowed uses within the current zoning. Mayor Levine commented that many residents are concerned with sustainability. She asked what the applicant is doing to promote sustainability and renewable energy. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they take that issue seriously. She stated that at The Reserve there is a solar array on top of the roof that provides energy for the building. She noted that they were one of the first developers to take advantage of their rooftop and garage roofs to place solar arrays. She stated that the design features within the units also promote sustainability such as low flow toilets and showerheads. She stated that the units are also single metered where the resident is responsible for the water usage as they have found that promotes more responsible water use. She stated that energy efficient appliances are used and highlighted other ways they incorporate sustainability. She noted that they place the majority of the parking underground in order to provide more greenspace for residents. She stated that they also work hard with their landscape experts to provide features to protect the environment and promote pollinator friendly plantings. Mayor Levine asked for information on the GreenStep Program and whether the plan could provide more overstory trees, and if they could accommodate organics recycling in the building. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they do provide overstory trees. She stated that while there may appear to be areas to place more trees, those locations would impact other elements of the plan in terms of underground utilities and retaining walls, and safety in regard to impacting sightlines for drivers. She stated that they have experimented with organics recycling and would be willing to facilitate that. Mayor Levine stated that one of her concerns is the user experience at the Plaza. She stated that she does not believe the Plaza is walkable. She stated that one advantage of the apartment location would be the access to the restaurants and retail. She asked how the issue of walkability would be addressed so that people do not have to take their cars to frequent businesses. Ms. Stefaniak commented that the traffic configuration plan identified the existing and new sidewalks. She stated that they created access points from The Reserve to the county trail and existing trails within the Plaza. She noted that with the new phases, they would add additional sidewalks, including an additional connection near South Plaza Drive that provides connectivity to Walgreens. She stated that she agrees with the earlier comments that the crosswalk at Dodd and South Plaza Drive is not safe. She noted that she would love to be a part of the discussion as to how they could facilitate additional connectivity if that crosswalk is upgraded. Mayor Levine commented that there have been comments from residents that there is a lack of a grocery store in the community and staff has been looking at an opportunity for a farmers' market. She asked if the applicant would be amenable to working with the City to talk about a farmers' market and if that could work on one of their sites. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 of 22 page 16 Ms. Stefaniak commented that would be a good question to address with Mr. Pastor, owner of the Plaza. She noted that there is ample parking in the front of his development and perhaps there would be space that could be used for that purpose. Mayor Levine asked the target market of parcel seven. Ms. Stefaniak commented that parcel seven would be general occupancy similar to The Reserve and would be designed with the young professional in mind. She stated that the community has a housing stock issue as there is a lack of housing products for young professionals. She stated that they want a smaller space, close to amenities, close to restaurants and other retailers. She stated that there is a real opportunity to keep the young professionals in the community and keep the businesses vibrant. Pete Keely, architect for the project, stated that parcel seven was designed to take advantage of the opportunity to put people next to commercial and retail businesses and restaurants. He stated that they are attempting to make this side as vibrant as The Village side of Hwy 62. He stated that The Reserve provided some connections and amenities, and they are looking to expand that in Phase II. He stated that Phase II would have larger units to service other members of the community. He highlighted the amenities that would be provided in Phase 11 and would work together with Phase I. He stated that this helps to create a synergy and energy between the buildings. He stated that building community is a huge part of sustainability and efficiency. He stated that parcel seven would be aimed towards younger residents. He noted that they would continue to provide amenities and opportunities to gather. He stated that a PUD provides an opportunity for the City to envision what they see for the community. He noted that a younger resident could live at parcel seven, visit their parents at The Reserve and visit their grandparents at The Pines. He noted that they would be adding additional sidewalks to ensure connectivity and will provide landscaping that resonates with the outdoor spaces for the residents to enjoy. Mayor Levine addressed the issue of traffic, noting that the community will be reviewing traffic suggestions and she asked for a commitment from the applicant in being a partner in this. She stated that this development will increase traffic by 798 vehicles per day. She recognized that the PUD provided the ability to increase traffic by 1,000 vehicles through the allowed daycare and restaurant uses. She noted that even though this is a reduction,there will still be an increase in traffic. She noted that Phase II would be an increase of about four percent to traffic. Councilor Mazzitello stated that even with the increase, it still is below the projections used in the 2017 traffic study. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they are always willing to work with the City to do what they can as a developer. Mayor Levine commented that it would be great to have a safe place for younger adults to live in the community. She noted that although this is not a public hearing, she will accept public comments. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, commented that the standards apply in an MU-PUD. He stated that in respect to traffic, the Council should review its ordinance for Conditional Use Permits. He noted that in order to approve a PUD, an application must not adversely impact public health, safety, and welfare. He commented that any decision in favor of these projects would be a monumental lie in view of the apparent traffic issues. He commented that there is a question as to whether the PUD even exists at this time as the original 2009 PUD had a termination date of five years,as did the development agreement. He commented that a PUD requires that the applicant own all the property that is the basis of the PUD. He stated that November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 of 22 page 17 comparison has been made to The Village and while he agrees that The Village also added traffic to Dodd, it is clear that the Village has exits other than Dodd Road. He stated that The Linden also has public space for enjoyment of the public. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Pastor made a comment that the older residents do not like change and that is why they are opposed to the project. He stated that at 91 years old and a 65 year resident, he fits that profile, and his experience has taught him that projects like this that have negative impacts and should be opposed. He read language related to the findings that must be made in order to grant a Conditional Use Permit and noted that there is no question that this would have an adverse impact on traffic. He stated that a traffic study is warranted, and any improvements recommended should occur prior to this project. Mayor Levine noted that many of the comments stated were mentioned at the Planning Commission and asked residents to be cognizant of the time and not to repeat comments. Denny McCardle, 2159 Fox Place, stated that he and his wife are not in favor of the proposed project. He asked that the Council give strong weight to the fourth finding supporting denial which states that this project is not a good fit for this site or area. Glen Detlefson,resident at The Reserve, stated that he lives in a unit under 750 square feet. He noted that this is exactly what he and his wife were looking for when they decided to downsize. He noted that The Reserve is occupied by professionals noting that his neighbor is a dentist and another is a CEO. He explained that the apartment allows them to travel but still remain a part of the community. He stated that this housing fills a need in the community. He noted that they would love to see the empty lot built upon and another building added to the community. He stated that the apartment is a great asset and they love the walkability and often visit the restaurants in the area by foot. He commented that even though they have a smaller unit there are beautiful amenities and common spaces that allow them to be a part of the community. He commented that this is a great asset to the community and acknowledged that the traffic should be fixed. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that she was a member of the Council when the PUD ordinance was passed in the mid-90s, and it was never anticipated that it would be used in this way. She stated that the primary purpose was to provide some flexibility and cluster. She stated that if there was variation to the setbacks, it was in return for more greenspace or open space. She stated that she does not support these proposals and urged the Council to reject the applications. Jaffrey Blanks, 727 Willow Lane, stated that the value of the apartment complex would outweigh the detriment to the community. He commented that Councilor Mazzitello stated that the counts are under the 9,200 used in the study but reminded the group that 9,200 was the worst-case scenario. He stated that this is not just an issue of traffic but also public safety. He asked that the traffic problem be fixed. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vickie Lane, commented that the discussion has been about two buildings rather than the design for the overall site. She stated that Mendota Plaza is a parking lot and does not have space for public gathering and there is no open space. She stated that an urban plan should include greenspace and walkability. She sees opportunities for additional trees and greenspace. She stated that this is a PUD and therefore the City has the ability to ask for what it wants. Rita Lew, 726 Decorah Lane, stated that there is a vision for Mendota Heights and the PUD gives the City the opportunity to achieve that vision rather than accepting the vision of a developer. She stated that the residents are relying on the Council to continue to support the vision they have for their community. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 of 22 page 18 Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, commented that the issue of traffic should be solved before the additional burden is added. He commented that he would like to see Mendota Heights stay spacious and gracious. Tamara Wills, 788 Hokah Avenue, referenced the comment of phasing the apartment buildings which would allow time to resolve the traffic issue. She noted that there is no guarantee on when the traffic will be fixed. She stated that traffic is being mentioned but the real issues are related to safety and livability. She stated that the more people that are added, the less the vision of Mendota Heights exists. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, commented that traffic will be a problem regardless of what is developed on this site. He commented that in 2008 there was a plan for a certain level of high-density housing that was doubled by The Reserve. He noted that there has not been a part of this development that has not required an amendment to the original plan. He commented that the PUD provides flexibility but also provides flexibility for the City to say no. He asked where the public open space is on this plan. He stated that every portion of this development was maximized to provide the overall return rather than the public benefit. He stated that the footprint of the buildings can be reduced to create additional greenspace. He stated that this should be delayed until after the traffic study is completed. He asked the Council to take the time to do this right. Chad Trochlil,2145 Fox Place, stated that he supports the recommendation of denial. He commented that this is too much density for the small space and would damage the character of Mendota Heights. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented in the staff report for the Planning Commission there was a series of six statements of fact to support denial of the proposal. He stated that same information was not provided tonight. Mayor Levine commented that she will not hear disparaging comments about staff. Mr. Smith commented that he has made his point. He commented that if it is made more difficult for customers to access the existing businesses, there would not be good consequences. He stated that vision has nothing to do with PUDs or R-3 zoning,but with principal. He stated that the principal that has guided this community over decades has focused on careful,prudent development and as a consequence the city is unique among all other first tier suburbs. He noted that the majority of residents love the City because it has not pandered to developers and has rejected high density proposals. He commented that it is not developers that drive the vision of the City, but the Council, and this application should be rejected. Jeff Nath, 911 Knob Road, commented that Mendota Heights does not have the gobs of apartment buildings that every other suburb has. He stated that The Reserve then popped up in a large greenspace area. He stated that another apartment then popped up for seniors. He stated that these new apartment buildings are huge and there is a room full of people here that are unhappy with the conditions on Dodd Road. He stated that people like the community because it is a hidden gem. He stated that perhaps the developer can bring back something that is not so big and would better fit into the community. Allen Olson, 2153 Fox Place, stated that he moved to this community because it was a sleepy, peaceful place to live. He stated that it has transitioned from that and now this downtown area is practically in his backyard. He stated that while density is great for the checkbook of the developer, it does nothing for the people that live there. He referenced the rating the City recently received for the bond rating and was unsure that density was part of that formula. Mayor Levine invited the applicant to address any comments that have been made. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 16 of 22 page 19 Ms. Stefaniak stated that there have been a lot of comments made and did not believe it would be productive to respond to them all. She stated that there are people in this community that are supportive of the projects for a number of reasons. She believed that people that emailed should have the same weight given to their comments as there are reasons unknown as to why those people chose to comment in that manner, noting that perhaps they were not comfortable attending in person because of COVID or had to be at home with their children. She noted that some of the comments would be better addressed by Mr. Pastor as they related to his development and the contributions that his family made to the community. Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he is very appreciative of the residents that have made comments tonight as that is an important part of the process. He stated that Councilors Duggan and Mazzitello most likely remember his father coming before the Planning Commission and Council in the past. He stated that they have far more in common and that they share in their vision of the City and the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62 than they have differences. He stated that the issues are clearly important to everyone even though there may be tweaks from person to person. He shared the mission and vision of Pastor Properties and believes that these proposals meet that intent. He stated that a local restaurateur was present tonight but was not able to wait until 10:30 pm to make his comment. He stated that the written comments he provided prior to the meeting were very supportive to adding more people to the project. He noted that perhaps Mr. Smith spoke with employees of the businesses rather than the owners. He stated that part of what makes this Plaza great is the restaurants and retailers that service the community. He noted that even those that spoke against the proposals stated that they frequent the Plaza businesses, which is an important part of having a livable community. He stated that these retail uses bring people together. He noted that there is outdoor public seating at all the restaurants that also bring people together. He stated that the positive of bringing in more people, having more housing options, and creating a more livable area is a benefit for the community. He stated that they want to bring people together to connect and create a sense of place. He stated that part of making that area more vibrant is bringing in more people. He stated that the greenspace to the north of Hwy 62 is owned by the City. He stated that this is a plan they have worked on together for almost 20 years, and this would be the realization of completing that plan. He commented that this is a good vision and good project. He stated that At Home Apartments are best in class and the lead people at the company are Mendota Heights residents. He stated that clustering was mentioned as a purpose of a PUD and that is what this concept would do, cluster the housing to connect it to the retail and restaurant uses in the Plaza and to the area north of Hwy 62 as well. He recognized that there have been changes to the PUD plan over the years, but he believed that this still fits the intended vision. He stated that this project would allow multigenerational living and would allow people to live close to shopping and restaurants. He recognized that he will be part of the solution for the traffic problem,but did not believe that they should be blamed for the problem. He stated that they are currently approved to build something more intensive on the property. He stated that Pastor Properties has been dedicated to Mendota Heights and he has been a part of the City for so long and was unsure how he is supposed to feel that he is now being treated differently. He noted that Councilor Miller made a motion for denial before the comments were even received which does not feel good and makes him feel like the Council feels that their comments are not important. He stated that density is appropriate in this location, and this is the only location in Mendota Heights where density can be added in a responsible way. He appreciated the comments related to greenspace and noted that they have been intentful to maintain greenspace and open space and will continue to do that with this development and the shopping center, but recognized that this property is not zoned as greenspace and there is a right to develop the property. He stated that they are committed to working together to provide the best product possible to meet the needs of the community, as they always have. He thanked the Council for their time as well as the time and energy that everyone has contributed tonight. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 17 of 22 page 20 Mayor Levine invited the Council to continue discussion and reminded them of the motion on the table. Councilor Duggan asked how much greenspace is currently in the Plaza and how much additional greenspace would be included in the proposal. Mr. Pastor commented that he does not have that calculation. Lee Koppy, representing Anderson Engineering, reviewed the impervious calculations within the staff report, noting that currently 37.6 percent of the site is pervious and upon buildout 34.5 would remain pervious. Councilor Duggan asked if the greenspaces could be identified on a map. Mr. Koppy displayed the site plan and identified the greenspace areas in the site. Councilor Duggan commented that although the creek area is there, he was unsure it could be claimed as greenspace. He stated that it would be nice to have more seating for people to enjoy the greenspace areas. He stated that it would have been nice to see a three-dimensional rendering to see how the proposed buildings would fit in with what is already in the Plaza area. Mr. Koppy provided a rendering of how the 58-unit building would be seen from Hwy 62. He noted that the other building would not be visible from Hwy 62. Mayor Levine commented that public input is important to the Council, and she wanted residents to know that their opinions are valued. She noted that every person she spoke with that lives in The Reserve love living there and support the applications. She stated that the most common concern against the development was related to traffic. She referenced the comment made that those who attended in person should be given more weight to their comments but stated that she does not believe that because everyone's opinions matter. Councilor Mazzitello asked if it was the intention of the motioner to base the denial on the findings of fact within the staff report. Councilor Miller confirmed that was his intention. Councilor Mazzitello stated that there were many comments comparing The Village to the Plaza. He stated that The Village has access points other than Dodd Road but noted that the Plaza also has a right- in access off 62. He stated that most of the traffic for The Village is accessing off Dodd at Market Street. He noted that Market Street is the first intersection to attain an F rating after Dodd and Hwy 62, rather than North Plaza Drive. He stated that the north leg of Dodd has more traffic than the south leg of Dodd, by 2,200 vehicles per day. He stated that he did not hear complaints about The Linden and the 518 trips per day that development added. He stated that he made a pledge when he joined the Council to look at issues objectively and factually. He stated that as he dug into the issues, he found things that were disturbing. He stated that they need to work on treating applicants fairly and equitably. He stated that he was a member of the Planning Commission when The Linden came through and is very familiar with how that applicant was treated. He noted that the Linden had a parking ratio of 1.4 stalls per unit, while this application has a ratio of 1.87 between the two buildings. He noted that parking was not mentioned as an issue for The Linden. He stated that this applicant was required to provide traffic circulation mapping while The Linden was not. This applicant was required to provide an impervious surface analysis across the entire PUD while The Linden was only required to analyze their site. He stated that this applicant proposes less impervious surface than the original PUD proposed but The Linden proposed more. He November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 18 of 22 page 21 stated that the Linden proposed 518 trips per day, which was 37 less than the original concept while this applicant proposes 798 trips per day, 226 less than the original concept. He noted that while traffic is the major issue for this applicant, it was rarely mentioned for The Linden. He stated that this applicant was asked under public testimony to provide contributions to pay for infrastructure improvements while The Linden, the original developer of The Linden, and the developer of the first phase of Mendota Plaza and each amendment that followed were not. He stated that one developer did provide an infrastructure improvement because the State asked them to-the Michaels development. He noted that MnDOT provided no input when asked about this and the City cannot require an applicant to make an improvement on an infrastructure it does not own. He stated that this applicant proposes a density of 21.52 units per acre, while The Linden proposed 23.08 units per acre in addition to a restaurant. He referenced the proposed setback noting that this applicant is requesting 15 feet from the right-of-way while The Linden requested 17 feet. He noted that this applicant is requesting a setback of 100 feet from a State TH while The Linden has a setback of 31 feet. He referenced ADA parking, noting that the City Code requires a width of 12 feet, while The Linden was not held to that standard and used the State standard of nine feet. He stated that this applicant was asked to complete a parking study for the entire site because of the parking ratio proposed,but The Linden was not asked to do the same for a lower ratio. He asked what possible reasons there could be for such disparity in reviewing two high density developments three years apart. Councilor Mazzitello also stated that he also made a pledge to make decisions based on fact and therefore the findings of fact in staff reports are supposed to be fact. He referenced the proposed findings of fact supporting denial and reviewed the statements he found to be untrue and not fact. He stated that he has reviewed the findings of fact supporting approval and would request a statement deemed to be an opinion to be removed. He stated that he may be agitated but he likes things to be based on fact and tonight there has been a lot of opinions and manipulation based on fear. He referenced the last finding of fact supporting denial and noted that this proposed development exactly matches the high-density housing and retail that exists in this area. He stated that if the Council wants to move forward with a motion for denial,he would suggest it develop actual findings of fact. Councilor Miller stated that he believes the finding of fact to be true as drafted by City staff. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he drafted the proposed findings of fact and noted that the Council would have every right to amend or revise those if desired. He commented that these are standard findings and are typical and used in other cases as well, for or against. City Attorney Shana Conklin commented that the findings of fact within the report can be modified as the Council sees fit. She stated that typically staff will provide findings of fact as a discussion point for the Council. She stated that the written findings do not have to be produced this evening, as State law allows a motion to be made and written findings to be adopted at the following meeting. She noted that she could work with City staff to write findings in support of approval or denial. Councilor Paper referenced the findings of fact for denial that mention this would not fit with the development but noted that there is a building that already exists that looks similar. He noted that this looks to be a nice building that would fit. Mayor Levine stated that a number of people have written and expressed the desire to preserve greenspace. She stated that these are developable lots and the cost to purchase the lots to preserve as greenspace would be $5,000,000. She commented that the City has the right to say no but then it must consider what may come forward in its place. She stated that they want something they are excited about. She stated that people that live in At Home Apartments are excited about living there and they are one of the best November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 19 of 22 page 22 apartment builders and managers in the business. She commented that Ms. Stefaniak is a resident of Mendota Heights and is invested in the community as a resident and businessperson. She stated that she likes this concept, and it would be nice to bring some vibrancy into this area. Councilor Paper referenced the Comprehensive Plan which provides the density for the parcels and noted that the proposed density fits within the range specified in Chapter Two. He stated that Chapter Five encourages life cycle housing in various forms and also suggests additional multi-family rental or affordable options for young people. He referenced Chapter 11 which provides a goal to meet future needs with a variety of housing products. He noted that the City is committed to working within the Comprehensive Plan,which was created with a tremendous amount of community input, engagement, and work. He stated that the document supports Phase II. Councilor Duggan stated he did not believe the City is against the concept of apartments,but more finding the right fit. He stated that he previously pointed out that Mendota Plaza was a sea of concrete but realized that was developed under different standards and in different times. He noted that if this goes through as proposed there would be almost no greenspace within the Plaza, which he did not believe matches the intent of the City. He stated that he previously spoke of a need for a downtown area in Mendota Heights in order to have a gathering space for the community. He stated that this would be a minimal contribution to the spacious and gracious vision for Mendota Heights. He recognized that this is the land of the developer, but the City also has a challenge to determine what it wants under the PUD. He stated that denying this request does not mean they could not still work with the applicant and Pastor Properties to find something that would work for everyone. He stated that he believes that there is a great opportunity to have a better development than what is currently proposed. Councilor Paper commented that the City speaks about wanting its businesses to succeed and this would help to make this area more vibrant which would bring in new businesses. He stated that the businesses need the help and Phase II would support that. Councilor Miller stated that he believes developing this area needs to be done wisely. He stated that he suggested that At Home Apartments propose the same project as they did for The Linden site. He believed that At Home Apartments are the best at what they do, and he has faith in them as a developer. He stated that his problem with this request is that it is too large for the property. He called the question. Mayor Levine recapped the motion on the floor to deny PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) AND CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE III/89 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECTS WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD. City Attorney Shana Conklin stated that the actions should be separated into two motions and noted that there is opportunity to submit written findings of fact in support or approval or denial at the next meeting. She recommended that it be stated whether the motion is based on the findings of fact in the packet or adopted at the next meeting. Councilor Miller commented that he based his motion on the findings of fact within the staff report but would consider amendment to the third finding. Councilor Miller moved to amend his motion to direct staff to draft a resolution DENYING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE I1/58 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS DRAFTED AND TO BE MODIFIED WORKING WITH STAFF TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 20 of 22 page 23 Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 2 (Duggan, Miller) Nays: 3 (Levine, Paper, Mazzitello) The motion failed 2-3. Councilor Mazzitello moved to direct staff to draft a resolution APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-12 (PHASE II/58 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 (Levine, Paper, Mazzitello) Nays: 2 (Duggan, Miller) The motion was approved 3-2. Councilor Mazzitello moved to direct staff to draft a resolution APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE III/89 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE PRESENTED AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BEGIN UNTIL PHASE II RECEIVES CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Councilor Paper seconded the motion. Further discussion: Councilor Duggan asked if this item could be deferred because of the late time. City Attorney Shana Conklin stated that the 60-day deadline has been extended giving the City until December 23, 2021 but recognized upcoming Council absences. She stated that if the full Council were planning to be present, the item could be tabled if found appropriate or the discussion could continue tonight. Mayor Levine asked if people could join remotely if unable to attend in person. Councilor Duggan stated that he was told that without the emergency powers intact, any Council members not present would not be allowed to vote. City Attorney Shana Conklin stated that if a Council member were attending remotely there would be stipulations which would allow participation. She noted that the member of the Council attending remotely would need to be located in a public location that is publicly noticed. Mayor Levine commented that the next Council meeting is scheduled for November 16th and asked if everyone is available to participate. It was believed that everyone would be in attendance. Councilor Mazzitello commented that he would prefer to make the decision tonight but could support tabling. Councilor Paper stated this requires a separate discussion and would support tabling. Councilor Miller stated that he could support either option. Mayor Levine commented that she would prefer to table this item in order to provide a thorough review. November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 21 of 22 page 24 Councilor Mazzitello withdrew his motion. Councilor Paper agreed. Councilor Mazzitello moved to table the discussion of PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-13 (PHASE III/89 UNIT APARTMENT) WITHIN MENDOTA MALL PLAZA PUD. Councilor Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 D) ESTABLISH DATE FOR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson explained that the Council is asked to schedule a worksession to discuss a variety of topics. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a worksession on November 15th at 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson announced upcoming events. COUNCIL COMMENTS No additional comments. ADJOURN Councilor Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilor Mazzitello seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Levine adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. Stephanie Levine Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith City Clerk November 3, 2021 Mendota Heights City Council Page 22 of 22 page 25 5b. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session Held October 6, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota began at Pilot Knob Park/Oheyawahi, 2044 Pilot Knob Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 CALL TO ORDER Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 4:31pm. Commissioners Klepperich, Blanks, Sherer, Meyer(arrived at 4:40pm), and Student Representative Hess were also present. City staff present included Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator; Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator (departed 5:15pm); Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resource Technician (departed 5:OOpm). TOUR OF PILOT KNOB PARK/OHEYAWAHI Staff and Commissioners learned about the site and its significance from Gail Lewellen, as well as the role the task force plays.Juanita Espinosa discussed with those present the significance of the site to the Dakota People. The site is sacred and allows us all to respect the history of the land. Chris Soutter discussed the natural resource planning work being conducted and their natural goals moving forward. Autumn Hubbell from Dakota County discussed the City and County partnership, as well as the interpretive plan, indigenous and organization engagement processes thus far.The group talked about possible field trip opportunities for ISD 197 students and learned about the bonding bill request that is active. TOUR OF DOG PARK Staff and Commissioners toured the Dog Park. Those present reviewed ruts and other vegetation existing to the park. Those present also discussed the need for better signage both for the entry and for the sacredness of the park,which will hopefully prevent any digging. Staff will be working to get some trees cleared over the Winter to improve visibility. Discussions for the addition of new trees and native plantings occurred. TOUR OF ROGERS LAKE SKATE PARK Staff and Commissioners reviewed the existing Skate Park at Rogers Lake. Recreation Program Coordinator Lawrence provided information on the recent work of the Skate Park work group and provided renderings which the group had worked on, but couldn't come to agreement on. Due to the work group not having a final proposal, the project wasn't funded in 2021, which resulted in the task group being put on pause. TOUR OF WENTWORTH PARK Staff and Commissioners present viewed the plans for the new Warming House building at Wentworth Park and discussed paving the rink to improve flooding operations and ice quality in the Winter. page 26 The commission adjourned the meeting at 6:25 PM Minutes Taken By: Meredith Lawrence Recreation Program Coordinator page 27 5c. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING OCTOBER 12, 2021 The October meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order— Chair Steve Goldade called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call —The following Commissioners were present: Chair Steve Goldade, Commissioners: Jaffrey Blanks, Patrick Cotter, Bob Klepperich, Stephanie Meyer, and Amy Smith; absent: Commissioner Dan Sherer. Student Representative: Niko Hess. Staff present: Recreation Program Coordinator, Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator, Cheryl Jacobson and Public Works Director, Ryan Ruzek. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Klepperich/second Blanks, to approve the agenda AYES 6: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from September 14, 2021 Regular Meeting Motion Meyer/second Cotter to approve the minutes of the September 14, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) None. 7. Acknowledgement of Reports Chair Goldade read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Park Improvement Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions. 7.a Par 3 Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence briefly reviewed the 2021 August Financial Report. She stated that fall aeration was completed on the course. She stated that fall rates are in effect for the remainder of the season. She reviewed some pre-winter maintenance that will occur and advised of the request for three pieces of equipment for replacement she will be bringing before the Council. Chair Goldade asked how the golf event with the Police was. Ms. Lawrence replied that the Bogey with the Red and Blue was held with a great turn out. Chair Goldade stated that he has noticed some inconsistencies on where golf course equipment is budgeted from. Ms. Lawrence noted that this is the first time that there are funds in the Par 3 budget to purchase equipment. She stated that the Par 3 fund would be used to purchase two pieces of page 28 equipment while a different City fund would be used for the third piece of equipment. She noted that the goal is for the golf course to be able to fund all of its needed purchases. Commissioner Meyer referenced the equipment slated for replacement and asked if equipment sharing has been reviewed as an option. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that they have loaned equipment from other courses in the past. She stated that some pieces are used daily and therefore would be difficult to share. She noted that aerators would also be difficult to share as everyone is attempting to use the equipment at the same time. She stated that she does keep communication open with other courses. She noted that the City has also looked into outsourcing maintenance but did not receive any interest. 7.b Recreation Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence reviewed recent activities and current programing opportunities. Commissioner Smith asked what the targeted age group is for "Tour de Rec". Ms. Lawrence replied it is targeted for youth 13 and younger. 7.c Parks Improvement Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that light usage at Marie Park has begun in the pilot program and noted that the lighting has been quite popular. She stated that she has received very good feedback and requests for lighting on the courts at Friendly Hills as well. She continued to ask the Commission to document any feedback received. She stated that they are moving forward with the Wentworth warming house project, but because of rising materials and labor costs the project now exceeds the original estimate and will need to go to competitive bidding based on architectural design. She provided an update on the grading of the fields at Mendakota Park, noting that they are hoping the project can be completed this fall. She also provided an update on the Mendakota dugouts and the overall dugout project. She noted that the dugout locations mentioned by Commissioner Sherer at the last meeting were not correct and noted that MHAA can hopefully provide clarity on that tonight. Chair Goldade recommended two projects to the Council and asked for clarity on how the group should move forward. Ms. Lawrence replied that the recommendations have not been brought forward to the Council yet. She stated that additional information can be gathered through the discussion with MHAA tonight and then additional discussion could occur in November prior to bringing a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Smith asked if the plan would be to have the dugouts completed for the spring season. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that would be the intent, dependent on contractor availability. Commissioner Cotter commented that in the previous discussion it was believed that the cost would be higher for Mendakota because of the concrete work that was necessary and asked if that is correct. Ms. Lawrence provided additional explanation on the cost. page 29 Motion Klepperich/second Meyer to acknowledge the staff reports. AYES 6: NAYS 0 8. New Business 8.a Mendota Heights Athletic Association Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that representatives from MHAA are present tonight at the request of the Chair and Vice Chair to provide information to the Commission. Chair Goldade stated that MHAA attended a few years ago to provide an update and he believed that this would be a good time to gain information on spring and summer sports. Dan Novak, President of MHAA, explained that each sports program is run on its own with the goal to break even each year on the programs with the exception of scholarships that are provided. Tom Stevens, MHAA, stated that they created a document with the number of athletes and related financial information for baseball and softball. He stated that information was provided from Spring of 2021, along with fall noting that fall is gaining in popularity. He also provided information on the percentage of athletes that are Mendota Heights residents and reviewed the document with the Commission. He stated that since 2019, softball has provided 24 scholarships and baseball has provided 14 scholarships. He also provided information on revenue and expenses, noting that the final numbers are not yet complete for 2021. He stated that the balance that rolls over is typically used quickly the following year for training and equipment needs. Commissioner Klepperich asked if the impact from COVID-19 in 2020 had an impact on MHAA's financials. Mr. Stevens replied that traveling sports still generated revenue, while in-house program registrations were refunded. Adam Crepeau, MHAA, stated that the t-ball program is included in the baseball dollars, but that program does not use City fields and instead uses fields at the elementary schools. He reviewed the field improvement requests, which were sorted into different levels of priority. He focused on needs for Mendakota. He stated that waiting until March to know field availability is late, as traveling sports require earlier field availability for tournament hosting. He asked if volunteers could put up and take down temporary fencing at Mendakota which would allow additional opportunities for tournament hosting. Chair Goldade stated that he is not convinced pole holes are safe at Marie Park and asked for input from MHAA. Mr. Crepeau commented that those holes are a little high at Marie Park. Commissioner Cotter stated that the idea of youth opportunities versus adult programing and asked for input on what other communities are doing. He also asked if the adult program is run by the City. page 30 Mr. Crepeau replied that another community hosts adult sports two nights per week and youth sports on the other three days. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that is a City run program. She stated that if adult softball is cut, that would be cutting the largest adult offering and therefore that discussion would need to occur with the Council. Commissioner Cotter recognized the competing programs. He asked for more information on what would be needed in the weekends at Mendakota for tournaments. Mr. Stevens stated that they do not necessarily have to have more weekends, but that would provide additional fundraising opportunities which would in turn lower the registration fees. He stated that they currently have only hosted two traveling tournaments and they would like to expand that. He stated that it is difficult to expand that when field availability is not known until March. He stated that perhaps next year they would like one or two additional weekends. He stated that for fall tournaments they have the ability to host large events at Mendakota every weekend for a few consecutive weekends. Mr. Novak stated that the biggest issue is timing. He stated that they cannot put in permits to get the fields until the City process is completed. He stated that perhaps something could be done to ensure the fields are secure in order to book good tournaments. Commissioner Smith asked for clarity on the City policy for field reservations. Ms. Lawrence stated that all permit requests are due by February 1st and she then reviews the requests and responds to the user groups. She stated that the policy can be amended. She noted that the policy dates were created using the input from MHAA three years ago. Commissioner Cotter stated that based upon the need to schedule tournaments in advance, it would make sense to reconsider the dates in the policy. Mr. Stevens commented that if they were able to finalize their dates in January, it would help tremendously to schedule tournaments. Ms. Lawrence stated that could be discussed, noting that permit applications would be needed by all user groups by that date. She stated that the policy is reviewed each year and that is why these discussions are important. Commissioner Cotter stated that it would be helpful to have these discussions more frequently as MHAA is one of the biggest users of the parks. He asked if there is concern with being able to schedule out the entire season that much earlier. Mr. Crepeau commented that the traveling and in-house tournaments are the same each year. He stated that traveling teams are selected in the fall each year, therefore they could provide that by January without issue. Commissioner Cotter stated that the policy should be placed on the agenda for continued discussion. He noted that perhaps the other user groups are consulted as well. Ms. Lawrence stated that it would be helpful to know specifically what is requested in terms of policy changes prior to the worksession in November. She stated that the City is attempting to page 31 avoid blanket permitting, as if MHAA blanket permits, that prevents other groups from using the fields on those nights. Mr. Novak stated that they would not know the individual field schedules until Spring, but they are speaking directly of permitting Mendakota and could book that through 2025. Ms. Lawrence stated that the City receives requests from multiple user groups and therefore one universal date is easier for permitting the fields. She asked if MHAA would be ready to schedule their full season by January 1 st Mr. Stevens replied that they would not be ready at that time. He stated that they view Mendakota as an event center and would hope to book large events in advance rather than the entire schedule. Mr. Novak commented that MHAA is aware that they share Mendakota with another user group on certain dates. He stated that perhaps permitting for Mendakota could be split off with a date of January 1 st and the rest remain with the March 1 st date. Chair Goldade summarized that MHAA would like Mendakota permitting split out into its own category with a due date of January 1 st and the remainder of the fields are permitted with a date of March 1st Mr. Crepeau continued to identify desired field improvements. Mr. Novak asked if the City generates the same amount of revenue through adult softball compared to MHAA use of the fields. He asked at what point the decision would be made to prioritize youth sports over adult sports. Commissioner Smith recognized that it is competition between two different groups, adults, and youth programing. Mr. Novak commented that MHAA is scrutinized when they do not use a field they have permitted for, but adult softball is sometimes not using the fields that they have booked. Ms. Lawrence stated that she knows the nights softball is being played and what fields are being used because she makes the schedules. She stated that the additional nights that were requested by MHAA for pictures and other things were opened up. She stated that the City has not taken the approach that every single night they are driving around viewing field usage. She stated that the issue that she has is that other user groups are attempting to use the fields and cannot because they are told the fields are reserved but there is no activity for three consecutive weeks on that night. She believed that everyone could do a better job to work together and collaborate, the schools, associations, clubs, and the City in order to better use and schedule the available space. She believed that it is possible to get more residents on the fields with what there is within the system. She stated that if field use is needed on Tuesday and Thursday nights, MHAA can reach out to her, and she can attempt to find the space. Chair Goldade noted that this information has been helpful, and they would like to have MHAA back after the Fall season to discuss football and soccer. Commissioner Cotter agreed that this was very informative and that it would be helpful to have continued communications between the groups. page 32 Commissioner Meyer asked and received confirmation that the Commission intends to discuss the policy at the next meeting to discuss the concern related to tournament scheduling. Chair Goldade thanked MHAA for attending to provide an update on spring and summer sports and looked forward to the next time the group will come back to provide information on fall sports. 8.b Historical Swing Set Replacement Information Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence stated that at the September meeting swing sets were discussed. She stated that she provided information in the packet on swing set replacement. She stated that public works will be painting the swing sets that are still in good shape but may not look to be in the best condition. She noted that in the future, when playgrounds are replaced, the Commission may want to include swing sets to avoid this situation in the future. Commissioner Cotter stated that he believes that is the goal of having the CIP, to complete full replacements. Commissioner Meyer noted that five parks are listed in 2025 and asked why it is shown in that manner. Ms. Lawrence stated that she brought forward the requests from the Commission to the Council and many of those were deferred to 2025 within CIP for the time being. She noted that there may be a park referendum before that time that would provide another funding opportunity. 9. Unfinished Business 9.a Strategic Planning Update Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence provided the monthly update on the continued strategic planning process. 10. Staff Announcements Recreation Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence shared the following announcements: • Skating instructor and warming house staff positions have been posted on the website • Other events can be found on the city's website Chair Goldade asked if there is a backup plan if there is not sufficient staffing for warming houses. Ms. Lawrence stated that staff has been having those discussions internally. 11. Student Representative Update No comments. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Meyer • Marie Park continues to have a lot of activity and pickleball court use page 33 • She enjoyed the Parks Tour and the interaction with Skate Park users and Dog Park users Commissioner Klepperich • Parks Tour was a great success for the Commission. The Pilot Knob stop was fantastic with educational opportunities for the school district as well. • The adjustable hoop at Ivy Hills may need maintenance attention. The pond is low and green because of the lack of rain Commissioner Smith • The pickleball courts at Friendly Hills look great • Perhaps the mowing schedule could be adjusted next year for Kensington to better align with game schedules. The fence near 494 still needs attention to keep soccer balls in the area Commissioner Cotter • Thanked MHAA for attending tonight to share their input • The Dog Park is a popular and well used amenity not only for residents but also for the broader region Commissioner Blanks • Has noticed a lot of bicycle activity at Valley. Chair Goldade • Thanked staff for coordinating the Park Tour. Pilot Knob is a treasure and encouraged residents to visit the park. The Dog Park numbers were amazing, noting the interaction between residents and the dogs. It was impressive to see the number of people and range in age of the users for the Skate Park. Wentworth is a beautiful park and playground, and he looks forward to the warming house completion. 13. Adjourn Motion Klepperich/Second Meyer to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 PM. AYES 6: NAYS 0 Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. page 34 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Haig 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452. 5d www.mendota heights.cc CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Acknowledge Amended Contract for Grading Baseball Fields at Mendakota Park INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a revised contract for grading of the baseball fields at Mendakota Park. DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Commission and the local athletic association have discussed the need for removing the lip which has formed at the transition area between the infield and outfield. The work involved removing the sod 5-8 feet in width outside of the infield and removing the material that was creating the lip. Two quotes were received. The City Council approved an assumed low quote from Minnesota Sodding Company for an estimated fee of $18,000 at the October 5, 2021 meeting. There was a miscommunication between staff and the recommendation should have been to hire Magic Turf for their quote of$21,550. The original recommendation for the approval of the quote from Minnesota Sodding Company was not complete and total cost would have been determined after a topographic survey was done. The final invoice for completed work is$20,380 and staff is satisfied with the work that was performed by Magic Turf. BUDGETIMPACT The 2021 budget includes a line item for parks maintenance. There is presently a$105,000 balance in the line item due to underspending within the current budget year. City staff is not projecting any major expenditures and is proposing that the field maintenance be funded from this line item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council acknowledge that the quote from Minnesota Sodding Company for re-grading the fields at Mendakota Park was not issued and that the project was awarded to Magic Turf for a fee of$20,380. ACTION REQUIRED If the City Council concurs,it should by motion, acknowledge that the quote from Minnesota Sodding Company was not issued and that the project was awarded to Magic Turf for cost of$20,380. page 35 5e. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Height 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2021-88 Tree Donation—Victoria Highlands Park INTRODUCTION The Council is asked accept a donation from James (Jim) and Jennifer Weichert for planting trees in Victoria Highlands Park. BACKGROUND City staff identified several spruce trees in decline at Victoria Highlands Park. City staff planned to remove the trees and replace with small bare-root deciduous trees. DISCUSSION In speaking with the adjacent home owners where the trees are to be removed, the home owners offered to purchase replacement coniferous trees to maintain privacy from the city park. The current trees to be removed have been providing that screening historically. BUDGET IMPACT The $1,500 donation will be used toward the purchase and installation of the new trees including mulch and a watering saddle. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends accepting the donation of$1,500 from the Weichert's. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion pass RESOLUTION 2021-88, A RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACCPETING A GIFT FOR A TREE DONATION. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 36 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-88 FORMALLY ACCEPTING A GIFT FOR A TREE DONATION WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 "Gifts to Municipalities"; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS,the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights formally accepts $1,500 from James (Jim) and Jennifer Weichert for a donation to plant trees in Victoria Highlands Park. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of November, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine,Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 37 5f. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heig 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16,2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek,P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter,Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Approve Joint Water Resources Application of Wetland Exemption and No-Loss for the Ridge Place Sanitary Repair and Streambank Stabilization Project COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a Wetland Conservation Act(WCA)Joint Water Resources Application for Exemption as well as No-Loss, for the Ridge Place Sanitary Repair and Streambank Stabilization project. BACKGROUND A Joint Water Resources Application was submitted by the City for Exemption under Minnesota Rule 8420.0420, Subpart 2. C.: Impacts resulting from soil and water conservation projects; as well as a No- Loss determination under Minnesota Rule 8420.0415,Part H. Temporary impact.The application was received and noticed by the City on October 15,2021. DISCUSSION The application is proposing 14,155 sf of temporary impacts to Wetland Basin 1 for the sanitary repair project located at 822, 816, 810, and 804 Ridge Place.This qualifies for a No-Loss determination under the Minnesota Rule 8420.0415,Part H.The application is proposing 1,555 sf of permanent impact to Basin 1 in order to complete the streambank stabilization project located at 804 Ridge Place,to prevent further erosion of the stream channel in this area.These impacts qualify for an Exemption under MN Rule 8420.0420, Subpart. 2. C.,as the purpose of the project is to minimize and prevent erosion and downstream sedimentation and impacts to wetlands and the Mississippi River. The project has also been approved by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District(SWCD),as required. A Technical Evaluation Panel(TEP)was held on August 23. Attached comments were received from the SWCD. BUDGETIMPACT None,this process is a judicial requirement of the City.If the Council approves the application, a Notice of Decision will be sent to TEP members,the applicant,and any members of the public that requested notice. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the application as submitted by the Public Works Director, and direct staff to issue the Notice of Decision. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation,it should pass a motion approving the application for Exemption and No-Loss, and authorize staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple majority vote. 00 IU la ,Z It 1-O 7L O W It Ac)l r y �L LL W >LL oLOL o a IL � . -.,fit;, � a ° . co IL a m I W LL IdA!.ZIi31NNA �� � F- O LL O dA 41w0 W (n 1 a E Jrn WAl-h1SgIUVA , �; U Z / 1 J �N O O 0 Ll yi 4— aJ c,3 aJ W Z N U O � Ili -O Q Ln I U N C m W C 4 -0 L 2 O O L1 2 C o 1 Q- + v1� N 'N Q- L a U v In +� O c O a E -Ike L L U OL v v a 0- aJ v > � c E O E z � a E v 0 4-J 3 4-J +J O U a1 -0 ?: U '� O 4-J page 39 Krista Spreiter From: Krista Spreiter Sent: Wednesday,September 22, 2021 2:05 PM To: 'Holmen, David' Cc: Ryan Ruzek;'Jim Herbert; 'ben.carlson@state.mn.us' Subject: RE: Ridge Place TEP and Project Approval Thank you Dave, Please see comments from the consultant in response to comments provided by the SWCD: • The material that is excavated to key in the riprap will be native stream bed material only, which is largely mobile under certain flow conditions already anyway. When it is replaced and compacted with an excavator bucket it will be in a similar condition to pre-construction. There will be some short-term mobilization of the sediment and re-arrangement of the bed in the flowing water, but in our experience this has not resulted in widespread erosion or sedimentation. • It is preferred that erosion control fabric not be placed in the bed of the stream, because of concerns of washing/movement downstream (I am also concerned about aquatic wildlife entanglement, etc.). • Granular stream bed material is to be replaced on the bed, not any of the bank material—anything excavated from the banks will not be placed in the channel bed. Hopefully these comments address the concerns of the SWCD. Thank you, Krista Spreiter,CWD Natural Resources Technician City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Email: kristas@mendota-heights.com Office: 651-255-1123 Fax: 651-452-8940 From: Holmen, David [mailto:David.Holmen@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US] Sent: Monday,September 20, 20219:39 AM To: Krista Spreiter<KSpreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: 'Ben Carlson (ben.carlson@state.mn.us)' <ben.carlson@state.mn.us> Subject: FW: Ridge Place TEP and Project Approval Krista, 1 page 40 SWCD has reviewed the streambank restoration plans provided by the City under the Ridge Place Sanitary Sewer project and they align with projects identified in the state cost share program manual and will minimize erosion along the streambank. Please see attachment for additional comment. I have also signed the TEP findings of fact. Dave Holmen DAVID HOLM EN,GISP GIS SPECIALIST/RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST I Dakota County SWCD pAKO-1-A COUNT' Office: (651) 480-7791 1 david.holmen@co.dakota.mn.us Z 4100 220th Street West I Farmington, MN 55024 1 wpw�wy.dakotaswcd.org SOIL S 'CATER ® � � �gtrSERVi'Ir:i ^tFth ' Partners in Land &Water Conservation Note: This email and its attachments may contain information protected by state or federal lave or that may not otherwise be disclosed. If you received this in error, please notes the sender immediately and delete this email and its attachments from all devices. 2 page 41 Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource(wetland, tributary, lake,etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of thisjoint application form (see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information).This form is only applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States(wetlands,tributaries, lakes,etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)and regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units(LGUs)which can be counties, townships,cities,watershed districts,watershed management organizations or state agencies(on state-owned land).The Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application,applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre- application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a venue(such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings)for potential applicants to discuss their projects with multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below. The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations. • For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations,submit Parts 1, 2 and 5,and Attachment A. • For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions,WCA no-loss determinations,and activities not requiring mitigation, submit Parts 1 through 5,and Attachment B. • For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan,submit Parts 1 thru 5,and Attachments C and D. • For local road authority activities that qualify for the state's local road wetland replacement program,submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachments C, D(if applicable),and E to both the Corps and the LGU. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 12 page 42 Submission Instructions Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers.Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of responsibilities and contact information,visit the St. Paul District's website at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select"Minnesota"from the contact Information box. Alternatively,applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the appropriate field office. Section 401 Water Quality Certification:Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary,contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District(SWCD)office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR)web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us)to determine the appropriate LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS)for submission of Public Waters permit applications(https://webappsll.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies,applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of thisjoint application form. The MPARS print/save function will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which,at a minimum,will satisfy Parts one and two of thisjoint application. For certain types of activities,the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary information required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project(see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the required information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the remainder of the joint application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 2 of 12 page 43 Project Name and/or Number: 2019-01 PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity(company,government entity, partnership,etc.),an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent(consultant, lawyer,or other third party)and has authorized them to act on their behalf,the agent's contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director,City of Mendota Heights Mailing Address: 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651-225-1152 E-mail Address: RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov Authorized Contact(do not complete if same as above): Krista Spreiter Mailing Address: 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651-255-1123 E-mail Address: KSpreiter@mendotaheightsmn.gov Agent Name: Barr Engineering Mailing Address: 4300 Market Pointe Drive,Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 Phone: 952-832-2600 E-mail Address: PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Dakota City/Township: Mendota Heights Parcel ID and/or Address: 277105000251,277105100071,277105100062,277105100050,270260004013,27026000501: Legal Description(Section,Township,Range): Section 26,Township 28N,Range 23W Lat/Long(decimal degrees): 4970137.75211/489860.994184 Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets,roads,highways. Approximate size of site(acres)or if a linear project,length(feet): 13 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform 4345 2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval,exemption determination,jurisdictional determination,or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed,the project purpose and need,and schedule for implementation and completion.The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources(wetland, lake,tributary,etc.)and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location,character,and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. The City of Mendota Heights, and its contractor, Barr Engineering, is proposing temporary impacts to the wetland basin identified as Wetland 1 in the attached Delineation Report,dated November 29, 2018. The purpose of the project is to repair a section of sanitary sewer line that has sagged and been suspected of leaking into the adjacent area.The temporary impacts are part of a proposed project that involves the repair of a sanitary sewer line,as well stabilization of existing banks of an unnamed Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 12 page 44 stream (commonly known as Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek) near the construction area. The proposed streambank stabilization and repair portion of the project will address bank erosion of Interstate Valley Creek in order to prevent further sediment deposition and transportation downstream and into the Mississippi River,an impaired water body. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 12 page 45 Project Name and/or Number: 2019-01 PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts,including those expected to be temporary.Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Type of Duration of County,Major Aquatic Resource Impact (fill, Watershed#, Impact Overall Size Resource ID(as Type excavate, Permanent(P) of Aquatic Size of Existing Plant Community and Bank noted on (wetland, drain,or or Temporary Resource Impactz Type(s)in Impact Area Service Area# s overhead view) lake,tributary remove (T)1 of Impact etc.) vegetation) Areas Wetland 1 Wetland Remove T 14,155 sf 165,528 SF Forested Wetland, MW 38, BSA 8 vegetation Shrub/Emergent Wetland Wetland 1 Wetland Fill P 1,555 sf 165,528 sf Forested/Shrub/Emergent MW 38, BSA 8 'If impacts are temporary;enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the"T". For example,a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered"T(220)". zlmpacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example,a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft(300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp.8,otherwise enter"N/A". 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed.as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp.2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp.7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature ❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date: I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. 1 The term"impact"as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 12 page 46 Project Name and/or Number: 2019-01 Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,St. Paul District (Corps)and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit(LGU) provide me with the following(check all that apply): ❑Wetland Type Confirmation ❑ Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring,or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone,the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property,only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands,tributaries, lakes,etc.). ❑ Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination.A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements,a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ®Approved Jurisdictional Determination.An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property.AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years.An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request,the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual,and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota(2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 12 page 47 Project Name and/or Number: 2019-01 Attachment 6 Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction. Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies: The City of Mendota Heights(Owner)and Barr Engineering(Consultant of the City) is seeking a No-Loss determination under MN Rules,Chapter 8420.0415 H.:A temporary impact that is rectified by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland;and an Exemption Determination under MN Rules,Chapter 8420.0420,Subpart 2. C.: Impacts resulting from soil and water conservation projects that are certified by soil and water conservation district technical staff after review by the technical evaluation panel, if the project minimizes adverse effects on the hydrologic and biologic characteristics of the wetland. Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments and exhibits that support your contention.Applicants should refer to rules(e.g. WCA rules),guidance documents(e.g. BWSR guidance,Corps guidance letters/public notices),and permit conditions(e.g. Corps General Permit conditions)to determine the necessary information to support the application.Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide: The proposed work is comprised of repair and replacement of an existing sanitary sewer pipe adjacent to the stream,as well as the stabilization of the nearby streambank in order to prevent further erosion. Construction activities will consist of creation of construction access and staging areas,excavation to repair identified areas of the sanitary sewer line, earthwork to repair eroded streambanks,construction of rock cross vanes, live stake placement,seeding of native wetland vegetation,and placement of riprap toe protection. Impacts to wetland areas within the sanitary sewer line repair project area will be temporary.All impacts associated with the sanitary repair will be restored to existing grades,and revegetated using native wetland seed mixes(BWSR Seed Mix 34-271 and BWSR Seed Mix 34-261). See attached Plan Sheet W-01: Wetland Impacts. The proposed streambank stabilization will include some fill required to properly install boulders and stabilization materials along the banks of the stream to top of slope(see attached plan sheets C-06). The streambank stabilization will also include native seed installation using wetland BWSR State seed mixes 34-261 and 34-271 in areas that are temporarily disturbed as part of the project,as well as installation of Cornus sericea live stakes into the top of slope between placed stabilization boulders. The purpose of the streambank stabilization and repair is to address bank erosion of Interstate Valley Creek in order to prevent further sediment deposition and transportation downstream of the project area,as well as reducing sediment deposition into the Mississippi River,the receiving water of Valley Creek and an impaired water body.A Technical Evaluation Panel meeting was held on-site to review the proposed project,at which Soil and Water Conservation District Staff was in attendance.Approval of the project Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Staff was received as a result(see attached TEP Findings and SWCD Approval). Erosion prevention and sediment control measures will be followed throughout the project to minimize sediment deposition into the stream and adjacent wetland areas in accordance with the Minnesota General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity(See attached Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). See attached plans for further detail. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 7 of 12 page 48 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose,Need,and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint,water management, and any other applicable requirements.Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project(buildings, roads, etc.),aquatic resource features(impact areas noted) and construction details(grading plans,storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site.These alternatives may include alternative site plans,alternate sites,and/or not doing the project.Alternatives should be feasible and prudent(see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C).Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources(see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp.4): Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit(standard permit or letter of permission)from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 12 page 49 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road wetland replacement program.Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements. Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an existing wetland bank(with an account number in the State wetland banking system)for all or part of your replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Bank Wetland Bank Major Credit Type County Service Number of Credits Account# Watershed# Area# (if applicable) Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project.This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement,signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. Project-Specific Replace ment/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions (restoration, creation, preservation,etc.)to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed project. Corps Mitigation Bank WCA Action Eligible Credit% Credits Major Compensation Acres County Service for Credits Requested Anticipated' Watershed# Technique Area# 'Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. 2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 31f WCA and Corps crediting differs,then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA. Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g.wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile......) and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it.Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy language,WCA rule language,and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique: Attach a site location map,soils map, recent aerial photograph,and any other maps to show the location and other relevant features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation,existing landscape features, land use (on and surrounding the site),existing soils,drainage systems(if present),and water sources and movement. Include a topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow(inlets,outlets,ditches, pumps,etc.): Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 12 page 50 Project Name and/or Number: Attach a map of the existing aquatic resources,associated delineation report,and any documentation of regulatory review or approval. Discuss as necessary: For actions involving construction activities,attach construction plans and specifications with all relevant details. Discuss and provide documentation of a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site to define existing conditions, predict project outcomes, identify specific project performance standards and avoid adverse offsite impacts. Plans and specifications should be prepared by a licensed engineer following standard engineering practices. Discuss anticipated construction sequence and timing: For projects involving vegetation restoration, provide a vegetation establishment plan that includes information on site preparation,seed mixes and plant materials,seeding/planting plan (attach seeding/planting zone map), planting/seeding methods,vegetation maintenance,and an anticipated schedule of activities: For projects involving construction or vegetation restoration, identify and discuss goals and specific outcomes that can be determined for credit allocation. Provide a proposed credit allocation table tied to outcomes: Provide a five-year monitoring plan to address project outcomes and credit allocation: Discuss and provide evidence of ownership or rights to conduct wetland replacement/mitigation on each site: Quantify all proposed wetland credits and compare to wetland impacts to identify a proposed wetland replacement ratio. Discuss how this replacement ratio is consistent with Corps and WCA requirements: By signature below,the applicant attests to the following(only required if application involves project-specific/permittee responsible replacement): • All proposed replacement wetlands were not: • Previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit • Drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years • Restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs • Restored using private funds,other than landowner funds, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. • The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. • An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond,or other acceptable security will be provided to guarantee successful completion of the wetland replacement. • Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s)will be located and submit proof of such recording to the LGU and the Corps. Applicant or Representative: Title: Signature: Date: Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 10 of 12 page 51 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment E Local Road Replacement Program Qualification Complete this part if you are a local road authority(county highway department,city transportation department,etc.)seeking verification that your project(or a portion of your project)qualifies for the MN Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program (LGRWRP). If portions of your project are not eligible for the LGRWRP,then Attachment D should be completed and attached to your application. Discuss how your project is a repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction,or replacement of a currently serviceable road to meet state/federal design or safety standards/requirements.Applicants should identify the specific road deficiencies and how the project will rectify them.Attach supporting documents and information as applicable: Provide a map, plan,and/or aerial photograph accurately depicting wetland boundaries within the project area.Attach associated delineation/determination report or otherwise explain the method(s) used to identify and delineate wetlands.Also attach and discuss any type of review or approval of wetland boundaries or other aspects of the project by a member or members of the local Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP)or Corps of Engineers: In the table below, identify only the wetland impacts from Part 4 that the road authority has determined should qualify for the LGRWRP. Wetland Impact ID Type of Impact Size of Impact County,Major Watershed#, Existing Plant Community (as noted on (fill,excavate, (square feet or and Bank Service Area#of overhead view) drain) acres to 0.01) Type(s)in Impact Areal Impact' 'Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed.as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp.2. 'Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp.7. Discuss the feasibility of providing onsite compensatory mitigation/replacement for important site-specific wetland functions: Please note that under the MN Wetland Conservation Act, projects with less than 10,000 square feet of wetland impact are allowed to commence prior to submission of this notification so long as the notification is submitted within 30 days of the impact. The Clean Water Act has no such provision and requires that permits be obtained prior to any regulated discharges into water of the United States. To avoid potential unauthorized activities, road authorities must,at a minimum, provide a complete application to the Corps and receive a permit prior to commencing work. By signature below,the road authority attests that they have followed the process in MN Rules 8420.0544 and have determined that the wetland impacts identified in Part 4 are eligible for the MN Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program. Road Authority Representative: Title: Signature: Date: Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 11 of 12 page 52 Technical Evaluation Panel Concurrence: Project Name and/or Number: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: Upon approval and signature by the TEP,application must be sent to: Wetland Bank Administration Minnesota Board of Water&Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul,MN 55155 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 12 of 12 page 53 5g.-h. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.m e ndota-hei g hts.com CITY OF M-j MENGOTA HEIGHTS Request for Council Action DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Sharon Hinze,Utility Billing Clerk SUBJECT: Delinquent Utility Charges DISCUSSION There are currently 58 delinquent sewer accounts totaling $26,822.36 to be certified to Dakota County for collection with property taxes per City Code 10-3-7. In the year 2020,we certified approximately$17,817.42 of delinquent sewer charges to Dakota County for collection with property taxes. Further,per City Code 10-5-5,the City is authorized to certify to Dakota County for collection with property taxes and any unpaid costs for water charges that are past due to the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St.Paul. There are 53 water accounts with the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St.Paul totaling $13,369.96 to be certified this year. In the year 2020, we certified approximately $5,822.94 of delinquent water charges to Dakota County for collection with property taxes. In addition, per City Code 4-3-413, the City is authorized to certify to Dakota County for collection with property taxes any unpaid costs for the cutting and removal of weeds, grass and other vegetation. However, there are no delinquent weed accounts to be certified this year. Per City Code and City Ordinance,we have included in these amounts all balances,interest and late charges. The total amount of said utility charges shall be paid with general taxes for the year 2021 and collectable in 2022. Per City Code and City Ordinance, letters were sent to property owners of sewer accounts past due in excess of two quarters,notifying them that if the delinquency was not paid by November 5,2021,the amount due, plus seven percent (7%) interest and a $50.00 charge will be certified to Dakota County for collection with property taxes. ACTION REQUIRED It is recommended that the city council approve the attached Resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-89 "RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES TO THE DAKOTA COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TAXES." RESOLUTION NO. 2021-90 "RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT WATER CHARGES TO THE DAKOTA COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TAXES." page 54 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021 - 89 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES TO THE DAKOTA COUNTY AUDITORS FOR COLLECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TAXES WHEREAS, under the provisions of City Code 10-3-7 adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on February 18,2003,it is provided that if sewer rental charges due to the City for the use of the City's sewer system are not paid within thirty (30)days after the mailing of a billing statement thereof,the same shall be collected and the collection thereof enforced in the same manner and in all respects as county and state real estate taxes, subject to like penalty, cost and interest charges;and WHEREAS,the City Clerk has advised the City Council that the total sewer rental charges due to the City as of October 5,2021,has been sent to the last known owner of said properties and that more than thirty (30)days has elapsed since the mailing of said statement;and WHEREAS,said properties are all situated in the City of Mendota Heights,County of Dakota, Minnesota,and the parcel identification number of said properties, and the total amount of sewer rental charges due for each said parcel through November 5,2021,are more particularly described as follows: PARCEL ID NUMBER AMOUNT DUE 276970301020 $489.78 271715002100 $393.00 272490301010 $455.26 270380013020 $542.20 276970104024 $627.54 270380038040 $489.78 270420000170 $497.26 277105000371 $489.78 page 55 277640202030 $549.70 273765003070 $599.72 272245402010 $489.78 272245002060 $489.78 272245002050 $489.78 274210001040 $659.64 271715104010 $489.78 273860004060 $5 31.50 273860004070 $527.22 275750003120 $399.10 271710001160 $609.30 271710001210 $587.14 277115013040 $602.12 271785000450 $610.60 277640100050 $606.40 274920001021 $572.16 274190001210 $363.40 277640100241 $604.00 274750000063 $599.98 Res 2021-89 page 2 of 5 page 56 276970207140 $534.72 274650001010 $379.84 275420001081 $489.78 273760004050 $511.44 276970303120 $511.66 276400003020 $379.84 271715005060 $512.24 273760002010 $544.80 272780019050 $489.78 272780004170 $489.78 271515004020 $512.24 276460002120 $285.18 271830101200 $489.78 272780018060 $617.10 272840004110 $489.78 272780020050 $916.38 271910004220 $379.84 274160101090 $280.04 271915000070 $497.26 Res 2021-89 page 3 of 5 page 57 274530000070 $494.06 271830206110 $489.78 274160102010 $489.78 270410036011 $114.20 270410036017 $114.20 273070000060 $105.82 270260030040 $130.26 273274001010 $114.20 270400025010 $596.98 273860003050 $153.14 278125001090 $260.40 273760002010 $82.36 NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota,as follows: 1. That the total of said utility charges set forth above is hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper unpaid utility charges due for the above-described properties through November 5, 2021,for each of said lots,pieces and parcels of land shall be a hen concurrent with the general taxes upon such parcels and all thereof. 2. That the total amount of said utility charges shall be payable with general taxes for the year 2021 collectable in 2022. 3. That the Utility Billing Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the Dakota County Auditor a certified copy of this Resolution with the request that each of said amounts shall be extended upon the property tax lists of Dakota County to be thereafter collected in the manner provided by law. Res 2021-89 page 4 of 5 page 58 4. That a $50.00 service charge and seven percent(70/6)interest has been added to each delinquent utility account in accordance with City Code 10-3-7. B.2. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 16th day of November, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Res 2021-89 page 5 of 5 page 59 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021 - 90 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT WATER CHARGES TO THE DAKOTA COUNTY AUDITORS FOR COLLECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TAXES WHEREAS, under the provisions of City Code 10-5-5 adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights on April 19, 2016,it is provided that if water charges are past due to the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St. Paul and are not paid within thirty (30)days after the mailing of a billing statement thereof,the same shall be collected and the collection thereof enforced in the same manner and in all respects as county and state real estate taxes, subject to like penalty,cost and interest charges;and WHEREAS,the City Clerk has advised the City Council that the total water charges due to the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of St. Paul as of the middle of October,2021 has been sent to the last known owner of said properties and that more than thirty (30)days has elapsed since the mailing of said statement; and WHEREAS,said properties are all situated in the City of Mendota Heights,County of Dakota, Minnesota,and the parcel identification number of said properties, and the total amount of water charges due for each said parcel through the middle of November,2021 are more particularly described as follows: PARCEL ID NUMBER AMOUNT DUE 275750003120 $416.78 271710001160 $466.32 277160000080 $104.34 271710001210 $300.78 274210002040 $134.00 273760004050 $696.10 273760002010 $512.40 274210007070 $74.22 271715002100 $146.72 277640100100 $210.32 276970301020 $373.14 277640100241 $778.20 page 60 271715004170 $127.62 276970104030 $134.42 273765003070 $258.14 277110001050 $320.38 274210001040 $436.72 278430000200 $100.10 277105000371 $435.10 278330000060 $91.62 276400003060 $163.36 276400003020 $214.54 274440000030 $155.22 276400001070 $125.54 272336503030 $284.40 272245002060 $297.96 272245002050 $259.98 273860004021 $485.86 273860004070 $497.76 270380038040 $125.54 270350003010 $261.20 276970207140 $303.08 271715104010 $161.70 272920002010 $229.26 272245402010 $96.34 275750003080 $108.20 276470005010 $232.10 271985007030 $297.08 272780019050 $150.96 272780004170 $212.60 272780011040 $91.62 Res 2021-90 page 2 of 3 page 61 272780003060 $74.04 272780018060 $423.14 272780019180 $302.86 272780020050 $199.98 274822502010 $172.16 271830101200 $214.60 277270002050 $117.06 271830204090 $333.24 272255501030 $74.66 272840004110 $237.92 270260005014 $121.30 276970205041 $227.28 NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota,as follows: 1. That the total of said water charges set forth above is hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper unpaid utility charges due for the above-described properties through the middle of October, 2021 for each of said lots,pieces and parcels of land shall be a lien concurrent with the general taxes upon such parcels and all thereof. 2. That the total amount of said water charges shall be payable with general taxes for the year 2021 collectable in 2022. 3. That the Utility Billing Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the Dakota County Auditor a certified copy of this Resolution with the request that each of said amounts shall be extended upon the property tax lists of Dakota County to be thereafter collected in the manner provided by law. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council this 16th day of November, 2021. ATTEST CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Lorri Smith, City Clerk Stephanie Levine,Mayor Res 2021-90 page 3 of 3 page 62 5i. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Height[ ". 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDaTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approve Community Waste Abatement Agreement with Dakota County INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to approve the attached 2022 Grant Agreement which allows the City to continue to utilize a shared recycling coordinator position with the Cities of West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake and Lilydale; with West St. Paul acting as the fiscal agent and to receiving reimbursement funding from Dakota County for Waste Abatement services provided by the city. BACKGROUND The City Council approved a JPA in November, 2020 for West St. Paul to act as the fiscal agent for Waste abatement funding from Dakota County. DISCUSSION Mendota Heights is proposed to receive approximately $24,000 in community funding from Dakota County in 2022 to assist in its recycling efforts. Under the current JPA, West. St. Paul acts as the fiscal agent which simplifies the reporting requirements from the member cities so that only one report and reimbursement submittal from the recycling coordinator is needed by the County. There are no other changes to the County grant in 2022. West St. Paul approved the changes at their most recent Council meeting and the member cities are now asked to sign. BUDGET IMPACT There is no impact to the recycling budget for 2022. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Administrator, authorized signer, to execute the 2022 grant agreement for community waste abatement. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the attached COMMUNITY WASTE ABATEMENT 2022 GRANT AGREEMENT to be executed by the City Administrator. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 63 COMMUNITY WASTE ABATEMENT 2022 GRANT AGREEMENT This Community Waste Abatement Grant Agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into by and between the County of Dakota, acting through its Environmental Resources Department (County) and City of West St. Paul, itself and acting as the fiscal agent for the cities of South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, and Lilydale (Grantee). WHEREAS, Metropolitan counties are responsible for waste management policy and programs (Minn. Stat. §115A.551); and WHEREAS, Dakota County Solid Waste Ordinance 110 requires each municipality in the County to have a solid waste abatement program that is consistent with the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan); and WHEREAS; the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan (Master Plan) governs all solid waste management in the County (Minn. Stat. § 115A.46); and WHEREAS, municipalities may not develop or implement a solid waste management activity that is inconsistent with the Master Plan (Minn. Stat. § 115A.46); and WHEREAS, the Master Plan supports performance-based funding for municipalities to develop and implement waste abatement programs, education, and outreach; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 19-577 (June 18, 2019), the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved the Community Waste Abatement Grant Program; and WHEREAS, funding amounts are established by the County Board each year as part of the Environmental Resources Department (Department) budget; and WHEREAS, the Grantee agrees to perform all activities described in this Agreement and Dakota County Waste Abatement Community Grant Program Exhibits 1 (Guidelines) and 2 (Application) (collectively referred to as the "Exhibits")to the satisfaction of the County. NOW THEREFORE, in reliance on the above statements and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the County and the Grantee agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide grant funding to eligible municipalities to implement solid waste abatement activities as described in this Agreement and the Exhibits. 2. ELIGIBILITY. Eligible municipalities include Apple Valley, Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Hastings, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Rosemount, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake and West St. Paul. 3. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the County and Grantee, collectively referred to as the "parties". 4. TERM. Notwithstanding the dates of signatures of the parties to this Agreement, this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022, (grant calendar year)to complete activities identified in Exhibit 2 and shall continue until April 1, 2023, for reimbursement, unless earlier terminated by law or according to the provisions of this Agreement. 5. GRANTEE OBLIGATIONS. The Grantee shall: A. Develop, implement, and operate a local comprehensive landfill abatement program that complies with the Master Plan, Dakota County Solid Waste Ordinance 110, this Agreement, and the Exhibits. B. Fulfill all responsibilities for Base and, if applicable, for Supplemental Funding as outlined in Exhibit 1. C. Report time, expense, and performance pursuant to responsibilities set forth in this Agreement using County report forms (Exhibit 2) and additional agreed-upon reporting tools provided by the County Liaison. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 2022 Grant Agreement P a g e 1 1 of 9 page 64 6. ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE EXPENSES. Grantee may use allocated funds only on eligible items as identified in Exhibit 1 and completed within the calendar year of this Agreement. Other waste abatement expenses may be eligible with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 7. FUNDING AMOUNT. Grantees receive performance-based funding in part from a pass-through grant from the State. Funding amounts are contingent upon available State and County funds and reflect the funding levels approved by the County Board as part of the annual budget. Base Funding is allocated for administration, residential communications, municipal facilities best management verification and employee education, and special collections. Optional Supplemental Funding is allocated for multifamily recycling, additional special collections or reduce/reuse activities, in-person education, event recycling/organics, and to meet funding gaps in eligible grant categories. The allocated funding for the Grantee, or the fiscal agent of a legal entity acting on its behalf, shall be in the total amount not to exceed $99,175.35, as set forth in Exhibit 2. 8. FUNDING MATCH. Grantees shall provide a 25% match of the total reimbursed grant funding amount through a cash match, in-kind contribution, or combination thereof, to pay for any new or ongoing activities that are instituted by the grant (i.e., any eligible expenses, whether new or ongoing). 9. FUNDING SOURCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Provide funding source credit on all print materials, written as: Partially funded by Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 10. RECORDS. The Grantee shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the County and the State of Minnesota. The Grantee shall manage funds in a dedicated bank account, maintain strict accountability of all funds and maintain records of all receipts and disbursements. Such records and accounts shall be maintained in a form which will permit the tracing of funds and program income to final expenditure. All records and accounts shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than five years from the last receipt of payment from the County pursuant to this Agreement. 11. PERFORMANCE REPORTING AND REIMBURSEMENT. Grantees shall report performance of responsibilities set forth in this Agreement and the Exhibits on a report form provided by the County. Grantees may request reimbursement for eligible expenses, less revenues or other funds received, incurred in connection with the performance of activities in accordance with this Agreement and the Exhibits on a reimbursement form provided by the County. Reimbursement requests must be submitted to the County Liaison by July 15 of the grant calendar year and by January 15 following the grant calendar year. The Grantee must certify that the requested reimbursements are accurate, appropriate and eligible in accordance with this Agreement, that the Grantee has submitted complete documentation of the actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought, and that such expenditures have not been otherwise reimbursed. Reimbursement requests must be supported by documentation such as vendor invoices, receipts, or detailed financial reports produced using municipal accounting software, itemizing all expenses related to the grant, including salary and benefits. Any reimbursement request for multiple municipalities must separately itemize the request for reimbursement for each individual municipality. Reimbursement request payment will not be made for activities with incomplete documentation. Complete reimbursement requests are reviewed by the County Liaison. Payment for approved reimbursement requests will be made to the Grantee within 30 calendar days of approved reimbursement request submissions. Reimbursements will be made for approved expenditures incurred within the grant calendar year. No reimbursements will be made for reimbursement requests received after February 15 following the grant calendar year. 12. FAILURE TO PERFORM. Upon review of each Grantee report, the County Liaison will notify the Grantee in writing of any unsatisfactory performance. Reimbursements will be authorized only for activities performed to the satisfaction of the County within the terms of this Agreement. 13. AMENDMENTS. The Dakota County Environmental Resources Director(Director) shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Funding Amount as requested by the Grantee, as long as the amount payable does not exceed the amount allocated in Section 7 and so long as the proposed modifications are consistent with the Agreement and Exhibits. The County Liaison shall have the authority to approve modifications to the Application activities and related expenses within a funding category as requested by the Grantee, so long as the proposed modifications are consistent with the Agreement and Exhibits. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 2022 Grant Agreement P a g e 12 of 9 page 65 14. PROPERTY. Upon termination of this Agreement or unless otherwise specified, any eligible infrastructure purchased by the Grantee or by the County and provided to the Grantee to fulfill Grant obligations shall be the sole property of the Grantee. 15. INDEMNIFICATION. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers, employees or agents. The provisions of the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 and other applicable laws govern liability of the County and Grantee. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 16. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: The following named persons are designated as the Authorized Representatives of the Parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications, except that the Authorized Representatives shall have only the authority specifically granted by their respective governing boards. The parties shall provide written notification to each other of any change to the Authorized Representative. Notice required to be provided pursuant this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement. TO THE COUNTY TO THE GRANTEE Georg T. Fischer, Director, or successor Nate Burkett, or successor, City Manager Environmental Resources Department Christy Wilcox, or successor, City Clerk/Licensing/Code Enforcement Manager 14955 Galaxie Avenue Cheryl Jacobson, or successor, City Administrator Apple Valley, MN 55124 Cathy lago, or successor, City Clerk/Admin Mary Schultz, or successor, City Administrator 17. LIAISONS. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement, to ensure compliance, and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison shall be designated by the County and the Grantee. The County and the Grantee shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the following persons are the designated liaisons: COUNTY LIAISON GRANTEE LIAISON Gena Gerard Cassandra Johnson Environmental Specialist Recycling Coordinator 952-891-7021 651-552-4118 gena.gerard(a-)co.dakota.mn.us cjohnson@wspmn.gov 18. TERMINATION, GENERAL. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by giving seven days' written notice or without cause by giving thirty (30) days' written notice, of its intent to terminate, to the other party. Such notice to terminate for cause shall specify the circumstances warranting termination of the Agreement. Cause shall mean a material breach of this Agreement and any supplemental agreements or amendments thereto. Notice of Termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery to the Authorized Representative of the other party. In addition, notification to the County or the Grantee regarding termination of this Agreement by the other party shall be provided to the Office of the Dakota County Attorney, Civil Division, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 19. TERMINATION BY COUNTY FOR LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the County may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies, or other funding source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of the amounts due under this Agreement. Written notice of termination sent by the County to the Grantee by email or facsimile is sufficient notice under this section. The County is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after written notice of termination for lack of funding. The County will not be assessed any penalty or damages if the Agreement is terminated due to lack of funding. 20. USE OF CONTRACTORS. The Grantee may engage contractors to perform activities funded pursuant to this Agreement. However, the Grantee retains primary responsibility to the County for performance of the activities and the use of such contractors does not relieve the Grantee from any of its obligations under this Agreement. If the Grantee engages any contractors to perform any part of the activities, the Grantee agrees that the contract for such services shall include the following provisions: Dakota County Contract#C0034645 2022 Grant Agreement P a g e 13 of 9 page 66 A. The contractor must maintain all records and provide all reporting as required by this Agreement. B. The contractor must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless and save the County from all claims, suits, demands, damages,judgments, costs, interest, and expenses arising out of or by reason of the performance of the contracted work, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of the contractor, including negligent acts or omissions of its employees, subcontractors, or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. C. The contractor must provide and maintain insurance through the term of this Agreement in amounts and types of coverage as set forth in the Insurance Terms, which is attached and incorporated as Exhibit 3, and provide to the County, prior to commencement of the contracted work, a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance coverage. D. The contractor must be an independent contractor for the purposes of completing the contracted work. E. The contractor must acknowledge that the contract between the Grantee and the contractor does not create any contractual relationship between County and the contractor. F. The contractor shall perform and complete the activities in full compliance with this Agreement and all applicable laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, and regulations issued by any federal, state, or local political subdivisions having jurisdiction over the activities. G. The contractor must use County toolkits (i.e., text, content, images) and follow the County's Waste Abatement Education and Outreach Style Guide to provide standardized messaging. 21. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS. The County and Grantee agree to abide by all federal, state or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereafter adopted pertaining to this Agreement or to the facilities, programs and staff for which either party is responsible, including but not limited to Minn. Stat. § 115A, which requires cities to collect recyclable materials at all facilities under their control, wherever trash is collected, and to transfer the recyclable materials to a recycler. 22. EXCUSED DEFAULT— FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be liable to the other party for any loss or damage resulting from a delay or failure to perform due to unforeseeable acts or events outside the defaulting party's reasonable control, providing the defaulting party gives notice to the other party as soon as possible. Acts and events may include acts of God, acts of terrorism, war, fire, flood, epidemic, acts of civil or military authority, and natural disasters. 23. CONTRACT RIGHTS CUMULATIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE. A. In General.All remedies available to either party for breach of this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. B. Waiver. Any waiver is only valid when reduced to writing, specifically identified as a waiver, and signed by the waiving party's Authorized Representative. A waiver is not an amendment to the Contract. The County's failure to enforce any provision of this Contract does not waive the provision or the County's right to enforce it. 24. RECORDS RETENTION AND AUDITS. Each party's bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices, and other records relevant to this Agreement are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the other party, the Legislative Auditor or State Auditor under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5. If any funds provided under this Agreement use federal funds these records are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the United States and his or her approved representative. Following termination of this Agreement, the parties must keep these records for at least six years or longer if any audit-in-progress needs a longer retention time. 25. MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the County and Grantee. 26. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign any of its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Consent under this section may be subject to conditions. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 2022 Grant Agreement P a g e 14 of 9 page 67 27. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES. For purposes of this Agreement, all data on individuals collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated shall be administered consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. 28. MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Dakota County, Minnesota or U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 29. MERGER. This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon and shall supersede all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. There are no representations, warranties, or provisions, either oral or written, not contained herein. 30. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. 31. 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 hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. FOR DAKOTA COUNTY CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL (I represent and warrant that I am authorized to (1 represent and warrant that 1 am authorized by law to execute this contract on behalf of Dakota County.) execute this contract and legally bind the Grantee.) By: By: Georg T. Fischer, Director Signature line Environmental Resources Department Printed Name: Title: Date of signature: Telephone: Date of signature: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: /s/ Helen R. Brosnahan 11/4/21 Title: Assistant County Attorney/Date KS-21-293.004 Date: Dakota County Contract#C0034645 County Board Res. No. 19-577 Dakota County Contract#C0034645 2022 Grant Agreement P a g e 15 of 9 page 68 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (1 represent and warrant that 1 am authorized by law to execute this contract and legally bind the Grantee.) By: Signature line Printed Name: Title: Telephone: Date of signature: Attest: Title: Date: Dakota County Contract#C0034645 2022 Grant Agreement P a g e 17 of 9 Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEpIgO60 Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Program 2022 Guidelines I. Grant Overview A. Municipalities in Dakota County have responsibilities to establish and maintain comprehensive local waste abatement programs. Dakota County provides educational,financial, and technical assistance to municipal governments to aid local waste abatement programs. The Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Program (Program) assists municipalities with waste abatement expenses. II. Grant Eligibility A. Dakota County municipalities are eligible for the Program, excluding Dakota County townships and the cities of Coates, Hampton, Miesville, New Trier, Randolph and Vermillion. B. Municipalities with fewer than 1,000 households are eligible for limited funding in specific categories. C. To be eligible for Municipal Facilities Verification and Education funding, municipality must have at least one municipal facility to verify or at least one employee to educate, other than the municipal Liaison. D. To be eligible for Multifamily Recycling funding, municipality must have multifamily housing. E. To be eligible for Reduce/Reuse funding, municipality must have best waste management practices in place at all municipal/park facilities. III. Grant Funding Allocation and Match A. Funding amounts are determined annually by the County Board of Commissioners. B. Base Funding: Base Funding is allocated for required grant activities, including administration, residential communications, municipal facilities/parks verification and employee education, and special collections. C. Supplemental Funding: Optional Supplemental Funding is allocated for multifamily recycling, additional special collections, reduce/reuse activities, in-person education, event recycling, and gap funding. D. Matching Funds: Cities must provide a 25% match of the total reimbursed grant funding amount (Base Funding plus Supplemental Funding)through a cash match, in-kind contribution, or combination thereof,to pay for any activities that are instituted by the grant(i.e., any eligible expenses, whether new or ongoing). Any expenses that are not listed in the Guidelines as Eligible Expenses are ineligible for matching funds unless pre-approved by the County Liaison. E. Fund Eligibility Limits and Flexibility: a fund allocation maximum is set for each Base and Supplemental Funding grant category to align funding levels with Master Plan priorities, diversion potential, and other criteria, as defined in the Fund Allocation document. Fund allocations may be adjusted across grant categories, up to 10%, while not exceeding the total fund allocation for a given year, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp,20 TO IV. Grant Application Instructions A. Complete all pages of the Application, excluding shaded areas for reporting. B. If multiple municipalities submit one Application, the Application must itemize descriptions, costs, and funding requests for each municipality. Insert additional rows as needed. C. Submit Application by October 1, 2021 to Dakota County for review. Email to: gena.gerard@co.dakota.mn.us. D. Finalize Application and collect signature of authorized representative (i.e., authorized contract signatory). E. Submit signed Application to Dakota County for approval. Email to: gena.gerard@co.dakota.mn.us. F. Obtain Grant Agreement from Dakota County. G. Execute Grant Agreement. H. Complete all shaded areas for the mid-year and final reports as described in Guidelines Section VII. V. Funding Requests Part 1: Base Funding Request (Required) 1. Grant Administration Minimum Grant Requirements a. Fulfill responsibilities necessary for effective grant administration and demonstrate performance of waste abatement programs. b. Identify and ensure new municipal Liaison(s) is properly trained to fulfill responsibilities by attending the Dakota County Master Recycler/Composter class or equivalent as approved by the County Liaison. c. Participate in solid waste management training (e.g.,Association of Recycling Managers [ARM] regional meetings, ARM workshops, RAM/SWANA conference)to support effective implementation of responsibilities. d. Ensure municipal Liaison(s) attends at least four of the six Program meetings hosted by the County Liaison. e. Refer persons, groups, and organizations as appropriate to County Programs (e.g., business, multifamily, school). f. Provide reasonable support to implement the Solid Waste Master Plan, as requested by the County. g. Maintain current waste management information on the municipal website: i. Describe city solid waste collection requirements for haulers; ii. Describe city solid waste collection requirements for generators, including commercial generators, events, multifamily properties; iii. Post the County's standardized messages for residential recycling materials (i.e.,the yes/no "what to recycle" list); and iv. Link to Dakota County website pages for Dakota County Recycling Requirements, the Recycling Guide, The Recycling Zone, Residential Recycling, Business Recycling, Multifamily Recycling, School Recycling, Event Recycling, and Environmental Education Resources. h. Demonstrate Program compliance and waste abatement metrics in mid-year and final reports that include information for all Base and Supplemental funded projects, as described in Reporting and Reimbursement below. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp8gO 7® i. Submit reimbursement requests by County deadlines with substantiating documentation, as described in Reporting and Reimbursement below. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage of personnel, full-time and temporary, working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. b. Solid waste training and professional memberships to support effective implementation of Base Funding or Supplemental Funding activities, excluding out-of-state travel and lodging. c. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance. d. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 2. Residential Communications Minimum Grant Requirements a. Provide written waste abatement information to all residents of single-family and multifamily dwellings by including County standardized messaging articles and images in Municipality-mailed newsletters on each of the following topics,with full pages preferred as resources allow: i. Curbside recycling; ii. Residential services at the Recycling Zone; iii. Residential organics drop-off site(s); and iv. Local reuse opportunities for residents (e.g., local donation and exchange options, County online Dakota County Reduce & Reuse Map, County Fix-It Clinics). b. Promote County staff-developed electronic media messages (e.g., website, social media, e-news) about solid waste and household hazardous waste management, including all priority waste abatement topics listed above using County messaging standards. c. Serve as a resource to residents on waste abatement-related inquiries (e.g., email, phone). d. Provide funding source credit on all print materials, written as: Partially funded by Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. e. Submit written residential waste abatement information to County Liaison for review at least three business days before printing. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. b. Percentage of cost for design, production, and postage for municipality newsletter devoted to waste abatement articles on topics listed in Requirements above using County standardized messaging articles and images. c. Outreach media usage fees (e.g., advertisements,videos, billboards, radio,video,theater, television, e-news, and social media) for waste abatement standardized messaging. d. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance. e. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 3. Municipal Facilities/Parks Verification and Education Minimum Grant Requirements a. Ensure collected recyclables and organics generated at municipal facilities/parks are delivered to the respective licensed facility, or to another facility approved by the County Liaison. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp®gd 7B b. Provide monitoring and verification of best waste management practices at least once annually, by: i. Visually inspecting waste management at all municipality-controlled facilities, including parks; and ii. Reporting on status of compliance with Dakota County Ordinance 110 using the Municipal Recycling Tracking Tool or another tool provided by Dakota County, to verify recycling programs for facilities under the municipality's control collect the Designated List of Recyclables wherever trash is collected and follow best waste management practices. c. Provide County standardized solid waste abatement messaging in print or electronic format to each municipal employee,volunteer, tenant, and custodial/housekeeping staff annually, and other people responsible for sorting, collecting, or transporting waste to external carts or dumpsters, within 30 days of a new hire or new tenant, and within 30 days of a substantive change to your recycling or waste program. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. b. Copying and printing waste abatement education materials for municipal employees and vendors, such as signs, trainings and mass communication using County messaging standards. c. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance. d. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 4. Special Collections Minimum Grant Requirements a. Implement one or more drop-off collection days, events, curbside collections, permanent drop-off collection sites, or combination thereof to collect specific traditional and non-traditional solid waste materials from residents for reuse or recycling. b. Collect all of the following materials from residents for reuse or recycling or organics composting, with preference given to reuse: i. Confidential paper for shredding ii. Mattresses and box springs iii. Pumpkins c. The following optional materials may also be collected from residents for reuse or recycling, with preference given to reuse: i. Bicycles ii. Cardboard iii. Carpet iv. CFLs V. Furniture vi. Holiday lights vii. Scrap metal viii. Textiles ix. Other materials as pre-approved by the County Liaison. d. Obtain confirmation that collected materials are delivered to a reuse location or to a licensed recycling/organics facility, or to another facility approved by the County Liaison. e. Obtain and report weights for each material collected. f. Promote special collection opportunities to all single-family and multifamily residents using County messaging standards. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp5gO 70 g. Submit promotional communications to County Liaison for review at least three business days before publication. h. Ensure special collection opportunities are conveniently located and scheduled,with an independent collection opportunity for each municipality having 1,000 households or more; a municipality with fewer than 1,000 households may coordinate with a neighboring municipality for co-collection. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities (i.e., for collection of materials listed above). b. Vendor services, less resident fees, to collect materials listed above at a residential drop-off day or event with confirmed delivery to a reuse, recycling, or organics facility. c. Up to 25%costs for vendor services, less resident fees, to collect materials listed above at a permanent residential collection drop-off site with confirmed delivery to a reuse, recycling, or organics facility. d. Up to 25% costs for vendor services, less resident fees, to collect materials listed above through a curbside collection with confirmed delivery to a reuse, recycling, or organics facility. e. Print media copying/printing to promote special collection opportunities and permanent drop-off sites to residents (e.g., posters, flyers, signs) using County messaging standards. f. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance. g. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities with prior written approval from the County Liaison. Part 2: Supplemental Funding Request (Optional) 5. Multifamily Recycling Minimum Grant Requirements a. Conduct any of the following activities: i. Take or maintain an inventory of all multifamily properties in the Municipality, create a list or directory, and provide a copy to Dakota County. ii. Develop new or strengthen existing points of contact ("touchpoints" such as business license renewals, rental license renewals, rental inspections, fire inspections, and property manager meetings)to implement city requirements. iii. Send a mailing to property managers and owners about recycling resources, in coordination with County staff. iv. Identify, strengthen, or both: municipal planning and construction procedures to support recycling and organics in new or remodeled buildings (e.g., internal chutes; adequate internal and external space). V. Work with County Liaison to identify and provide technical assistance for up to three multifamily properties enrolled in the Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program to implement best waste management practices by: 1. First attending Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program technical assistance training; 2. Providing on-site needs assessments to systematically evaluate and document opportunities to enhance recycling and waste prevention, and to meet best practices, using County materials; Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp6gd 79 3. Using needs assessments to complete applications for the Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program in collaboration with property managers to request County-supplied containers, labels, signage, education materials, staff and resident education as needed, and other technical assistance; 4. Implementing approved plans in coordination with property managers, haulers, County staff, and other partners; 5. Providing targeted on-site employee and resident education about recycling and waste prevention, including the recycling system within the building, in partnership with the County Liaison, using County messaging standards; 6. Promoting reuse and bulky waste collection opportunities for multifamily tenants at move-in/move-out; 7. Collaborating with the County Liaison for culturally specific needs such as translation and interpretation; 8. Following all Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program protocols for outreach and technical assistance, best waste management practices, and education, using County messaging standards; and 9. Tracking and reporting on outcomes for each participating property, using forms or tools provided by the County Liaison. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. b. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance. c. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 6. Additional Special Collections and Reduce/Reuse Activities Minimum Grant Requirements a. Provide updates to the County's online Dakota County Reduce & Reuse Map. b. Implement any of the following three activities: 1. Implement one or more additional Special Collection drop-off days, events, curbside collections, permanent drop-off collection sites, or combination thereof to collect specific (see Section 4.c.) traditional and non-traditional solid waste materials from residents for reuse or recycling. 2. Coordinate with County Liaison to implement one or more residential reduce/reuse activities: i. Host residential swap events. ii. Implement a reusable bag exchange at specific location(s) (e.g., local store,farmer's market, co-op). iii. Host or facilitate a lending library for tools, lawn and gardening equipment, kitchenware, crafting, camping equipment, or other items as pre-approved by the County Liaison. iv. Host residential reduce or reuse education classes (e.g., simple mending, how to downsize). V. Add material reuse at existing collections (e.g., cleanup days). vi. Leverage existing residential activities to plan or start reuse activities (e.g., coordinate with realtors to promote reuse prior to home sales; coordinate with a local repair business to host a repair event). vii. Facilitate changes to municipality codes, policies, and practices that are barriers to reuse (e.g., clothing drop box prohibitions). Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEpOgO 76 viii. Other reduce/reuse activities as pre-approved by the County Liaison. 3. Facilitate changes to internal policies and practices to reuse supplies and equipment (e.g., furniture, computers, pens)when they are no longer needed, for both internal and external reuse. i. Attend Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Green Team meetings. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities described in Requirements above). b. Vendor services, less resident fees,to collect materials listed above at a residential drop-off day or event with confirmed delivery to a reuse, recycling, or organics facility. c. Up to 25%costs for vendor services, less resident fees, to collect materials listed above at a permanent residential collection drop-off site with confirmed delivery to a reuse, recycling, or organics facility. d. Up to 25%costs for vendor services, less resident fees, to collect materials listed above through a curbside collection with confirmed delivery to a reuse, recycling, or organics facility. e. Print media copying/printing to promote special collection opportunities and permanent drop-off sites to residents (e.g., posters, flyers, signs) using County messaging standards. f. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance. g. Reduce/reuse activity expenses with prior written approval (e.g., start-up supplies). h. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 7. In-Person Education Minimum Grant Requirements a. Provide in-person waste abatement education for adults and youth through face-to-face interactions during presentations or at booths, events, or gatherings to educate 1%or more of the Municipality's population through a direct learning experience, on the following topics: i. Curbside recycling (required) ii. Residential organics drop site(s) (optional) iii. Residential services at the Recycling Zone (optional) iv. Local reuse opportunities for residents (optional) b. Use County materials for promotional and distribution handouts. c. Review display and education materials with County liaison in advance of in-person education. d. If conducting online education, provide a live format with interactive opportunities (i.e., no pre- recorded videos). e. Use messaging standards on County website for verbal education. f. Coordinate with County Liaison for any education requests in schools, businesses, and multifamily residences. g. Track and report on outcomes using County forms, on an annual basis or more often as requested, including monitoring presentation attendance (e.g., sign-in sheet or head count), online webinar attendance (e.g., number of people who log on), booth interactions (e.g., clicker or tally sheet), and game interactions (e.g., clicker or tally sheet). Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, while working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities (i.e.,only activities Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp9gO 76 described in Requirements above; does not include brochure distribution, or any activities lacking an educational face-to-face interaction and direct learning experience). b. Printing or copying of promotional or distribution pieces (e.g., posters, flyers,guides) complying with County messaging standards and approved in advance by County Liaison, if not duplicative of existing County publications. c. Event, booth, and room rental fees. d. Fees for County-approved professional educators and performers who help implement required education activities on topics listed above and comply with County messaging standards. e. County-approved promotional items up to$500 in value that create minimal waste and contribute to waste abatement education. f. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an individual, organization or group to provide assistance. g. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 8. Event Recycling and Organics Collection Minimum Grant Requirements a. Implement recycling, back-of house organics collection, or both, at events. i. Contact and assist event coordinators to plan and implement recycling collection, back-of-house organics collection, or both. ii. Assist with obtaining temporary containers, proper bags, signage, hauler services for collection, and as appropriate, recruit waste station staffing. iii. Assist with applying best waste management practices for standardized messaging to vendors, volunteers, and custodial staff; labeled and an appropriate number of co-located recycling and trash containers in strategic locations to prevent overflow; and delivery to a licensed/permitted facility. iv. For recyclables collection, prioritize events on public property that generate at least one ton (8cy) of trash (e.g., community events, athletic tournaments, fairs, markets, concerts, etc.). V. For organics collection, prioritize events of at least 300 people that generate back-of-house organics and at least one ton (8 cy) of trash. vi. Obtain confirmation that collected materials are delivered to a licensed or otherwise approved recycling/organics facility if grant funds are being used for hauling services at city events. b. Coordinate with the County Liaison to develop or update municipal permits and agreements to require recycling/back-of-house organics with best waste management practices at events, tournaments, and festivals (e.g., event permit, event vendor agreement, facility rental agreement, event hauler agreement), consistent with city codes and County Ordinance 110. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, while working on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. b. X-frame containers, grabbers, green 5-gallon buckets, signage, X-Frame bags for recyclables and organics, promotion and other materials necessary for successful project implementation at large events. Purchased assets are the property of the city for use at events. c. Recycling/organics hauling services of collected materials from city events/tournaments/festivals, with confirmed delivery to a licensed recycling/composting facility, or to another facility approved by the County Liaison. d. Consultant/contract services or stipend for an organization or group to provide assistance, prioritizing large events. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -PagEp@gO 7m e. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities, with prior written approval from the County Liaison. 9. Gap Funding Minimum Grant Requirements a. Complete, or make progress toward completing, one or more waste abatement projects included in eligible grant categories above, for which additional funding is needed,with first priority given to filling funding gaps in Base Funding categories, and second priority given to filling gaps in Supplemental Funding categories. Eligible Expenses a. Salary, benefits, and mileage for municipality personnel, full-time and temporary, while working directly on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. b. Expenses for completion of projects that are eligible, as defined in Grant Requirements and Eligible Expenses sections above. c. Other expenses to administer grant-funded activities with prior written approval from the County Liaison. VI. Ineligible Expenses The following expenses are ineligible for funding: a. Expenses that are not specified as an eligible expense above, unless written approval has been obtained from the County Liaison. b. Expenses related to non-waste abatement waste issues (e.g., energy,water, sustainability). c. Expenses related to land disposal of materials, and collection and management of banned materials, trash, hazardous and household hazardous waste and business waste, unless specifically identified above (e.g., residential compact fluorescent bulb collection, multi-stream containers). d. Expenses related to city code amendments and enforcement (e.g., code compliance administration, programming and communications; inspections). e. Municipality-generated waste management. f. Food or refreshments unless approved by the County Liaison as compliant with Dakota County Policy 2740. g. Design/print of education and communications print materials not described above, unless prior written approval has been obtained from the County Liaison. h. Out-of-state meals, travel, and lodging. i. Office supplies and equipment including phone charges and website fees. j. Waste collection containers and lids, unless specifically identified above (e.g., X-frames for events). VII. Reporting and Reimbursement Grant Requirements a. By July 15, 2022, Municipality shall submit a mid-year report and reimbursement request form for the first six months of 2022, on forms provided by the County Liaison. b. By January 15, 2023, Municipality shall submit a final report and reimbursement request form for the last six months of 2022, on forms prescribed by the County Liaison. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 1 -Page Pagg 76 c. Mid-year and final reports shall include time spent on each category, and for each city if applicable, for municipality personnel,full-time and temporary, while working directly on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities during the reimbursement period. d. Report and reimbursement request forms must be signed by the Authorized Representative (i.e., contract signatory) for the grant agreement, or by other designee who is independent of municipality personnel who work directly on the planning, implementing, promoting, and reporting of eligible activities. e. Reimbursement requests must be for eligible expenses, less revenues or other monies received, incurred in connection with the performance of grant activities. f. Reimbursement requests must be supported by documentation such as vendor invoices, receipts, or detailed financial reports produced using municipal accounting software, itemizing all expenses related to the grant, including salary and benefits. Any reimbursement request for multiple municipalities must separately itemize the request for reimbursement for each individual municipality. g. Salary and benefits cannot exceed the total amount budgeted for salary and benefits in the Application unless reasonable justification is provided and approved by County Liaison in advance. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEpAW 29 Dalcota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Program 2022 Application Application Deadline: October 1, 2021 Municipality: West St, Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake and Lilydale Application Submittal Date: 10/1/2021 Funding Period: January 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022 2022 Report and Reimbursement Request July 15, 2022 for January-June 2022 Due Dates: January 15, 2023 for July-December 2022 Authorized Representative(Contract Signatory) Name: Nate Burkett Title: City Manager E-mail: nburl<ett@wspmn.gov Phone: 651-552-4101 Municipality Primary Contact Designated Liaison: Cassandra Johnson Title: Recycling Coordinator E-mail: cjohnson@wspmn.gov Phone: 651-552-4118 Mailing Address: 1616 Humboldt Ave, West St. Paul, MN 55118 Municipality Secondary Contact Designated Back-up: Dave Schletty Title: Asst.Parks&Rec Director E-mail: DSchlettV@wspmn.gov Phone: 651-552-4152 Municipality Communications Contact Name: WSP: Dan Nowicki Title: Marketing& Communications Manager E-mail: dnowicl<i@wspmri.gov Phone: 651-552-4117 Name: SSP: Shelly Anderson Title: Asst. City Administrator E-mail: snderson@southstpaul.org Phone: 651-554-3203 Name: MH: Sharon Deziel Title: Communications Email: SDeziel@mendotaheightsmn. phone: 651-255-1347 gov Name: SFL: Mile Hovey Title: Communications Email: mhovey@hmcc.com Phone: 651-554-0433 Name: LD: Mary Schultz Title: City Administrator Email: cityoflilydale@comcast.net Phone: 651-457-2316 Budget Summary Fund Eligibility Fund Request Part 1: Base Funding Request(Required) 1. Administration $29,000 $28,980 2. Residential Communications $16,500 $16,500 3. Municipal Facilities Verification and Education $3,840 $3,834 4. Special Collections $17,225.25 $15,846 Subtotal $66,595.25 $65,160 Part 2:Supplemental Funding Request(Optional) 1. Multifamily Recycling $17,116.50 $16,127 2. Additional Special Collections and Reduce/Reuse Activities $9,202.80 $4,034 1lPage Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEp2gpd 60 3. In-Person Education + Event Recycling and Organics $11,503.50 $7,918.20 4. Gap Funding $5,936.15 $5,936.15 Subtotal $43,758.95 $34,015.35 Total Eligible Grant Funding $110,354.20 Total Grant Funding Request $99,175.35 Total Grant Match/In-Kind Funding(25%) $28,134.5 Total Cost of Proposed Activities(Request+ Match) $127,309.85 Total Grant Diversion Potential (Tons) 144 2 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEp8g 80 A. Application and Reporting Instructions 1. Complete all pages of the Application, excluding shaded areas for reporting. 2. If multiple municipalities submit one Application,the Application must itemize descriptions, costs, and funding requests for each municipality. Insert additional rows as needed. 3. Submit Application by October 1, 2021 to Dakota County for review. Email to: ggna.gerard@co.dakota.mn.us. 4. Finalize Application and collect signature of authorized representative (i.e., authorized contract signatory). 5. Submit signed Application to Dakota County for approval. Email to:gena., erard@co.dal<ota.mn.us. 6. Obtain Grant Agreement from Dakota County. 7. Execute Grant Agreement. 8. Complete all shaded areas for the mid-year and final reports as described in Guidelines Section VII. R. Grant Request and Reimbursement Expenses Part 1: Rase Funding (Required) 1 Grant Administration Description of Expense Cost Basis Funding tan-Jun Jul-Dec Calcu7ation'� Request. Actual = Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Requirements for Base Funding#1 Name:Cassandra Johnson City of West St.Paul Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 160 hours $5,600 Name:Cassandra Johnson City of South St,Paul Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 160 hours $5,600 Name:Cassandra Johnson City of Mendota Heights Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 160 hours $5,600 Name:Cassandra Johnson City of Sunfish Lake Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 28 hours $980 Name:Cassandra Johnson City of Lilydale Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 28 hours $980 RAM/SWANA&ARM membership,$461 from SSP $500 budget,remaining$39 from MH (RAM/SWANA)+ Training budget $35 ARM workshop $535 Mileage between all conferences and meetings, $0.58/mile x 374 driving between locations,out miles Mileage of MH budget $217 Communications Manager Dan Nowicki time with verifying County links on website are Other:WSP Salary active and link to correct pages $45/hr x 3 hours $135 Asst.Parks and Rec Director Dave Schletty filling in during Cassandra's maternity leave Other:WSP Salary from Jan 1—late March $65/hr x 50 hours $3,250 Communications and Asst.City Manager Shelly Anderson staff time in verifying County links on website are active and link to Other:SSP Salary correct pages $63/hr x 3 hours $189 3 1 P a g e Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEp4V g0 Licensing/Code Enforcement Division Manager Christy Wilcox's time filling in during Other:SSP Salary Cassandra's maternity leave $55/hr x 50 hours $2,750 Communications Sharon Deziel staff time in verifying County links on website are active and Other:MH Salary link to correct pages $33/hr x 3 hours $99 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek filling in during Other:MH Salary Cassandra's maternity leave $87/hr x 35 hours $3,045 Other: Funding Request Subtotal - $28,980 Asst.Parks&Rec Director Dave WSP Matching Funds Schletty supervisory time $65/hr x 40 hours $2,600 Licensing/Code Enforcement Division Manager Christy Wilcox Christy:$55/hr x 40 Supervisory time,Community& hours [$2,200 a Economic Development Monika &Monika:$35/hr 350]_ SSP Matching Funds Mann Staff time x10 hours $2,550 Public Works Director Ryan MH Matching Funds Ruzek supervisory time $87/hr x 40 hours $3,480 City Clerk/City Administrator Cathy lago's salary supervising SFL Matching Funds time $36/hr x 10 hours $360 Communications,Mike Hovey, staff time updating website and SFL Matching Funds I verifying links $48/hr x 2 hours $96 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) N a. Fulfill responsibilities necessary for effective grant administration and demonstrate performance of waste abatement programs. N b. Identify and ensure new municipal Liaison(s)is properly trained to fulfill responsibilities by attending the Dakota County Master Recycle r/Com poster class or equivalent as approved by the County Liaison. N c. Participate in solid waste management training(e.g.,Association of Recycling Managers[ARM] regional meetings,ARM workshops,RAM/SWANA conference)to support effective implementation of responsibilities. Describe training plans for(b)and(c):Liaison has already taken the Master Recycler class and will participate in ongoing training opportunities through ARM and RAM/SWANA conferences as well as online trainings. N d. Ensure municipal Liaison(s)attends at least four of the six Program meetings hosted by the County Liaison. N e. Refer persons,groups,and organizations as appropriate to County Programs(e.g.,business,multifamily,school). N f. Provide reasonable support to implement the Solid Waste Master Plan,as requested by the County. N g. Maintain current waste management Information on the municipal website: I. Describe municipal solid waste collection requirements for haulers; li. Describe municipal solid waste collection requirements for generators,including commercial generators,events, multifamily properties; iii. Post the County's standardized messages for residential recycling materials(i.e.,the yes/no"what to recycle"list); and iv. Link to Dakota County website pages for Dakota County Recycling Requirements,the Recycling Guide,The Recycling Zone,Residential Recycling,Business Recycling,Multifamily Recycling,School Recycling,Event Recycling,and Environmental Education Resources N h. Demonstrate Program compliance and waste abatement metrics in mid-year and final reports that include information for all Base and Supplemental funded projects,as described in Reporting and Reimbursement below. N i. Submit reimbursement requests by County deadlines with substantiating documentation,as described in Reporting and Reimbursement below. ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) 0 4 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEpSg BO Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) • List training attended/memberships obtained • Provide links to website pages Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional Information(optional) • List training attended/memberships obtained • Provide links to website pages Activity Report:Jul-Dec 1 • Additional Information(optional) 2. Residential Communications Description of Expense Cost Basis Funding Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Calculation Requ6st Actual Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Requirements for Base Funding#2 Name:Cassandra Johnson WSP Salary Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 80 hours $2,800 Name:Dan Nowicki,Marketing &Communications Manager, editing and compiling recycling articles into the newsletter, along with advertising recycling events throughout the year on WSP Assisting Staff Salary social media and newsletter $45/hr x 4 hours $180 Name:Cassandra Johnson SSP Salary Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 80 hours $2,800 Name:Shelly Anderson, Communications and Asst.City Administrator, editing and compiling recycling articles into the newsletter, along with advertising recycling events throughout the year on SSP Assisting Staff Salary social media and newsletter $63/hr x 3 hours $189 Name:Cassandra Johnson MH Salary Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 80 hours $2,800 Name:Sharon Deziel, Communications,editing and compiling recycling articles into the newsletter,along with advertising recycling events throughout the year on social MH Assisting Staff Salary media and newsletter $33/hr x 6 hours $198 Name:Cassandra Johnson SFL Salary Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 20 hours $700 Name:Cassandra Johnson LD Salary Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 20 hours $700 [$760 for 1 full- color page in newsletter which includes printing and postage x2 full pages per year (each article requiring%page)_ Article expense(%of cost) WSP newsletter expense $1,520] $1,520 [$755 for 1 full- color page in newsletter which includes printing and postage x2 full Article expense(%of cost) SSP newsletter expense pages per year $1,510 SIPage Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEp@V 20 (each article requiring%page)_ $1,510] [$751 for 1 full- color page in newsletter which includes printing and postage x2 full pages per year (each article requiring%page)_ Article expense(%of cost) MH newsletter expense $1,502] $1,502 $200 x 4 articles, including printing Article expense(%of cost) SFL newsletter expense and postage $800 $200 x 4 articles, including printing Article expense(%of cost) LD newsletter expense and postage $800 Other: Funding Request Subtotal $16,499 Communications Manager Dan Nowlcki time with social media WSP Matching Funds +newsletter $45/hr x 25 hours $1,125 Communications and Asst.City Administrator Shelly Anderson Shelly:$63/hr x 12 staff time,Community Affairs hours:$756 Liaison Deb Griffith social media Deb:$48/hr x 8 SSP Matching Funds and advertisement help hours=$384 $1,140 Communications Sharon Deziel MH Matching Funds staff time $33/hr x 35 hours $1,155 City Clerk/City Administrator Cathy lago's salary,helping with newsletter creation,printing, SFL Matching Funds stuffing,postage and mailing $36/hr x 11 hours $396 City Administrator Mary Schultz's salary compiling, editing,printing and sending LD Matching Funds newsletter $53/hr x 8 hours $424 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a. Provide written waste abatement information to all residents of single-family and multifamily dwellings by including County standardized messaging articles and images in Municipality-mailed newsletters on each of the following topics,with full pages preferred as resources allow: L Curbside recycling; ii. Residential services at the Recycling Zone; iii. Residential organics drop-off site(s);and iv. Local reuse opportunities for residents(e.g.,local donation and exchange options,County online Dakota County Reduce&Reuse Map,County Fix-it Clinics). ® b. Promote County staff-developed electronic media messages(e.g.,website,social media,a-news)about solid waste and household hazardous waste management,including all priority waste abatement topics listed above using County messaging standards. ® c. Serve as a resource to residents on waste abatement-related inquiries(e.g.,email,phone). ® d. Provide funding source credit on all print materials,written as:Partially funded by Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. ® e. Submit written residential waste abatement information to County Liaison for review at least three business days before printing. ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) 0 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) 6 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEpZg 86 ® List mailed.newsletter article topic,date mailed,:and#households receiving mailer N List social media platforms used,which County messages were promoted,and when. Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional Information(optional) ® List mailed newsletter article topic,date mailed,and#households receiving mailer ® List social media platforms used,which County messages were promoted,and when Activity Report:Jul-Dec « Additional Information(optional) 3r Municipal Facilities/Parks C pense ost Basis . Funding Jan-Jun Jul-Dec "Description of Ex Verification and.Education Calculation Request Actual Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Requirements for Base Funding#3 Name:Cassandra Johnson WSP Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 34 hours $1,190 Name:Cassandra Johnson SSP Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 37 hours $1,295 Name:Cassandra Johnson MH Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 36 hours $1,260 Name:Cassandra Johnson LD Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 1 hour $35 $0.58/mile x 17 Mileage WSP mileage miles $9 Mileage $0.58/mile x 43 SSP mileage miles $25 Mileage $0.58/mile x 34 MH mileage miles $20 Education materials for employees Other: Funding Request Subtotal - $3,834 Mike Sanders,Public Works staff WSP Matching Funds time assisting with verification $50/hr x 6 hours $300 Pat Dunn Public Works Director and Seth Anderson Public Works Staff time,assisting with SSP Matching Funds verification $40/hr x 10 hours $400 John Boland Parks/Facility Staff salary,assisting with parks MH Matching Funds verification $67/hr x 6 hours $402 City Administrator Mary Schultz's salary to assist with LD Matching Funds I verification $63/hr x 1 hour $63 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a. Ensure collected recyclables and organics generated at municipal facilities/parks are delivered to the respective licensed facility,or to another facility approved by the County Liaison. ® b. Provide monitoring and verification of best waste management practices at least once annually,by: i. Visually inspecting waste management at all municipality-controlled facilities,including parks;and ii. Reporting on status of compliance with Dakota County Ordinance 110 using the Municipal Recycling Tracking Tool or another tool provided by Dakota County,to verify recycling programs for facilities under the municipality's control collect the Designated List of Recyclables wherever trash is collected and follow best waste management practices. ® c. Provide County standardized solid waste abatement messaging in print or electronic format to each municipal employee, volunteer,tenant,and custodial/housekeeping staff annually,and other people responsible for sorting,collecting,or transporting waste to external carts or dumpsters,within 30 days of a new hire or new tenant,and within 30 days of a substantive change to your recycling or waste program Describe plan:For all the cities:visually inspect buildings and containers for BMPs as set by the County,ensure new hires are given recycling education electronically within 30 days of hire and ensure hauling contracts have waste taken to licensed facilities. Recycling information will also be available in each City Hall lobby for new hires to take a print piece if needed, ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. 7 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEpOV 26 Diversion Potential(Tons) 0 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) Describe how delivery to licensed facilities was ensured Describe how monitoring and verification was done • Describe how municipal employees were educated,or attach education piece(s)used • Describe how custodial/housekeeping staff/vendors/tenants were educated,or attach education piece(s)used Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional Information(optional) • Describe how delivery to licensed facilities was ensured Describe how monitoring and verification was done • Describe how municipal employees were educated,or attach education piece(s)used • Describe how custodial/housekeeping staff/vendors/tenants were educated,or attach education piece(s)used Activity Report:Jul-Dec • Additional Information(optional) 4 Special Collections Description of Expense ; Cost Basis Funding Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Calculation: ;Request Actual Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Requirements for Base Funding#4 Name:Cassandra Johnson WSP Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr X 40 hours $1,400 Name:Cassandra Johnson SSP Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr X 40 hours $1,400 Name:Christy Wilcox Title:Licensing/Code Enforcement Division Manager $55f hrx 5 hours $275 SSP Assisting Staff Salary Purpose:Working Clean Up Day Name:Cassandra Johnson MH Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr X 40 hours $1,400 Name:Cassandra Johnson SFL Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr X 2.5 $87.5 Name:Cassandra Johnson LD Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr X 2.75 $97 [3 paper trucks x 3 hours with transport=$2,400] +[$25/per mattress,estimate of 90 collected= $2,250through 2nd Chance Recycling] + [20-yard roll off for WSP:April paper shredding, pumpkins,including mattress recycling through delivery and SET Clean Up Day in September, disposal costs= pumpkin dumpster the first $700] Vendor services weekend after Halloween $5,350 [2 paper trucks x 3 hours with transport,split with local credit union= $9001+[$25/per mattress,estimate 100 collected= $2,500 through 2nd SSP:June paper shredding, Chance Recycling] + mattress recycling through [20-yard roll off for Clean Up Day in September, pumpkins,including pumpkin dumpster the first delivery and SET Vendor services weekend after Halloween disposal costs= $4,300 8 1 P a g e Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-PagEp@g tie $700]+[$200 scrap metal roll off x2] [$25/per mattress, estimate of 80 collected=$2,000 through 2nd Chance Recycling] +[20- MH:October Paper shredding, yard roll off for Mattress recycling in pumpkins,including September,and Pumpkin delivery and SET dumpster the first weekend disposal costs= Vendor services after Halloween $700] $2,700 SFL:Mattresses through MH's September event,paper through WSP's April and MH's October event,SFL will join $25/mattress x 3 WSP/SSP/MFI pumpkin collected=$125 collection events held the first through 2nd Chance Vendor services weekend after Halloween Recycling $75 LD:Mattresses through MH's [$25/mattress x 3 September event,paper collected through through WSP's Spring event and 2nd Chance MH's October event,LD will join Recycling=$75]+ WSP/SSP/MH pumpkin contribution of collection events held the first $300 toward MH's Vendor services weekend after Halloween October shred]. $375 $0.58/mile x 100 Other:Mileage Mileage out of WSP budget miles $58 $0.25/flyer x 152 WSP Promotion expense Color flyers out of WSP budget flyers $38 Advertising in newsletter for Clean Up Day, paper shred, WSP Promotion expense pumpkins and mattresses $1,000 $1,000 Advertising in newsletter for Clean Up Day, paper shred, SSP Promotion expense pumpkins and mattresses $1,000 $1,000 Other: $15/mattress x 90 Anticipated Revenue WSP Mattress revenue estimated=$1,350 -1350 $15/mattress x 100 Anticipated Revenue SSP Mattress revenue estimated=$1,500 -1500 $10/mattress x 80 Anticipated Revenue MH Mattress revenue estimated=$800 -800 $10/mattress x 3 Anticipated Revenue SFL Mattress revenue estimated=$30 -30 $10/mattress x 3 Anticipated Revenue LD Mattress revenue estimated=$30 -30 WSP$6,496, SSP$5,475 MH$3,300 SFL:$132.5 Funding Request Subtotal(Deduct LD:$442 Revenue) - $15,846 Communications Manager Dan Nowicki time with updating Dan:$45/hr x 8 website for events,creating hours=$360 flyers for events and posting on social media Dave:$65/hr x 4 hours=$260 Asst.Parks and Rec Director, Dave Schletty,staff time Diane:$35/hr x 3 WSP Matching Funds supervising and assisting with hours=$105 $725 9 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page 05gd 88 acquiring space for events and coordinating barricades/cones Diane Erickson,Volunteer Coordinator,staff time acquiring volunteers Christy Wilcox,Licensing/Code Enforcement Division Manager, planning Clean Up Day Christy$55/hr x 15 Pat Dunn,Public Works hours=$825 Director,assisting with barricades,cones and moving Pat$40/hr x 9 SSP Matching Funds equipment hours=$360 $1,185 Public Works Director Ryan Ryan:$87/hr x 6 Ruzek supervising/planning time hours:$522 John Boland,Parks/Facility Staff John:$76/hr x 6 salary,assisting with barricades, hours:$460 MH Matching Funds event layout and planning $982 City Clerk/City Administrator Cathy lago's salary,helping plan SFL Matching Funds and promote $36/hr x 1 hour $36 City Administrator Mary Schultz's staff time promoting LD Matching Funds I events $63/hr x 7 hours $441 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a. Implement one or more drop-off collection days,events,curbside collections,permanent drop-off collection sites,or combination thereof to collect specific traditional and non-traditional solid waste materials from residents for reuse or recycling. ® b. Collect all of the following materials from residents for reuse or recycling or organics composting,with preference given to reuse: Xi. Confidential paper for shredding ® ii. Mattresses and box springs ® iii. Pumpkins ® c. The following optional materials may also be collected from residents for reuse or recycling,with preference given to reuse (check all that apply): ❑ I. Bicycles ❑ ii. Cardboard ❑ iii. Carpet ❑ iv. CFLs ❑v. Furniture ®vi. Holiday Lights ❑vii. Scrap Metal 0 viii. Textiles ❑ ix. Other materials as pre-approved by the County Liaison ® d. Obtain confirmation that collected materials are delivered to a reuse location or to a licensed recycling/organics facility,or to another facility approved by the County Liaison. ® e. Obtain and report weights for each material collected. ® f. Promote special collection opportunities to all single-family and multifamily residents using County messaging standards. ® g. Submit promotional communications to County Liaison for review at least three business days before publication. ® h. Ensure special collection opportunities are conveniently located and scheduled,with an independent collection opportunity for each municipality having 1,000 households or more;a municipality with fewer than 1,000 households may coordinate with a neighboring municipality for co-collection. ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. 20 tons of paper+20 tons of pumpkins+10 tons of mattresses+1 Diversion Potential(Tons) ton of holiday lights+2 tons scrap metal+1 ton of textiles+54 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) 101 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page pAgpEf 80 List material collected,name of vendor/hauler,event name,city,date,and tons weighed or reported by vendor/hauler;include quantities(#pieces)if available Describe how delivery to a reuse location or licensed facility was ensured Describe how collection opportunities were promoted to all residents Activity Report:Jan-Jun e Additional Information(optional) • List material collected, name of vendor/hauler,event name,city,date,and tons weighed or reported by vendor/hauler;include quantities(#pieces)if available ® Describe how delivery to a reuse location or licensed facility was.ensured • Describe how collection opportunities were promoted to all residents Activity Report:Jul-Dec • Additional Information(optional) Jan4un` Jul-Dec .BASE FUNDING SUMMARY Actual ; Actual `Total Base Funding $65,160 Total Base Funding Matching . Funds ,, $17,863 Total Base FundmgDiversion Potential(Tons). 54 Total Base Funding Staff Hours 1,164.25 Part 2: Supplemental Funding (Optional) 5. Multifamily Recycling Description of Expense Cost Basis Funding Jan Jun. Jul-Dec Calculation Request Actual .,. ,Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Name: Requirements for Supplemental#5 Title: #Hours: WSP to serve 3 properties at roughly Name:Cassandra Johnson 40 hours per site Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 120 hours $4,200 SSP to serve 3 properties at roughly 40 Name:Cassandra Johnson hours per site Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 120 hours $4,200 MH to serve 3 properties at roughly 33 Name:Cassandra Johnson hours per site Title: Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 100 hours $3,500 $0.58/mile x 250 miles out of WSP Other: mileage budget $145 Ordinance 110+Multifamily Grant Program mailer to all $2,000 available for Other:WSP Mailer multifamily properties printing/postage $2,000 Ordinance 110+Multifamily Grant Program mailer to all $2,000 available for Other:SSP Mailer multifamily properties printing/postage $2,000 Ordinance 11.0+Multifamily Grant Program mailer to all $82 available for Other:MH Mailer multifamily properties printing/postage $82 Funding Request Subtotal - $16,127 Laura Vaughan,Crime Prevention Specialist,staff time assisting with Multifamily recruiting,connections with property managers and passing County information along in e- WSP Matching Funds news to property managers $48/hr x 12 hours $576 Zach Ludwig,Housing and Code Inspector,staff time assisting WSP Matching Funds with referring properties to $40/hr x 52 hours $2,080 11 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page 02gpEf 90 Multifamily grant and communicating with properties Deb Griffith,Community Affairs Liaison,staff time referring properties to Multifamily grant SSP Matching Funds and identifying new properties $48/hr x 15 hours $720 Renee Bredy,Code Enforcement Officer,staff time assisting with referring properties to Multifamily grant and SSP Matching Funds communicating with properties $40/hr x 40 hours $1,600 Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek staff time identifying potential new properties and directing inquiries to Multifamily MH Matching Funds Grant $87/hr x 20 hours $1,740 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) a. Conduct any of the following activities(check all that apply): ❑ 1. Take or maintain an inventory of all multifamily properties in the Municipality,create a list or directory,and provide a copy to Dakota County. ❑ ii. Develop new or strengthen existing points of contact("touch points"such as business license renewals,rental license renewals, rental inspections,fire inspections,and property manager meetings)to implement city requirements. Describe plan:Click or tap here to enter text. ® ill. Send a mailing to property managers and owners about recycling resources,in coordination with County staff. ❑ iv. Identify,strengthen,or both:municipal planning and construction procedures to support recycling and organics in new or remodeled buildings(e.g.,internal chutes;adequate internal and external space). Describe plan:Click or tap here to enter text. lZ v. Work with County Liaison to identify and provide technical assistance to up to three multifamily properties enrolled in the Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program to implement best waste management practices by: 1. First attending Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program technical assistance training; 2. Providing on-site needs assessments to systematically evaluate and document opportunities to enhance recycling and waste prevention,and to meet best practices,using County materials; 3. Using needs assessments to complete applications for the Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program in collaboration with property managers to request County-supplied containers,labels,signage,education materials,staff and resident education as needed,and other technical assistance; 4. Implementing approved plans in coordination with property managers,haulers,County staff,and other partners; 5. Providing targeted on-site employee and resident education about recycling and waste prevention,including the recycling system within the building,in partnership with the County Liaison,using County messaging standards; 6. Promoting reuse and bulky waste collection opportunities for multifamily tenants at move-in/move-out; 7. Collaborating with the County Liaison for culturally specific needs such as translation and interpretation; 8. Following all Dakota County Multifamily Recycling Program protocols for outreach and technical assistance,best waste management practices,and education,using County messaging standards;and 9. Tracking and reporting on outcomes for each participating property,using forms or tools provided by the County Liaison. ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) 72 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) • Attach updated multifamily inventory,if applicable • List new points of contact with multifamily properties,if applicable • Describe communications about recycling resources and requirements,if applicable. • Describe activities related to planning and construction procedures,if applicable • Provide the#of multifamily buildings that were invited to:participate in the program,#of multifamily buildings that received technical assistance or education,total# households/units served,and#residents that received In-person education,if applicable. Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional Information(optional). • Attach updated multifamily inventory,if applicable • List new points of contact with multifamily properties,if applicable • Describe communications about recycling resources and requirements,if applicable Activity Report:Jul-Dec • Describe activities related to planning and construction procedures,if applicable 12 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page 08gpEf 20 Provide the#of multifamily buildings that were invited to participate in the program,#of multifamily buildings that received technical assistance or education,total# households/units served,and#residents that received in-person education,if applicable. • Additional Information(optional). 6. Additional Special Collections Cost Basis Funding Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Description of Expense —andReduce/ReuseActivitiesi, Calculation Request " Actual "Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Name: Requirements for Supplemental#6 Title: #Hours: $35/hr x(5 hours Name:Cassandra Johnson per class x 3 classes] WSP Salary staff time for Reuse classes Title:Recycling Coordinator 15 total hours $525 Stipend for speakers at 3 classes: Decluttering/downsizing,Basic Declutter:$250 WSP to host 3 Reuse classes for Sewing and Cooking with Sewing:$250 residents of WSP/SSP/MH/SFL/LD Leftovers Leftovers:$300 $800 Name:Cassandra Johnson SSP Salary staff time for costume swap Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 10 hours $350 Deb Griffith,Community Affairs SSP Salary staff time to assist hosting Liaison,assisting with costume Costume Swap swap $48/hr x 5 hours $240 MH Salary staff time for textile collection event and/or athletic gear Name:Cassandra Johnson collection event Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 10 hours $350 MH Salary staff time for Fall paper Name:Cassandra Johnson shred event Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 4 hours $140 2 paper trucks x 3 Pioneer Secure Shred for hours with MH Vendor Services October paper shred event transport=$1,600 $1,600 $0.58/mile x 50 Other: Mileage from WSP budget miles $29 Funding Request Subtotal - $4,034 Communications Manager Dan Nowicki time with updating website to promote reuse events,social media,flyer creation and promotion Asst.Parks and Rec Director Dan:$45/hr x 5 Dave Schletty staff time hours=$225 supervising and assisting with Dave:$65/hr x 3 WSP Matching Funds acquiring space for classes hours=$195 $420 Communications and Asst.City Manager Shelly Anderson staff time in advertising and SSP Matching Funds promoting events $63/hr x 2.5 hours $157.5 Communications Sharon Deziel staff time updating website to promote reuse events, and social media to promote Reuse MH Matching Funds I classes and costume swap $33/hr x 3 hours $99 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a. Provide updates to the County's online Dakota County Reduce&Reuse Map. ® b. Implement any of the following three activities(check all that apply): ® 1.Implement one or more additional Special Collection drop-off days,events,curbside collections,permanent drop-off collection sites,or combination thereof to collect specific(see Section 4.c.)traditional and non-traditional solid waste materials from residents for reuse or recycling. ® 2.Coordinate with County Liaison to implement one or more residential reduce/reuse activities(check all that apply): 131 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page 04gd 90 M I. Host residential swap events. ❑ ii. Implement a reusable bag exchange at specific location(s)(e.g.,local store,farmer's market,co-op). ❑ iii. Host or facilitate a lending library for tools,lawn and gardening equipment,kitchenware,crafting,camping equipment,or other items as pre-approved by the County Liaison. M iv. Host residential reduce or reuse education classes(e.g.,simple mending,how to downsize). ❑v. Add material reuse at existing collections(e.g.,cleanup days). ❑vi. Leverage existing residential activities to plan or start reuse activities(e.g.,coordinate with realtors to promote reuse prior to home sales;coordinate with a local repair business to host a repair event). ❑vii. Facilitate changes to municipality codes,policies,and practices that are barriers to reuse(e.g.,clothing drop box prohibitions). ❑viii. Other reduce/reuse activities as pre-approved by the County Liaison:Click or tap here to enter text. Describe plans for reduce/reuse activities in(1)to(viii):Host reuse classes such as:Basic Sewing(repairs such as buttons,fixing small tears etc),Decluttering(donation and downsizing for reuse),Cooking with leftovers,possibly hosting an "Athletic Gear Donation Drive"drop/collection box and textile recycling along with costume swap„ ❑ 3.Facilitate changes to internal policies and practices to reuse supplies and equipment(e.g.,furniture,computers,pens) when they are no longer needed,for both internal and external reuse. I. Attend Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Green Team meetings. ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) 1 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) • List or attach Reduce and Reuse Map updates • List material collected,name of vendor/hauler,event name,city,date,tons and if available quantities(#pieces) ® Describe reduce/reuse activity,city,location,date,waste prevention weights if available, and tracked number of people participating,if applicable 9 Describe changes to internal policies and practices,if applicable Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional information(optional) 4 List or attach Reduce and Reuse Map updates • .List material collected,name of vendor/hauler,event name,city,date,tons and if available quantities(#pieces) ® Describe reduce/reuse activity,city,location,date,waste prevention weights if available, and tracked number of people participating,If applicable • Describe changes to internal policies and practices,if applicable Activity Report:Jul-Dec • Additional information(optional) 7. In-Person Education* Description.of Expense Cost Basis Funding ` Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Calculation Request Actual Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Name: Requirements for Supplemental#7 Title: #Hours: Name:Cassandra Johnson WSP Staff Salary Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 20 hours $700 Name:Cassandra Johnson SSP Staff Salary Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 20 hours $700 Name:Cassandra Johnson MH Staff Salary Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 20 hours $700 Name:Cassandra Johnson SFL Staff Salary Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 2.5 $88 Event/booth fees $0.58/mile x 100 Mileage driving from city miles from WSP Other: facilities to the event site budget $58 $3.6/kit x 129 kits+ Promotional Giveaways at booth WSP Reusable Cutlery Kits $35 shipping $499.40 141 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page 05gpEf 20 $3.6/kit x 129 kits+ Promotional Giveaways at booth SSP Reusable Cutlery Kits $35 shipping $499.40 $3.6/1<it x 129 kits+ Promotional Giveaways at booth MH Reusable Cutlery Kits $35 shipping $499.40 $0.25/color copy x Flyers for education booth to 250 copies from Printing/copying promote reuse events WSP budget $63 Funding Request Subtotal $3,807.20 Communications Manager Dan Nowicki time with updating website for events,creating flyers and posting on social media Asst.Parks&Rec Director Dave Dan:$45/hr x 6 Schletty supervisory time and hours=$270 assistance with coordinating these events in tandem with Dave:$65/hr x 3 WSP Matching Funds Parks Department hours=$195 $465 Deb Griffith,Community Affairs Liaison,staff time working farmers market,coordinating for Taco Feed and recruiting volunteers to assist,as well as SSP Matching Funds working Taco Feed $48/hr x 10 hours $480 Sharon Deziel,Communications, advertising events throughout the year on social media and flyer creation Krista Spreiter,Natural Resources Technician,assisting $33/hr x 5 hours= coordinating and working Tree $165 Sale event and Nite to Unite event $45/hr x 8 hours= MH Matching Funds $360 $525 Jim Nayes,City Forester,staff SFL Matching Funds time assisting with Arbor Day $50/hr x 2 hours $100 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a, Provide in-person waste abatement education for adults and youth through face-to-face interactions during presentations or at booths,events,or gatherings to educate 1%or more of the Municipality's population through a direct learning experience,on the following topics: L Curbside recycling(required) ii. Residential organics drop site(s)(optional) Ill. Residential services at the Recycling Zone(optional) iv. Local reuse opportunities for residents(optional) Describe plan for education activities,including event name,city,location,date,and number/range of people to educate: WSP: Events to attend:Open House(end of September)located at City Hall;estimated attendance:500. COPS in the Park(end of August) located at Southview Park estimated attendance:500. Nite to Unite Luncheon (beginning of August) located at City Hall Fire Bay, estimated attendance:200 SSP: Events to attend: Farmers Market at least 3x(season runs June-Oct)at 1151 Southview Blvd,estimated attendance per week: 150.Taco Feed (mid-April) located at Croatian Hall,estimated attendance:500. Pancake Breakfast(late June) located at Fury Motors, estimated attendance:500. MH:Tree Sale(beginning of May)located at Public Works, estimated attendance:200. Parks Celebration (first weekend in June) located at Mendakota Park,estimated attendance:400.Coffee Connection(beginning of June) located at MH City Hall,estimated attendance:75.Superhero Masquerade(mid- November)at Dakota Lodge, estimated attendance: 60.SFL:Arbor Day(beginning of May) located at Musser Park, estimated attendance:30. ® b. Use County materials for promotional and distribution handouts. ® c. Review display and education materials with County liaison in advance of in-person education. 151 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page pggpEf 20 ® d. If conducting online education,provide a live format with interactive opportunities(i,e.,no pre-recorded videos). ® e. Use messaging standards on County website for verbal education. ® f. Coordinate with County Liaison for any education requests in schools,businesses,and multifamily residences. ® g. Track and report on outcomes using County forms,on an annual basis or more often as requested,including monitoring presentation attendance(e.g.,sign-in sheet or head count),online webinar attendance(e.g,,number of people who log on), booth interactions(e.g.,clicker or tally sheet),and game interactions(e.g.,clicker or tally sheet). ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) 0 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) ® List event name,city,location,date,and tracked number of people educated Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional information(optional) • List event name,city,location,date,and tracked number of people educated Activity Report:Jul-Dec • Additional information(optional) 8. Event Recycling and Organics. Cost Basis ;Funding Jan-Jun Jul-Dec Description of Expense Collection_ Calculation eque"st . Actual Actual Staff:Salary to administer Grant Name: Requirements for Supplemental#8 Title: #Hours: Name:Cassandra Johnson Title:Recycling Coordinator Nite to Unite in August,Open WSP Salary Staff Time House in September $35/hr x 10 hours $350 Name:Cassandra Johnson Title:Recycling Coordinator April Taco Feed,June Kaposia $35/hr x 33 hours $1,155 Days/Pancake Breakfast, SSP Salary Staff Time October On the Road Again Name:Cassandra Johnson Title:Recycling Coordinator updating event permits and $35/hr x 7 hours $245 MH Salary Staff Time agreements Hire the Vanella Group for recycling assistance at Kaposia Recycling services SSP Days and On the Road Again $900 per event x2 $1,800 Mileage from city properties to $0.58/mile x 100 Other:Mileage events,from WSP budget miles $58 Organics bags for Xframes:$58/case x 4 cases+$40 estimated shipping costs=$272 Clear Stream bags for Xframes: $49/case x 4 cases+ $35 estimated shipping costs= Other:Xframe bags from WSP budget Bags for Xframes $231 $503 Funding Request Subtotal - $4,111 Laura Vaughan,Crime Prevention Specialist,staff time assisting with coordinating WSP Matching Funds events and recruiting volunteers $45/hr x 5 hours $225 Deb Griffith,Community Affairs Liaison,staff time coordinating events and promoting on social media and recruiting volunteers Deb:$48/hr x 8 hours=$384 Pat Dunn,Public Works Director Pat:$40/hr x 10 SSP Matching Funds Staff time,assisting with hours=$400 $784 16 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page IDZgpEf 96 coordinating events, barricades/cones and delivering containers as necessary Terry Sullivan,Facility Manager, assistance with hauling and MH Matching Funds storing Xframes $50/hr x 6 hours $300 Combined Subtotal for#7 and#8* $7918.20 Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a. implement recycling,back-of house organics collection,or both,at events, I. Contact and assist event coordinators to plan and implement recycling collection,back-of-house organics collection, or both. ii. Assist with obtaining temporary containers,proper bags,signage,hauler services for collection,and as appropriate, recruit waste station staffing, Ill. Assist with applying best waste management practices for standardized messaging to vendors,volunteers,and custodial staff;labeled and an appropriate number of co-located recycling and trash containers in strategic locations to prevent overflow;and delivery to a licensed/permitted facility. IV. For recyclables collection,prioritize events on public property that generate at least one ton(8cy)of trash(e.g,, community events,athletic tournaments,fairs,markets,concerts,etc.). V. For organics collection,prioritize events of at least 300 people that generate back-of-house organics and at least one ton(8 cy)of trash. vi. Obtain confirmation that collected materials are delivered to a licensed or otherwise approved recycling/organics facility if grant funds are being used for hauling services at city events. ® b. Coordinate with the County Liaison to develop or update municipal permits and agreements to require recycling/back-of-house organics with best waste management practices at events,tournaments,and festivals(e.g.,event permit,event vendor agreement,facility rental agreement,event hauler agreement),consistent with city codes and County Ordinance 110. ❑ Other:Click or tap here to enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) 2.5 Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) • List event,city,date,weights if available,and tracked number of people participating if applicable Activity Report:Jan-Jun • Additional information(optional) • List event,city,date,weights if available,and tracked number of people participating if applicable • Additional information(optional) Activity Report:Jul-Dec *Supplemental Funding categories#7 and#8 share one funding allocation;combined subtotals may not exceed maximum fund eligibility. Cost Basis Funding Jan-Jun Jul-Dec 9 Gap Funding Description of Expense Calculation ;,,, Request, :,Actual ,.,.,. =.Actual_. Staff:Salary to administer Grant Name: Requirements for Supplemental#9 Title: #Hours: (Insert grant category eligible Other: for gap funding) If more than 3 properties are identified,and more staff time is needed Name:Cassandra Johnson West St.Paul Multifamily Recycling Title:Recycling Coordinator $35/hr x 67 hours $2,331.68 $1,471.71 allotted Hiring the Vanelia Group if it for Vanella Group costs more than$900 per event, usage for hauling expenses and/or hauling expenses South St.Paul Events Recycling Working more In-Person Ed at Expenses,and In-Person Education the farmers market if needed to $35/hr x 20 hours salary expenses reach more residents =$700 $2,171.71 171 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page pggpd 86 Funds to be used for mattress Mendota Heights Special Collections recycling if more than 80 units $15/mattress x 82 Expenses are collected mattresses $1 232.54 To be used for Arbor Day if more time goes into planning and working the event Sunfish Lake In Person Education Staff Name:Cassandra Johnson $35/hr x 1.3 Salary Title:Recycling Coordinator hours $47.73 To be used if any category reaches its max and required GAP funding Name: Cassandra Johnson $35/hr x 4.3 Lilydale Salary Title:Recycling Coordinator hours $152.49 $5,936. Funding Request Subtotal - 15 Matching Funds Description of Activity(Minimum Grant Requirements) ® a. Complete,or make progress toward completing,one or more waste abatement projects included in eligible grant categories above,for which additional funding is needed,with first priority given to filling funding gaps in Base Funding categories,and second priority given to filling gaps in Supplemental Funding categories.). Describe plan:WSP:Gap Funding will be used if more than 3 properties are identified for 2022 and staff salary time is needed to complete the Multifamily Grant.SSP: Gap Funding will be used for additional staff salary time to work more farmers markets(in person education)as well as if hiring Vanella Group is more expensive than what is currently set aside in Events Recycling,MH:Gap Funding will be used towards Special Collections expenses if more mattresses are collected than expected.SFL:Gap Funding will be used for Arbor Day,as the current funding allotted In the In Person Education category is not sufficient for full planning and to actually work the event.LD:Gap Funding will be used in case any category exceeds the current budget. ❑ Other:Click or tap hereto enter text. Diversion Potential(Tons) If MH uses Gap Funding for more mattresses:4 tons Other Potential Outcomes(Optional) o List activity,description,city,date,weights if available,tracked number of people Activity Report:Jan-Jun participating if applicable,and any other outcomes ® List activity, description, city, date, weights if available, tracked number of people Activity Report:Jul-Dec participating if applicable,and any other outcomes Jan-Jun Jul-Dec SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING SUMMARY Report Report Total Supplemental Funding Request $34,015.35 Total Sup pl eme hta V Matching Funds, $10,271.5 Total Supplemental Diversion •Potential(Tons) 80 Total Supplemental Funding Staff, l; Hours 560 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec APPLICATION SUMMARY Report Report Total Base and Supplemental Funding Request(Combined) $99,175.35 Total Base and Supplemental Matching Funds(Combined) $28,135 181 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page O@gpd 20 Total Base and Supplemental Diversion Potential(Combined) 134 Total Base and Supplemental Funding Staff Hours(Combined) 1,724.25 C. Application Signature I,the undersigned authorized representative and contract signatory, certify that this application was prepared under my direction or supervision, and that the information is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge. I certify that all activities proposed in this Application will be implemented as planned and support Dakota County waste abatement activities. I certify that a mid-year report will be submitted to Dakota County by July 15, 2022, and a final report will be submitted to Dakota County by January 15, 2023,to demonstrate compliance with this application. Authorized Representative(Contract Signatory): Tel ftm go2 Title: C I.Qq A,^1 W� Signature(electronic signature acceptable): Date: TA 1Z Report and Reimbursement Request for January 1, 2022--June 30,2022* Due:July 15,2022 I,the undersigned, certify that this report was prepared under my direction or supervision, and that the information is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Authorized Representative(Contract Signatory): Title: Signature (electronic signature acceptable): Date: Total Reimbursement Request: Report and Reimbursement Request for July 1,2022—December 31, 2022* Due:January 15,2023 I,the undersigned,certify that this report was prepared under my direction or supervision, and that the information is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge. Authorized Representative(Contract Signatory): Title: Signature (electronic signature acceptable): Date: Total Reimbursement Request: 191Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 2-Page P@gO 28 *Attach documentation for all expenses as described in Dakota County Community Waste Abatement Grant Program 2022 Guidelines, 201 Page Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 3-PagEag®99 INSURANCE TERMS Contractor agrees to provide and maintain at all times during the term of this Contract such insurance coverages as are indicated herein and to otherwise comply with the provisions that follow. Such policy(ies)of insurance shall apply to the extent of,but not as a limitation upon or in satisfaction of, the Contract indemnity provisions. The provisions of this section shall also apply to all Subcontractors, Sub-subcontractors, and Independent Contractors engaged by Contractor with respect to this Contract,and Contractor shall be entirely responsible for securing the compliance of all such persons or parties with these provisions. APPLICABLE SECTIONS ARE CHECKED ® 1. Workers Compensation. Workers' Compensation insurance in compliance with all applicable statutes including an All States or Universal Endorsement where applicable. Such policy shall include Employer's Liability coverage in an amount no less than$500,000. If Contractor is not required by Statute to carry Workers'Compensation Insurance,Contractor agrees: (1)to provide County with evidence documenting the specific provision under Minn.Stat.§ 176.041 which excludes Contractor from the requirement of obtaining Workers'Compensation Insurance;(2)to provide prior notice to County of any change in Contractor's exemption status under Minn.Stat.§ 176.041;and(3)to hold harmless and indemnify County from and against any and all claims and losses brought by Contractor or any subcontractor or other person claiming through Contractor for Workers' Compensation or Employers'Liability benefits for damages arising out of any injury or illness resulting from performance of work under this Contract. If any such change requires Contractor to obtain Workers'Compensation Insurance,Contractor agrees to promptly provide County with evidence of such insurance coverage. ® 2. General Liability. "Commercial General Liability Insurance"coverage(Insurance Services Office form title),providing coverage on an"occurrence"rather than on a"claims made"basis,which policy shall include,but not be limited to,coverage for Bodily Injury,Property Damage,Personal Injury,Contractual Liability (applying to this Contract), Independent Contractors, "XC&U" and Products-Completed Operations liability (if applicable). Such coverage may be provided under an equivalent policy form(or forms),so long as such equivalent form(or forms)affords coverage which is at least as broad. An Insurance Services Office "Comprehensive General Liability" policy which includes a Broad Form Endorsement GL 0404(Insurance Services Office designation) shall be considered to be an acceptable equivalent policy form. Contractor agrees to maintain at all times during the period of this Contract a total combined general liability policy limit of at least$1,500,000 per occurrence and aggregate,applying to liability for Bodily Injury,Personal Injury,and Property Damage,which total limit may be satisfied by the limit afforded under its Commercial General Liability policy,or equivalent policy,or by such policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(or policies);provided,that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella or Excess Liability policy is at least as broad as that afforded by the underlying Commercial General Liability policy(or equivalent underlying policy). Such Commercial General Liability policy and Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(or policies)may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverages afforded thereunder,so long as such aggregate limits have not,as of the beginning of the term or at any time during the term,been reduced to less than the total required limits stated above, and further, that the Umbrella or Excess Liability policy provides coverage from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying Commercial General Liability policy become reduced or exhausted. An Umbrella or Excess Liability policy which"drops down"to respond immediately over reduced underlying limits,or in place of exhausted underlying limits,but subject to a deductible or"retention"amount, shall be acceptable in this regard so long as such deductible or retention for each occurrence does not exceed the amount shown in the provision below. Contractor's liability insurance coverage may be subject to a deductible,"retention"or"participation"(or other similar provision)requiring the Contractor to remain responsible for a stated amount or percentage of each covered loss;provided,that such deductible,retention or participation amount shall not exceed$25,000 each occurrence. ® Such policy(ies)shall name Dakota County,its officers,employees and agents as Additional Insureds thereunder. ❑ 3. Professional Liability. Professional Liability(errors and omissions)insurance with respect to its professional activities to be performed under this Contract. This amount of insurance shall beat least$1,500,000 per occurrence and aggregate(if applicable). Coverage under such policy may be subject to a deductible,not to exceed$25,000 per occurrence. Contractor agrees to maintain such insurance for at least one(1)year from Contract termination. It is understood that such Professional Liability insurance may be provided on a claims-made basis,and,in such case,that changes in insurers or insurance policy forms could result in the impairment of the liability insurance protection intended for Dakota County hereunder. Contractor therefore agrees that it will not seek or voluntarily accept any such change in its Professional Liability insurance coverage if such impairment of Dakota County's protection could result; and further, that it will exercise its rights under any "Extended Reporting Period" ("tail coverage") or similar policy option if necessary or appropriate to avoid impairment of Dakota County's protection. Contractor further agrees that it will,throughout the one(1)year period of required coverage,immediately: (a)advise Dakota County of any intended or pending change of any Professional Liability insurers or policy forms,and provide Dakota County with all pertinent information that Dakota County may reasonably request to determine compliance with this section; and (b) immediately advise Dakota County of any claims or threats of claims that might reasonably be expected to reduce the amount of such insurance remaining available for the protection of Dakota County. Dakota County Contract#C0034645 Exhibit 3-PqMT@ 609 ® 4. Automobile Liability. Business Automobile Liability insurance covering liability for Bodily Injury and Property Damage arising out of the ownership,use,maintenance,or operation of all owned,non-owned and hired automobiles and other motor vehicles utilized by Contractor in connection with its performance under this Contract. Such policy shall provide total liability limits for combined Bodily Injury and/or Property Damage in the amount of at least$1,500,000 per accident,which total limits may be satisfied by the limits afforded under such policy,or by such policy in combination with the limits afforded by an Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(ies);provided,that the coverage afforded under any such Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(ies) shall be at least as broad with respect to such Business Automobile Liability insurance as that afforded by the underlying policy. Unless included within the scope of Contractor's Commercial General Liability policy,such Business Automobile Liability policy shall also include coverage for motor vehicle liability assumed under this contract. ® Such policy,and,if applicable,such Umbrella or Excess Liability policy(ies),shall include Dakota County,its officers,employees and agents as Additional Insureds thereunder. ® 5. Additional Insurance. Dakota County shall, at any time during the period of the Contract,have the right to require that Contractor secure any additional insurance,or additional feature to existing insurance,as Dakota County may reasonably require for the protection of their interests or those of the public. In such event Contractor shall proceed with due diligence to make every good faith effort to promptly comply with such additional requirement(s). ® 6. Evidence of Insurance. Contractor shall promptly provide Dakota County with evidence that the insurance coverage required hereunder is in full force and effect prior to commencement of any work. At least 10 days prior to termination of any such coverage,Contractor shall provide Dakota County with evidence that such coverage will be renewed or replaced upon termination with insurance that complies with these provisions. Such evidence of insurance shall be in the form of the Dakota County Certificate of Insurance,or in such other form as Dakota County may reasonably request,and shall contain sufficient information to allow Dakota County to determine whether there is compliance with these provisions. At the request of Dakota County, Contractor shall, in addition to providing such evidence of insurance,promptly furnish Contract Manager with a complete(and if so required, insurer- certified)copy of each insurance policy intended to provide coverage required hereunder. All such policies shall be endorsed to require that the insurer provide at least 30 days' notice to Dakota County prior to the effective date of policy cancellation,nomenewal, or material adverse change in coverage terms. On the Certificate of Insurance,Contractor's insurance agency shall certify that he/she has Error and Omissions coverage. ® 7. Insurer: Policies. All policies of insurance required under this paragraph shall be issued by financially responsible insurers licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, and all such insurers must be acceptable to Dakota County. Such acceptance by Dakota County shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. An insurer with a current A.M.Best Company rating of at least A:VH shall be conclusively deemed to be acceptable. In all other instances,Dakota County shall have 15 business days from the date of receipt of Contractor's evidence of insurance to advise Contractor in writing of any insurer that is not acceptable to Dakota County. If Dakota County does not respond in writing within such 15 day period,Contractor's insurers) shall be deemed to be acceptable to Dakota County. ® 8. Noncompliance. In the event of the failure of Contractor to maintain such insurance and/or to furnish satisfactory evidence thereof as required herein, Dakota County shall have the right to purchase such insurance on behalf of Contractor, which agrees to provide all necessary and appropriate information therefor and to pay the cost thereof to Dakota County immediately upon presentation of invoice. ® 9. Loss Information. At the request of Dakota County,Contractor shall promptly furnish loss information concerning all liability claims brought against Contractor(or any other insured under Contractor's required policies),that may affect the amount of liability insurance available for the benefit and protection of Dakota County under this section. Such loss information shall include such specifics and be in such form as Dakota County may reasonably require. ® 10. Release and Waiver. Contractor agrees to rely entirely upon its own property insurance for recovery with respect to any damage,loss or injury to the property interests of Contractor. Contractor hereby releases Dakota County,its officers,employees,agents,and others acting on their behalf, from all claims,and all liability or responsibility to Contractor,and to anyone claiming through or under Contractor,by way of subrogation or otherwise,for any loss of or damage to Contractor's business or property caused by fire or other peril or event,even if such fire or other peril or event was caused in whole or in part by the negligence or other act or omission of Dakota County or other party who is to be released by the terms hereof,or by anyone for whom such party may be responsible. Contractor agrees to effect such revision of any property insurance policy as may be necessary in order to permit the release and waiver of subrogation agreed to herein. Contractor shall,upon the request of Dakota County,promptly provide a Certificate of Insurance,or other form of evidence as may be reasonably requested by Dakota County, evidencing that the full waiver of subrogation privilege contemplated by this provision is present; and/or,if so requested by Dakota County,Contractor shall provide a full and complete copy of the pertinent property insurance policy(ies). K/CM/Exh/Insure-No-Prof-Liability-CM.doc Revised: 10/07 page 101 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 51. 651.452.1850 phone IdX www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Settlement Agreement and Sanitary Sewer Connection Agreement for 2535 Condon Court INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve a settlement agreement and sanitary sewer connection agreement for 2535 Condon Court. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights adopted resolution 2017-92 on October 30, 2017 adopting and confirming special assessments for the Mendota Heights Road and Kensington Neighborhood Improvement project. Also on October 30, 2017, the Council adopted resolution 2017-93 deferring the sanitary sewer assessment for the property located at 2535 Condon Court. The deferred assessment was to accrue interest during deferral at a rate of 4.814 percent. The resolution also stated that the assessment must be satisfied if the property is sold, connects to the sewer, or the completion of the assessment payoff term. DISCUSSION On April 4, 2021, The Condon Court Exchange, owners of the subject property,paid the original assessment amount($42,644.18), accrued interest($6,003.16), and a Sewer Access Charge (SAC) from the Metropolitan Council ($2,485)under protest. The sewer line serving this property was raised during installation of the sewer line to avoid an underground wetland which resulted in this property not being served by a gravity sewer and a pump system would be required if connecting to the city sewer. The property owners determined that replacing their drain field with a new mound system would better serve the property and are requesting a reimbursement of the paid assessment($42,644.18) and SAC fee ($2,485). The attached agreement requires a connection charge equal to the levied assessment($42,644.18) and SAC fee to be paid to the city upon any connection to the city sewer. The SAC fee is set by the Metropolitan Council and is unable to be determined at this time. BUDGET IMPACT The city will retain the accrued interest from the assessment hearing to the date the assessment was paid under protest. The sanitary sewer utility will be reimbursed for the sewer assessment fee at the time of connection. page 102 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the attached Settlement Agreement and Sewer Connection Agreement for 2535 Condon Court. ACTION REQUESTED If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, make a motion to approve the attached Settlement Agreement and Sanitary Sewer Connection Agreement. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 103 (reserved for recording) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2535 CONDON COURT FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD & KENSINGTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201409, 201616) THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated the day of , 2021, by and between the CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and CONDON COURT EXCHANGE, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("Owner"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Condon Court Exchange, LLC, is the owner of certain property located at 2535 Condon Court, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120, more particularly described as Parcel No. 27-03500-80-021, the legal description of which is the following described property situated in Dakota County, Minnesota: That part of the SE 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of the SE 1/4 of said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49 (Formerly No. 88); thence West, along the said South line 450 feet; thence North 819 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 113 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of the said SE 1/4, a distance of 305 feet, more or less, to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49 as built (formerly No. 88); thence Southerly, along the center line of said Highway, 114 feet, more or less, to a point on a line which is parallel with the South line of the said SE 1/4 and passes through the point of beginning; thence West, parallel with the South line of the said SE 1/4, a distance of 319.48 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom that part which lies Easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet Westerly of the following line; beginning at a point on the East 1 page 104 and West quarter line of Section 2, Township 27,Range 23, distant 612.2 feet West of the East Quarter thereof, thence run Northerly at an angle of 85 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds with said East and West Quarter line (when measured East to North)325.9 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 13 degrees 59 minutes for 2,064.8 feet; thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 30 minutes circular curve(delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for 1,526.7 feet and terminating; together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and Westerly of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line distant 633.5 feet Southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and extending Northerly to the North line of the above described tract, according to the government survey thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Parcel ID No. 27-03500-80-021 [hereinafter"Subject Property"]; and WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, constructed the Mendota Heights Road&Kensington Street Improvements(Project No. 201409,201616)("Public Improvement"); and WHEREAS, on October 30, 2017, the Mendota Heights City Council adopted Resolution 2017-93,which approved the deferral of the assessment for the Public Improvement on the Subject Property pursuant to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Owner subsequently paid the assessment of$42,644.18, accrued interest of $6,007.95, and SAC paid to the Metropolitan Council of $2,485.00, as contemplated in Resolution 2017-93 in full in the amount of$51,137.13 to the City on April 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, after remitting payment in full to the City, the Owner sought and received a permit to install a new mound sewer system at the Subject Property rather than connecting to the available City sewer connection; and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested that City return the amount the Owner paid for the assessment and SAC paid to the Metropolitan Council in the amount of$45,129.18, and the City is agreeable to that request provided that the Owner agree and consent to paying the assessment amount and then applicable SAC fee should the Subject Property ever connect to the available City sewer system. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. REFUND OF AMOUNTS PAID BY OWNER. a. City agrees to refund to Owner$45,129.18, which represents the amount of the assessment and SAC fee paid by Owner. 2 page 105 b. City agrees to refund this amount within 30 days of City Council approval of this Agreement. 2. CONNECTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO CITY SEWER. a. City agrees that the Subject Property will not be required to connect to the City sewer system unless and until: (i)the new mound system installed on the Subject Property fails and is no longer adequate to serve the Subject Property; and (ii)there is no reasonable and feasible alternative, which meets all applicable regulatory requirements, to connection to the City sewer. b. Owner agrees that if the mound system fails and there is no reasonable and feasible alternative, then Owner will, at Owner's expense, connect the Subject Property to City sewer. 3. FEES IN LIEU OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. Owner agrees that City calculated the proper amount due from the Subject Property for the Public Improvement and agrees to pay, at the time of connection of the Subject Property to the City sewer: a. A fee of$42,644.18, without interest; and b. A sewer access charge (SAC) fee, in the amount applicable at the time of the connection. 4. MUTUAL RELEASE. The parties, and their successors and assigns, unconditionally release and forever discharge each other, their elected officials, employees, agents, and insurers, from any and all claims and causes of action of whatever kind or nature that is in any way connected with or related to the Fees and Public Improvement. The parties shall indemnify and hold harmless each other and their officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims, damages, and losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, which may be suffered or for which they may be held liable, rising out or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts, or obligations in consequence of the performance of this Agreement, to the extent allowed by law. 5. BINDING EFFECT; RECORDING. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Owner and its successors and assigns in title to the Subject Property. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. 3 page 106 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first above written. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Stephanie Levine, Mayor By: Lorri Smith, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,2021,by Stephanie Levine and Lorri Smith,respectively the Mayor and City Clerk, of the City of Mendota Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by the City Council. Notary Public 4 page 107 OWNER: CONDON COURT EXCHANGE, LLC By: [print name] Its [title] STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021, by , the of Condon Court Exchange, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road,Suite 290 Eagan,Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651)452-5000 EKB 5 U H 1. o T o ^ w v N Co 0 « ni o "O O ri O « m m o O « h ao v ui v v16v d o N o o O '=D d d d O oLD 0 C0 H H 7y O N M M p 6 N ^ O mo O O Q N W W M O O Y Ol c en c c O en O O s0+ > of > > of O W O O o IvMj O v p O o O 2 W 2 Q 2 p � ti Y ti ti N r — a — a _ a u O L m O E c m a u c° F 3 3 d LLLIJ Li t�D o o o T h W o o Q o Y w o o h Y o o NO R Y o y o D —V p o N V Q V M �1 p o o o o O O N p O O O O O N o o W W O v N N M v v W W c ao c c ao s0+ > n > > n t O W o o n O v�i oy�j O o M M Z Z Q Z 7) a a a ti d v a ,. a. a — a u Q E ° o bA c ._ 0 3 �_ E O Ej E ,. 3 ° y ,. m a o W o o p a o o W N o N O O � O , M d o l!j �' o 47 S y 03 0 y °� y WIR o O b O n YO •� V Q V V Q � U O c o o Q O Q a 6 O o Q O Q v C N O O M M N 71 p n N lo o o b b O o O o" M o h N v d C n C C n O M O O M O N v O ap W W Q Q 2 0 0 �p 2 0 0 �p 2 o M ti v a a a o 3 o v _o E 'o h a h y c � v r ° E °' E -O c m a o c c F 3 3 c° h c t,D o o o o o N O O n O m o o0 0 o rm+i o tc « o o ry « R 0 0 en a Q O Q a o� en d d Qf o N o o M O o O i N V o p O O O Q Q 1 N o O O O W ry� W O O O � � U d c N c c N Q m m m li m m m v U 2 0 0 o b 2 °� o Q Z o ti � k N N 7 a+ 7 O — N N « c E ° o v ° y O m Q F V V F �i 2 V z page 109 51. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 5 651,452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.me ndota-he iy h ts.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: November 16,2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director Vak---, SUBJECT: Claims List Summary BACKGROUND Significant Claims MN Dept of Commerce—Unclaimed Property $ 9,547.75 106 Group—Pilot Knob Project $ 3,692.40 Duluth Coating Solutions—Fire Station Remodel $ 6,627.00 Kirchner Contracting—Net Removal/Concrete Work for Dugouts $ 6,550.00 LMCIT—Property Casualty Premium $ 157,986.00 LOGIS—IT Services $ 17,991.50 Magic Turf—Mendakota Baseball Field Reconstruction $ 20,380.00 Mansfield Oil—Fuel $ 11,342.75 Northfield Solar—May Adjustment/Sept Utilities $ 16,132.48 Manual Checks Total $ 12,187.75 System Checks Total $ 339,264.37 Total for the list of claims for the November 16,2021 city council meeting $ 351,452.12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve the list of claims for November 16, 2021. page110 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 2:08 PM Claims List Page 1 MANUAL CHECKS 10/29/21 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 G 01-2073 10/29/21 PAYROLL $150.00 G 01-2072 10/29/21 PAYROLL $2,440.00 Search Name I C M A RETIREMENT 457 $2,590.00 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 01-2072 10/29/21 PAYROLL $50.00 Search Name NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $50.00 $2,640.00 page 111 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:56 PM Claims List Page 1 MANUAL CHECKS 11/09/21 MAN Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name MN DEPT OF COMMERCE E 22-4460-765-00 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY Spec Fds $9,488.57 G 15-1150 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY $58.18 E 01-4490-050-50 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY Road&Bridges $1.00 Search Name MN DEPT OF COMMERCE $9,547.75 $9,547.75 page 112 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Claims List Page 1 SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name 106 GROUP E 09-4220-000-00 OHEYAWAHE PILOT KNOB PRE Spec Fds $3,692.40 Search Name 106 GROUP $3,692.40 Search Name ALL CITY ELEVATOR,INC. E 08-4335-000-00 NOVEMBER 2021 MAINTENANC Spec Fds $187.00 Search Name ALL CITY ELEVATOR,INC. $187.00 Search Name ARAMARK(AMERIPRIDE SERVICES) E 01-4410-050-50 UNIFORM-PW Road&Bridges $10.82 E 15-4200-610-60 MAT SERVICE-PW Utility Enterprise $10.00 E 01-4200-610-50 MAT SERVICE-PW Road&Bridges $10.00 E 01-4200-610-70 MAT SERVICE-PW Parks&Recreation $10.00 E 08-4335-000-00 MAT SERVICE-CITY HALL Spec Fds $447.11 Search Name ARAMARK(AMERIPRIDE SERVICES) $487.93 Search Name ASPEN MILLS E 01-4410-020-20 UNIFORM-B.JACOBSON Police $326.00 Search Name ASPEN MILLS $326.00 Search Name ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. E 01-4280-310-70 NOV 2021 RUBBISH SERVICE- Parks&Recreation $199.19 E 01-4220-085-85 NOV 2021 ORGANIC RECYCLIN Recycling $340.99 E 01-4280-315-30 NOV 2021 RUBBISH SERVICE- Fire $163.72 E 01-4280-310-50 NOV 2021 RUBBISH SERVICE- Road&Bridges $199.19 E 15-4280-310-60 NOV 2021 RUBBISH SERVICE- Utility Enterprise $199.18 E 08-4280-000-00 NOV 2021 RUBBISH SERVICE- Spec Fds $292.67 E 45-4280-045-45 NOV 2021 RUBBISH SERVICE- Golf Course $114.97 Search Name ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. $1,509.91 Search Name AUTOZONE E 01-4330-490-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $76.16 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $6.10 E 01-4330-490-30 EQUIP REPAIR- FIRE Fire $338.38 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $71.94 Search Name AUTOZONE $492.58 Search Name BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD G 01-2071 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE $461.87 E 01-4131-050-50 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Road&Bridges $4,238.33 E 01-4131-070-70 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Parks&Recreation $2,792.34 Search Name BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD $7,492.54 Search Name CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $98.00 Search Name CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO $98.00 Search Name COMCAST BUSINESS E 01-4268-030-30 NOV 7-DEC 6 SERVICE-FIRE Fire $34.77 E 45-4210-045-45 NOV 8-DEC 7 SERVICE-PAR 3 Golf Course $214.19 Search Name COMCAST BUSINESS $248.96 Search Name CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES,INC E 01-4306-020-20 TESTING-PD Police $677.50 page113 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 2 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES,INC $677.50 Search Name CROULEY, RYAN E 01-4400-050-50 10/7 CONFERENCE MILEAGE R Road&Bridges $87.36 Search Name CROULEY, RYAN $87.36 Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER E 01-4275-020-20 DECEMBER 2021 DISPATCH Police $21,057.40 E 01-4275-030-30 DECEMBER 2021 DISPATCH Fire $709.60 Search Name DAKOTA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER $21,767.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY E 15-4490-060-60 2021 JPA PUMP MAINTNENANC Utility Enterprise $153.00 Search Name DAKOTA COUNTY $153.00 Search Name DREELAN, DAVE E 01-4400-030-30 10/2-10/24 CONFERENCE EXPE Fire $307.03 Search Name DREELAN, DAVE $307.03 Search Name DULUTH COATING SOLUTIONS INC E 31-4460-000-00 FLOOR COATINGS-FIRE STAT Spec Fds $6,627.00 Search Name DULUTH COATING SOLUTIONS INC $6,627.00 Search Name FIRST NET/AT&T MOBILITY E 01-4490-109-09 CELL SERVICE-CITY COUNCIL City Council $45.12 E 01-4210-030-30 CELL SERVICE-FIRE Fire $95.29 E 01-4223-020-20 AIR CARDS- PD Police $344.07 E 01-4210-020-20 CELL SERVICE-PD Police $975.83 E 01-4210-070-70 CELL SERVICE-PARKS Parks&Recreation $28.15 E 01-4490-080-80 CELL SERVICE-PLANNING Planning $45.12 E 01-4210-105-15 CELL SERVICE-ENGINEERING Engineering Enterprise $45.12 E 01-4210-070-70 IPAD WIRELESS SERVICE-REC Parks&Recreation $38.23 E 45-4210-045-45 IPAD WIRELESS SERVICE- PAR Golf Course $38.23 E 01-4210-050-50 CELL SERVICE-STREET Road&Bridges $24.59 Search Name FIRST NET/AT&T MOBILITY $1,679.75 Search Name FLEETPRIDE E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges -$169.12 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $169.12 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $29.41 G 45-2035 EQUIP REPAIR-PAR 3 -$2.69 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $46.38 E 45-4330-490-45 EQUIP REPAIR-PAR 3 Golf Course $41.80 E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS Parks&Recreation $80.00 E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE Road&Bridges $80.00 E 15-4305-060-60 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT Utility Enterprise $80.00 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $35.80 . ...................... Search Name FLEETPRIDE $390.70 Search Name FORCE AMERICA E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $20.00 Search Name FORCE AMERICA $20.00 Search Name FURTHER(SELECT ACCOUNT) E 01-4131-020-20 NOV 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Police $40.10 page 114 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 3 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEFT Descr Amount E 01-4131-105-15 NOV 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Engineering Enterprise $6.75 E 01-4131-070-70 NOV 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Parks&Recreation $9.00 E 01-4131-110-10 NOV 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Administration $19.45 E 08-4131-000-00 NOV 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Spec Fds $2.25 E 01-4131-050-50 NOV 2021 PARTICIPANT FEE Road&Bridges $4.50 Search Name FURTHER(SELECT ACCOUNT) $82.05 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS Parks&Recreation $139.80 Search Name GERTENS GREENHOUSE $139.80 Search Name GOLDCOM E 01-4330-450-30 RADIO REPAIR/MAINT-FIRE Fire $16.56 Search Name GOLDCOM $16.56 Search Name GOLDENSTEIN,SCOTT E 01-4335-315-30 BLDG MAINT SUPPLIES REIMB Fire $39.36 Search Name GOLDENSTEIN,SCOTT $39.36 Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE CALL E 01-4210-040-40 OCTOBER 2021 SERVICE Code Enforcement/Inspe $301.05 Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE CALL $301.05 Search Name GRAINGER E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $45.76 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $13.52 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $34.40 Search Name GRAINGER $93.68 Search Name GRANNIS&HAUGE, P.A. E 01-4222-120-20 OCT 2021 PROSECUTIONS- PD Police $5,891.00 Search Name GRANNIS&HAUGE,P.A. $5,891.00 Search Name HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATION E 01-4220-020-20 BLOOD ALCOHOL DRAW-PD Police $88.40 Search Name HEALTHEAST TRANSPORTATION $88.40 Search Name HELPING HANDS HOME SERVICES E 01-4335-315-30 10/11/21-10/25/21 BLDG MAIN Fire $560.00 Search Name HELPING HANDS HOME SERVICES $560.00 Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $30.95 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $26.97 E 45-4334-045-45 COURSE MAINT-PAR 3 Golf Course $57.78 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $43.23 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $33.40 E 01-4330-030-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $33.90 E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE Road&Bridges $56.73 .................... Search Name HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES $282.96 Search Name HOSE INC E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIP REPAIR- UTILITY Utility Enterprise $83.50 Search Name HOSE INC $83.50 page115 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 4 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $56.84 E 15-4300-060-60 OFFICE SUPPLIES-UTILITY BI Utility Enterprise $42.55 E 01-4300-080-80 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PLANNING Planning $28.70 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $19.32 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $48.29 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES-PD Police $20.70 E 01-4300-020-20 OFFICE SUPPLIES- PD Police $19.16 E 01-4300-110-10 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMIN Administration $13.86 E 01-4300-110-10 OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMIN Administration $138.42 Search Name INNOVATIVE OFFICE SOLUTIONS $387.84 Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT E 01-4490-020-20 OCT 2021 SHREDDING Police $83.95 E 01-4490-110-10 OCT 2021 SHREDDING Administration $44.87 Search Name IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MGMT $128.82 Search Name KIRCHNER CONTRACTING E 10-4460-000-00 MENDAKOTA PARK DUGOUT P Spec Fds $4,950.00 E 01-4330-215-70 NET REMOVAL-PARKS Parks&Recreation $1,600.00 Search Name KIRCHNER CONTRACTING $6,550.00 Search Name L M C I T2 E 08-4133-000-00 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Spec Fds $55.91 E 01-4133-109-09 WORKERS COMP AUDIT City Council $1.27 E 15-4133-060-60 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Utility Enterprise $109.20 E 01-4133-105-15 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Engineering Enterprise $50.02 E 01-4133-070-70 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Parks&Recreation $186.32 E 01-4133-050-50 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Road&Bridges $465.86 E 01-4133-031-30 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Fire $398.11 E 01-4133-020-20 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Police $1,151.93 E 01-4133-110-10 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Administration $93.16 E 45-4133-045-45 WORKERS COMP AUDIT Golf Course $21.22 Search Name L M C I T2 $2,533.00 Search Name L M C I T3 G 01-1215 PROPERTY INSURANCE]AN-OC $114,009.51 G 45-1215 PROPERTY INSURANCE]AN-OC $3,885.24 G 08-1215 PROPERTY INSURANCE]AN-OC $5,665.99 E 45-4250-045-45 PROPERTY INSURANCE NOV-D Golf Course $806.39 E 01-4250-110-10 PROPERTY INSURANCE NOV-D Administration $21,072.68 E 01-4250-105-15 PROPERTY INSURANCE NOV-D Engineering Enterprise $1,763.98 E 08-4250-000-00 PROPERTY INSURANCE NOV-D Spec Fds $1,091.98 E 15-4250-060-60 PROPERTY INSURANCE NOV-D Utility Enterprise $1,595.97 G 15-1215 PROPERTY INSURANCE]AN-OC $8,094.26 Search Name L M C I T3 $157,986.00 Search Name LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES E 01-4220-020-20 OCT 2021 SERVICE-PD Police $27.50 Search Name LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES $27.50 Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC E 15-4330-490-60 EQUIP REPAIR-UTILITY Utility Enterprise -$10.29 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges -$10.29 page116 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 5 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4305-070-70 OPERATING SUPPLIES-PARKS Parks&Recreation $29.38 E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE Road&Bridges $29.38 E 15-4305-060-60 OPERATING SUPPLIES-UTILIT Utility Enterprise $29.38 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation -$10.29 Search Name LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC $57.27 Search Name LOGIS E 01-4220-114-14 PROFESSIONAL IT SERVICES- Info Tech $6,093.75 E 01-4220-114-14 LANSWEEPER RENEWAL Info Tech $500.00 E 01-4223-020-20 APPLICATION SUPPORT-PD Police $3,561.00 E 01-4301-030-30 APPLICATION SUPPORT-FIRE Fire $76.00 E 01-4220-114-14 APPLICATION SUPPORT IT TEL Info Tech $2,154.00 E 01-4301-030-30 PROFESSIONAL IT SERVICES- Fire $687.50 E 01-4220-114-14 HOSTED BACKUPS/SERVER/PA Info Tech $3,300.50 E 01-4223-020-20 PROFESSIONAL IT SERVICES- Police $1,618.75 Search Name LOGIS $17,991.50 Search Name LORLAND SEWER AND WATER R 15-3252 REFUND SEWER PERMIT#464 $75.00 R 01-3315 REFUND SEWER PERMIT#464 $1.00 Search Name LORLAND SEWER AND WATER $76.00 Search Name LUBE-TECH G 01-1210 OIL $752.76 E 15-4335-310-60 LIFT INSPECTION -PW Utility Enterprise $78.84 E 01-4335-310-50 LIFT INSPECTION -PW Road&Bridges $78.83 E 01-4335-310-70 LIFT INSPECTION -PW Parks&Recreation $78.83 .. ................ Search Name LUBE-TECH $989.26 Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY G 45-2035 EQUIP REPAIR-PAR 3 -$12.94 E 45-4330-490-45 EQUIP REPAIR-PAR 3 Golf Course $201.11 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $448.14 Search Name M T I DISTRIBUTING COMPANY $636.31 Search Name MAGIC TURF E 01-4330-215-70 BASEBALL FIELD RECONSTRUC Parks&Recreation $20,380.00 Search Name MAGIC TURF $20,380.00 Search Name MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY G 01-1210 FUEL $4,295.32 G 01-1210 FUEL $7,047.43 Search Name MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY $11,342.75 Search Name MED COMPASS E 01-4220-050-50 HEARING TESTS&OSHA TRAI Road&Bridges $208.34 E 01-4220-070-70 HEARING TESTS&OSHA TRAI Parks&Recreation $208.33 E 15-4220-060-60 HEARING TESTS&OSHA TRAI Utility Enterprise $208.33 Search Name MED COMPASS $625.00 Search Name MENARDS E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $43.96 E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE Road&Bridges $44.63 E 01-4305-050-50 OPERATING SUPPLIES-STREE Road&Bridges $142.69 E 08-4335-000-00 BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL Spec Fds $19.99 page117 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 6 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount E 01-4330-490-30 EQUIP REPAIR-FIRE Fire $39.99 E 01-4330-215-70 PARK MAINTENANCE Parks&Recreation $12.99 Search Name MENARDS $304.25 Search Name MITCHELL1 E 01-4300-050-50 NOV 2021 SERVICE Road&Bridges $169.00 Search Name MITCHELLI $169.00 Search Name MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 G 01-2075 NOV 2021 UNION DUES $802.00 Search Name MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 $802.00 Search Name NATURE CALLS, INC E 01-4200-610-70 SEPT 2021 RENTALS-PARKS Parks&Recreation $1,890.00 E 45-4200-610-45 SEPT 2021 RENTALS-PAR 3 Golf Course $144.28 G 45-2035 SEPT 2021 RENTALS-PAR 3 -$9.28 Search Name NATURE CALLS,INC $2,025.00 Search Name NORTH POINT STUMP GRINDING E 01-4500-050-50 STUMP GRINDING-STREET Road&Bridges $430.50 E 01-4500-070-70 STUMP GRINDING-PARKS Parks&Recreation $430.50 Search Name NORTH POINT STUMP GRINDING $861.00 Search Name NORTHFIELD SOLAR LLC E 01-4211-310-70 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Parks&Recreation $407.14 E 01-4211-320-70 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Parks&Recreation $260.23 E 45-4211-046-45 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Golf Course $74.34 E 45-4211-047-45 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Golf Course $52.81 E 28-4211-000-00 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Spec Fds $2,024.16 E 15-4211-400-60 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Utility Enterprise $1,187.96 E 15-4211-310-60 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Utility Enterprise $407.14 E 08-4211-000-00 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Spec Fds $3,675.73 E 01-4211-420-50 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Road&Bridges $248.62 E 01-4211-320-70 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Parks&Recreation $433.38 E 01-4211-315-30 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Fire $1,159.54 E 01-4211-420-50 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Road&Bridges $149.57 E 01-4211-310-50 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Road&Bridges $244.89 E 01-4211-310-70 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Parks&Recreation $244.89 E 08-4211-000-00 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Spec Fds $2,202.10 E 01-4211-315-30 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Fire $701.30 E 01-4211-310-50 SEPT 2021 ELECTRIC UTILITIE Road&Bridges $407.14 E 15-4211-310-60 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Utility Enterprise $244.89 E 15-4211-400-60 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Utility Enterprise $714.79 E 28-4211-000-00 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Spec Fds $1,214.96 E 45-4211-047-45 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Golf Course $31.94 E 45-4211-046-45 MAY 2021 ADJUSTMENT ELECT Golf Course $44.96 Search Name NORTHFIELD SOLAR LLC $16,132.48 Search Name NUSS TRUCK&EQUIPMENT E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $649.01 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges -$342.41 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $55.61 Search Name NUSS TRUCK&EQUIPMENT $362.21 page118 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 7 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name OXYGEN SERVICE CO E 15-4200-610-60 CYLINDER RENTAL-PW Utility Enterprise $47.54 E 01-4200-610-50 CYLINDER RENTAL-PW Road&Bridges $47.53 E 01-4200-610-70 CYLINDER RENTAL-PW Parks&Recreation $47.53 E 01-4200-610-50 CYLINDER RENTAL-PW Road&Bridges $47.87 E 15-4200-610-60 CYLINDER RENTAL-PW Utility Enterprise $47.86 E 01-4200-610-70 CYLINDER RENTAL-PW Parks&Recreation $47.87 Search Name OXYGEN SERVICE CO $286.20 Search Name PAC E 29-4220-000-00 BRUSH REMOVAL,EXCAVATE DI Spec Fds $1,880.00 Search Name PAC $1,880.00 Search Name PUBLIC EMPL INS PROGRAM E 01-4131-110-10 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Administration $5,312.66 E 01-4131-105-15 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Engineering Enterprise $3,154.98 E 01-4131-070-70 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Parks&Recreation $491.66 E 01-4131-020-20 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Police $10,350.10 G 01-2074 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE $12,531.84 G 01-2071 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE $432.26 E 08-4131-000-00 DEC 2021 HEALTH INSURANCE Spec Fds $491.66 Search Name PUBLIC EMPL INS PROGRAM $32,765.16 Search Name RES GREAT LAKES, LLC E 01-4220-070-70 NATURAL RESOURCE MGMT PL Parks&Recreation $1,395.00 Search Name RES GREAT LAKES, LLC $1,395.00 Search Name ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD E 01-4330-440-20 EQUIP REPAIR-PD Police $49.99 E 01-4330-490-70 EQUIP REPAIR-PARKS Parks&Recreation $30.09 Search Name ROSEVILLE MIDWAY FORD $80.08 Search Name ROYAL TIRE INC E 01-4490-050-50 SERVICE FEES-STREET Road&Bridges $43.56 E 01-4330-490-50 EQUIP REPAIR-STREET Road&Bridges $398.66 ...................... Search Name ROYAL TIRE INC $442.22 Search Name SPRWS E 15-4425-310-60 OCT 2021 SERVICE-2431 LEXI Utility Enterprise $18.61 E 08-4455-000-00 OCT 2021 SERVICE- 1101 VIC Spec Fds $367.89 E 01-4425-310-50 OCT 2021 SERVICE-2431 LEXI Road&Bridges $18.61 E 01-4425-310-70 OCT 2021 SERVICE-2431 LEXI Parks&Recreation $18.61 .................. Search Name SPRWS $423.72 Search Name ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY E 01-4400-020-20 PIT CLASS-W. WEGENER Police $455.00 Search Name ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY $455.00 Search Name ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS E 27-4220-802-00 OCT 2021 LEGAL NOTICES Spec Fds $128.25 E 01-4240-080-80 OCT 2021 LEGAL NOTICES Planning $41.40 E 01-4240-080-80 OCT 2021 LEGAL NOTICES Planning $38.70 Search Name ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS $208.35 page119 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 11/10/21 1:44 PM Page 8 Claims List SYSTEM CHECKS 11/16/21 PAY Account Comments DEPT Descr Amount Search Name ST. PAUL,CITY OF E 01-4422-050-50 ASPHALT MIX-STREET Road&Bridges $1,791.35 Search Name ST. PAUL,CITY OF $1,791.35 Search Name STRAND,KENT G 15-1150 SEWER ACCOUNT REFUND $21.75 Search Name STRAND, KENT $21.75 Search Name SUMMIT COMPANIES E 01-4335-315-30 ANNUAL SPRINKLER INSPECTI Fire $341.00 Search Name SUMMIT COMPANIES $341.00 Search Name T&T DISPOSAL E 01-4490-109-09 BONFIRE PALLET DELIVERY City Council $500.00 Search Name T&T DISPOSAL $500.00 Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC.SVC. E 01-4220-080-80 10/26/21 PLANNING COMMISSI Planning $615.50 E 01-4220-110-10 10/19/21 CITY COUNCIL MINU Administration $156.25 Search Name TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC.SVC. $771.75 Search Name TOTAL CONSTRUCTION E 01-4330-490-70 COMPRESSOR RENTAL-PARKS Parks&Recreation $450.00 Search Name TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $450.00 Search Name UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS E 01-4422-050-50 STREET MAINT MATERIAL Road&Bridges $598.80 . . ...... .................. Search Name UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS $598.80 Search Name USTA NORTHERN E 01-4435-200-70 ADULT USTA TENNIS IN YOUR Parks&Recreation $1,631.25 Search Name USTA NORTHERN $1,631.25 Search Name VERIZON WIRELESS E 01-4210-030-30 NOV 2021 CELL SERVICE Fire $198.92 E 15-4210-060-60 NOV 2021 CELL SERVICE Utility Enterprise $41.25 E 01-4210-050-50 NOV 2021 CELL SERVICE Road&Bridges $144.02 E 45-4210-045-45 NOV 2021 CELL SERVICE Golf Course $40.01 E 01-4210-110-10 NOV 2021 CELL SERVICE Administration $41.25 E 01-4210-070-70 NOV 2021 CELL SERVICE Parks&Recreation $97.83 Search Name VERIZON WIRELESS $563.28 Search Name WALLRAFF ELECTRIC CO. E 08-4335-000-00 ELECTRICAL SERVICE-CITY H Spec Fds $291.00 Search Name WALLRAFF ELECTRIC CO. $291.00 Search Name ZEE MEDICAL SVC E 08-4335-000-00 FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HA Spec Fds $178.25 Search Name ZEE MEDICAL SVC $178.25 $339,264.37 page120 7a. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei ghts.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Firefighter Oath of Office and Badge Pinning INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to do a ceremonial swearing in of Captain Dan Williams, firefighter Michael Agan, Jeff Bostic, Luke Olson, David Perrault, Steve Reamer and Dustin Truesdell. BACKGROUND In April of 2020, Firefighter Dan Williams was promoted to the rank of Captain, a formal appointment was delayed until tonight due to the pandemic. In December of 2020,the Council approved the hiring of six probationary firefighters. Firefighters, Agan, Bostic, Olson, Perrault, Reamer and Truesdell have successfully passed their field training and one year probationary period and tonight we ask that they be sworn in and presented with their badges. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Mayor do the ceremonial Oath of Office for the Captain Williams and the six new firefighters. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council desires to implement the recommendation, bring the candidates forward be sworn in by the Mayor. page 121 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 9a- 651.452.1850 phone 1 651. www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 16,2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council; City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-91 Approving a Wetlands Permit for 2452 Pond Circle East Planning Case No. 2021-18 Introduction City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution approving a Wetlands Permit for 2452 Pond Circle East,and to the owners Erik and Sarah Iverson. Background City Code Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. Erik and Sarah Iverson are seeking to improve their back-yard area with new boulder retaining walls, fire-pit and patio spaces,new landscaping and trees, and some drainage improvements. The proposed improvements are expected to cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland pond. At the October 26,2021 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented; a public hearing was held with comments from the public and the Applicant; and additional written comments from neighbors were submitted for review. The Commission closed the hearing, and voted to table the case, requesting more detailed information and an updated landscape plan from the Owners. On November 10, 2021, a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was conducted, whereby a supplemental staff report and an updated Site/Landscape Plan was presented to the commission. A copy of the 11/16/2021 report and related attachments,along with PC meeting minutes are appended to this memo. Discussion The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a Wetlands Permit, and has broad discretion. The only limitations are that actions must be constitutional,rational, and in some way related to protecting the health,safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimously(7-0 vote)to approve the Wetlands Permit for 2452 Pond Circle East, with certain conditions and findings-of-fact to support said approval, which are memorialized in the following draft resolution for council consideration. Action Required The City Council may affirm this recommendation from the Planning Commission by adopting RESOLUTION NO.2021-91,APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST. This adoption action requires a simple majority vote. page 122 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-91 RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST (PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-18) WHEREAS, Erik and Sarah Iverson ("Applicant") are seeking a Wetlands Permit as presented under Planning Case No. 2021-18, and for the property located at 2452 Pond Circle East (the "Subject Property"), legally described in attached Exhibit-A; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is located adjacent to an established wetland/pond feature; and WHEREAS, the Applicant seek permission to install new rock boulder style retaining walls, patios with fire-pit area, new trees and landscaping and drainage improvements in and around the rear-yard area of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, all new construction, related improvements,grading, and/or removals made within one-hundred(100)feet of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2021 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item,the commission voted to table this item to a future meeting; and WHEREAS, on November 10,2021,the Planning Commission held a Special Meeting on this item, allowed additional public comments, and upon concluding the discussions with the Applicant, voted unanimously (7-0 vote) to recommend approval of the Wetlands Permit as presented under Planning Case No. 2021-18, with certain findings-of-fact and conditions of approval as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council,that the recommendation from the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed, and the Wetlands Permit requested for the property located at 2452 Pond Circle East is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. All tree and plants previously removed on this property were either considered invasive species, diseased or dying, or removed due to safety reasons; and this removal and any other removal of vegetation shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property,including but not limited to the outdoor patios and fire-pit,retaining walls, steps, and walkways and new trees and landscaping; B. All new work will have very little to no impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; page123 C. Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per the City's Land Disturbance Guidelines and city staff direction; D. Any disturbed areas of the protective and natural wetland buffer areas will be restored and replanted with vegetation that ensures storm water, soil and contaminant runoff is reduced or minimized from the subject property; E. Owners are taking serious measures to avoid and minimize disturbances of the vegetative buffer area and other surrounding areas, in order to protect and preserve the natural pond environment, thereby minimizing and avoiding any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms; F. The disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this back-yard landscaping project will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed; and G. Any new trees or vegetation to be planted as part of this project will include native species and varieties to Minnesota, along with pollinator encouraging vegetation, as per the city's Pollinator Friendly Policy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Wetlands Permit for the property located at 2452 Pond Circle East, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Any new removals, excavating, grading and/or construction activity related to the new back yard improvements, including the fire-pit patio, retaining walls, stairs, and paths, 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. 2. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. A double-row silt fence with suitable fabric material or other erosion measures approved by the city's Public Works Department must be in place prior to the commencement of any new construction or removals. Erosion barrier shall be placed along the outer edges of the side yards, and the lower edge near the pond buffer. 3. The Applicant/Owner shall not remove any trees or vegetation, nor perform any unnecessary grading or disturbance to the 25-ft. wetland buffer area. 4. If any additional construction work, or areas inside or beyond this buffer edge (from the new back wall to the pond edge) need to be disturbed, except for the plantings of new trees/vegetation,the Owner must contact city staff prior to commencing any work, and repair and replant any disturbed areas with suitable plantings and materials per direction of the city's Natural Resources Technician. 5. It is recommended that any new tree or landscaping material used under this approved plan must meet the city's list of Native Plantings and Pollinator Friendly trees and vegetation. Res.No.2021-91 Page 2 of 4 page 124 6. It is recommended the Applicants consult with the city's Natural Resources Technician on any plants or vegetation used to restore any open or disturbed areas in and around the project site in order to provide an established and permanent ground cover after the back yard improvements have been installed. 7. Any new site construction or removal shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota.Heights this 16th day of November, 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Stephanie Levine, Mayor ATTEST: Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights,MN 55118 Res.No.2021-91 Page 3 of 4 page125 EXHIBIT-A Legal Description PID#27-31800-04-100 LOT 10, BLOCK 4, HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Abstract Property Drafted by: City of Mendota.Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights,MN 5511 Res.No.2021-91 Page 4 of 4 page 126 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei ghts.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT [Supplemental] DATE: November 10, 2021 (Special Meeting) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-18 WETLANDS PERMIT (After-the-Fact) APPLICANT: Erik& Sarah Iverson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2452 Pond Circle East ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: November 28, 2021 INTRODUCTION The Iverson's are seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flag-stone fire pit and patio,a walk-out entry patio,retaining walls, steps,grading and landscaping work,along with some tree pruning and removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed an "After-the-Fact"due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners. A public hearing notice for this planning item was held at the October 24,2021 regular meeting,where this item was tabled to the next meeting. Notices of this meeting were re-mailed to all owners within 350-feet of this property; notice posted on the city's website and city hall bulletin board. UPDATED SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN The Applicants have submitted a revised/updated landscape plan,which is included with this supplemental report. The plan shows grading/elevation contours with elevation markings (similar to previous plan), and drainage pattern arrows (blue-dotted lines)illustrating the flow of surface waters. The current back yard area slopes gently downward towards the back of the home towards the nearby pond, where it comes to a defined sloped edge. From this edge,the yard again drops down a slight steep slope to another flatter, and gentle sloped area leading down to the pond edge. This lower sloped edge near the pond is not being affected, and will remain intact. This buffer edge along the pond is what the city encourages owners to leave alone and not disturb, in order to help reduce any silt/organics/lawn chemical runoff into wetlands. Along the back edge of the cleared yard will be a new large, boulder retaining wall. This wall varies in height from 4.5' to 8.5' in the back corner, and approximately 4-ft. in height along the length of the back yard edge. Contractor has provided examples of the stonesiboulders they plan to use as part of this wall (see photos next page). a e 127 h f u A k v� ba Similar stone/boulder walls will be used to replace the older, rotted wood retaining walls along the garage side of the home (see photos —end of this report). These walls will vary between 2-ft. to almost 4-ft. in height,and will be tiered along the back corner of the home, and eventually tie into the lower walls around the back-door patio space. A new 9' x 20' patterned paver stone patio is planned off the back door entryway. This patio will be supported or shored up with small retaining walls approx. 1' — 1.5' in height. Steps leading down to irregular (flagstone) steppers creating a small foot path down to the new fire-pit/patio seating area. This fire pit area will be elevated slightly above the back yard grades,and supported/shored-up with 2'-2.5' high retaining walls. The plan calls for the regrading, filling and leveling the back yard to make it more useable; which means a slight rise of elevations from the back of the house of approximately 3-ft.to almost 7-ft. in some localized areas. The intent is to level the main back yard space from the back of the home down to the front edge of the new boulder wall. The back yard will be replanted with new sod. The initial plan called for the planting of three (3) new trees: a sugar maple, clump river birch and clump serviceberry. The updated plan now shows three additional evergreen trees consisting of two Black Hill spruce and one white pine along the westerly side yard. The plan identifies the two separate "rock spill" features located on the back edge of the retaining wall. The home currently has downspouts that tie into or empty into an underground tile system. It is assumed these tiles daylight out towards the back, but the as noted at the previous hearing,the contractor is not sure if these tiles or pipes are connected or even working. Nevertheless,the contractor intends to dig down and remove the old tile systems, and replace with new tiles, which will lead down to these new rock-spill features outside the wall. This stormwater will then drain out ground towards the pond. Public Works staff is suggesting the owner/contractors provide suitable plantings surround these spill features to soften their appearances,but also help stabilize surrounding soils that may be affected by runoff. Finally, the plan shows a single row of Silt Sock for erosion protection. Staff has normally required homeowners or contractors working near wetlands or other water resources to provide a double (two) row of silt fence or silt sock features. ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water resource related areas,and to adjacent land within one hundred feet(100') of normal high water markers of wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. Planning Case 2021-18(Iverson) Page 2 of 9 page128 City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city; with the list of activities noted as follows: 1. The deposit or removal of any debris,fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging,filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands,floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment,ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage,garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to: • Provide for protection,preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may resultfrom alteration by earthwork, loss ofvegetation, loss ofwildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection ofpotable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) provides certain guidelines and suggested standards (not requirements) for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The SWMP recommends—but does not require a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge. This buffer is meant to provide an extra level or protection or natural means in preventing erosion run-off, silt protection, and reducing any fertilizer or chemical runoff that may occur from on-site or adjacent residential lawns. Under this plan and layout of the subject property, approximately 35-40-feet of the land area coming off the pond edge is intended to be left alone and undisturbed. While buckthorn and other invasive vegetation can be managed, it is highly recommended Owners preserve and protect the existing trees and vegetation growing in these buffer areas. All of the major construction and grading work related to this new back-yard improvement project should take place far enough away from the established pond edge, so as not to cause any damage or impacts to this water feature. Any new construction or installation work near the 25-ft. (or more)buffer edge will be protected by silt/erosion control measures. Per the Wetland Ordinance Section 12-2-7 Standards and Conditions: • Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity. • No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area. Planning Case 2021-18(Iverson) Page 3 of 9 page129 • Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter. • Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property. The homeowners have demonstrated to city staff a desire to limit the scale and scope of this proposed backyard improvement project to an area situated far enough away from the pond, that impacts should be minimal. The landscape project will fit nicely with the overall size of the property, and should be an nice improvement. Most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area that served as a semi- functioning back yard space;but this plan should now provide some nice,open and added usable space for the needs of their children and enjoyment to their entire family. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s)of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit for the property located at 2452 Pond Circle East,which would allow certain back-yard improvements and tree/vegetation removal and replacement within 100-feet of a wetland,based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. Any new removals, excavating, grading and/or construction activity related to the new back yard improvements,including the fire-pit patio,retaining walls, stairs,and paths, 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. 2. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. A double-row silt fence with suitable fabric material or other erosion measures approved by the city's Public Works Department must be in place prior to the commencement of any new construction or removals. Erosion barrier shall be placed along the outer edges of the side yards,and the lower edge near the pond buffer. 3. The Applicant/Owner shall not remove any trees or vegetation, nor perform any unnecessary grading or disturbance to the 25-ft. wetland buffer area. 4. If any additional construction work, or areas inside or beyond this buffer edge (from the new back wall to the pond edge) need to be disturbed, except for the plantings of new trees/vegetation, the Owner must contact city staff prior to commencing any work,and repair and replant any disturbed areas with suitable plantings and materials per direction of the city's Natural Resources Technician. 5. Any new tree or landscaping material used under this approved plan must meet the city's list of Native Plantings and Pollinator Friendly trees and vegetation. 6. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established,protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the back yard improvements have been installed. 7. Any new site construction or removal shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. Planning Case 2021-18(Iverson) Page 4 of 9 page 130 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-18 Wetlands Permit for New Backyard Improvements 2452 Pond Circle East The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. All tree and plants previously removed on this property were either considered invasive species, diseased or dying, or removed due to safety reasons; and this removal and any other removal of vegetation shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property, including but not limited to the outdoor patios and fire-pit, retaining walls, steps, and walkways and new trees and landscaping; 2. All new work will have very little to no impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; 3. Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per the City's Land Disturbance Guidelines and city staff direction; 4. Any disturbed areas of the protective and natural wetland buffer areas will be restored and replanted with vegetation that ensures storm water,soil and contaminant runoff is reduced or minimized from the subject property; 5. Owners are taking serious measures to avoid and minimize disturbances of the vegetative buffer area and other surrounding areas, in order to protect and preserve the natural pond environment, thereby minimizing and avoiding any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms; 6. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this back-yard landscaping project will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed; and 7. Any new trees or vegetation to be planted as part of this project will include native species and varieties to Minnesota, along with pollinator encouraging vegetation, as per the city's Pollinator Friendly Policy. Planning Case 2021-18(Iverson) Page 5 of 9 5 � f 4.L s 357, � 6 4 A_ +s vv 6 I . y _ - i F r r �� ti -- .-ems ..y�11lN1 + w•p .•w s — C a 4 a: � .�, •...TM -• ®� q ',..-,=., I--__ -- '� Y�� ., '� �r»;" ..v.-.w.�...f� l`a1r }��� ���4 • � �{,v` !!rY r� r ,r r'yr"�` ;�f,�v� -�v.j"4 <. � .sir•" L i F�p r ' a 4 A T ram' F ' ,� •` :14 ,v � m r ' a w r 'w r ii wt ry y�1 y� 4 �•F ,r r� ..14 Ol ti a ; _ y � w uhrq. may, F'sY+ j�d .,a �- Id , �y F 7 1P, L y 3 Wo 4 t F oi /J p F . ' ram• . � - � j/r¢ yn k t � I " page 135 Attn:Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Wetlands Permit—2452 Pond Circle East—Letter of Intent I am writing this letter of intent to secure a Wetlands Permit for landscaping work we'd like to do on our property at 2452 Pond Circle East. One of the reasons my family and I chose to move into this home (June of this year) was the potential for a backyard with a beautiful pond view and space for young children to play. Due to the nature of work to achieve this, it will require tree clearing, grading, and landscaping of already existing and new structures in and around wet#and areason the north side of the house. Our goal is to maintain the integrity of the wetland and pond area and the neighborhood, including desirable, mature trees, so that all is left as undisturbed as possible. We absolutely love seeing deer,fox, ducks and other wildlife in the backyard and do not want to inhibit the natural landscape while still having safe,outdoor space to enjoy as a family. The scope of work to be undertaken is as follows: • Tree pruning& removal (dead, dying and hazardous— leaning over house and deck area) • Stump removal • Grading& leveling • Rain water drainage and erosion system • Re-building of existing retaining wall along the east side of property(removing rotting timbers and replacing with boulder—same footprint) • Building of new retaining wall (north end of property approx.35 ft from pond shoreline) • Re-building of existing flagtone firepit and seating area • Re-building of existing walkout patio on north side of house • Installation of new boulder retaining wall along west side of property to address existing rain washout and erosion • General landscaping and flower beds • New trees *Building material choices will incorporate as much natural materials as possible. All work will be done by licensed and reputable companies familiar to Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake and surrounding areas. Thank you for your consideration, time and understanding. We are looking forward to hearing back from you. Erik &Sarah Iverson 2452 Pond Circle East Map A d OZ�99 NW `S1H913H ViOGN3W z w Q a 9 3 3�O2JIO GNOd ZS'VZ ¢ o o w o2E [if � page136 3ON30IS3�I NOS�t]3AI d � � of co ;a o 3Hi HO:J NVId 3d`dOSONVI 43SOdOHd m Q g �y -- u - ui ———— Q U a � c0 m A/l rig NOCS NOCS NOCS MOOS i PIS�PIS PIS PI" lA � C11 '= ; a o. *----------- - I % --------°-----------------°-----------------------z R8 I o / m m +___ --- • - i ro m o w m o m o oa / o v:to °LU y O m - .-LL K E°a ,.0 Q y m m m�aaaw�vv i + + o / o o i m j _ ..0 6 Jim o r a s o mi � Y m a m 0 0 0 r m I I r............... o * F 17i e � / o m rn m m m o �o 0 a o m * ° B= �` mm to / ��°m l 07 Y 00 v Z a.0 <Q mu rmw "mr mm= rmmJ�m .�..... iro mm 10 J... m .......� ((o OO oo 000 0 S D1K°_sIU SxK SDK -K +C — p- t m � N � pdye of WETLANDS MAP City of N 2452 Pond Circle East Mendota 10/18/2021 0 50 Heights SCALE IN FEET e w.„ iNk R Via- 4 ta 184 e # N W I I M a Soo tied d e d by Ne p US I w e i � h ip ofthe imag I i b- 9 p ided b 1107 ko u she terms of that license. Under h se e, D k i tali, II�N e r h Nco .�pr�d-mac•e e 'Offllne p dd-OO I f r G e vuhic i im g r.i e b d, 6-il�i' a u i ) fter a caps re date, provide illb used in their nOrrnW7 course of busin- s rod must not be re o d d s1111,b11ted fo the 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 contained Legend in this data.The City of Mendota Heights,or any other entity from which data was obtained,assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein.If discrepancies are found,please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Water Feature Contact"Gopher State One Call"at 651-454-0002 for utility locations,48 hours prior to any excavation. Wetland Boundary Line-100 ft. 0 Wetland Buffer Edge-25 ft. SOIL ID MAP - 2452 Pond Circle East page 138 Environment Environment- Geology & Soils Soil Types (SSURGO) A Property Information Addresses Parcel Lines L1r ram" + - Tax Parcels i II^II ° w w «, TI•.is ma (,� fitt n r W'+"ST✓ 4.r.. �i " arJ Iceved rQearma;a ey^ ^+ 1f. r c814 [' T2r5h11]Df ` AREASYMBOL MN037 DESCR Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes SPATIALVER 6 ACRES 13.83208521 MUSYM 342C Shape-Length 2515.8381098997943 MUKEY 396839 Shape-Area 55976.46287363311 Disclaimer.Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. Map Scale This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,or 1 Inch=79 feet for zoning verification. 10/18/2021 page 139 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 26, 2021 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, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson,Michael Toth,Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval ofA,-enda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuzust 24, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE SIX, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...THAT IS GOING TO BE AN ADDITION TO THE RESERVE." AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearin-s Chair Field noted that there has been discussion of changing the order of the agenda. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER ITEM A AFTER ITEMS B AND C. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-18 ERIK AND SARAH IVERSON, 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST - WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Iversons are seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flag-stone fire pit and patio, a walk-out October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page I of 29 page 140 entry patio, retaining walls, steps, grading and landscaping work, along with some tree pruning and removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed an "after the fact" due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one email of support from a neighboring owner was received and one comment of concern. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 Lorberbaum stated that the staff report mentions that all disturbed areas shall be restored, and areas shall be replanted, noting that is not very specific. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are not set tree replacement requirements and therefore he is relying on the input of the Commission. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Sarah and Erik Iverson, 2452 Pond Circle East, she stated that in addition to the project plan outlined by staff they would like to make a statement. She stated that they moved to the property in June, and they love being outdoors. She stated that the main goal of the backyard project is to maintain the natural landscape and also make it safe for their children and family. She stated that prior to moving in there was little upkeep in the backyard and a rotting wall. She stated that there were also erosion issues, old stumps, diseased trees, and overgrown trees that were dropping limbs on the deck and home. She believed that their landscape plan would address all the issues and would also keep the integrity of the pond. Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not see any grading plans with the landscaping plan. She stated that the material for the wall was not noted on the plan, but she did visit the property and the applicant advised her that the wall would be made of boulders. She stated that she would also be interested in detailed planting information and how the rock spill would be handled. Tim Johnson, contractor representing the applicant, stated that the retaining wall will be made of fieldstone boulders and natural cut stone steps will provide access from the existing patio to the lower parts of the yard. He stated that the current firepit was neglected and the new firepit would be shifted west to provide more separate between the deck and trees. He provided details on the other work that would be done to repair the deteriorating backyard elements. He stated that an arborist was retained, and they walked the property to identify the healthy trees that could remain. He stated that the box elder, ash and other unhealthy trees are/were removed. He noted that some of those trees were leaning towards homes and were removed in order to remove that liability. He commented on the work that they have done to ensure the health of the trees that are being saved as they are heritage trees, and they want them to remain healthy during construction. He provided details on the three tree species that will be planted to replace the unhealthy trees. He noted that October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 29 page 141 the remainder of the yard was most likely woodchips and dirt because it had been neglected and eroded. He stated that they would be putting in turf grass, similar to the neighboring properties in order to provide ground coverage. He noted that silt fence was also installed for erosion control. Joe Slater, 2464 Pond Circle E, stated that he has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 27 years. He hoped to know the applicants better in the future. He stated that his concern is that the City did not follow its own rules. He stated that a permit is supposed to be requested prior to work being completed. He believed the City was notified prior to the trees being cut down. He stated that the pond area is very special and home to wildlife. He believed that the City should have done abetter job visiting the site and gaining control of the process. He stated that he does not begrudge the residents for wanting to beautify their property but is concerned with the City not following its process to ensure the natural area is protected. 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 LORBERBAUM TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett asked the root cause of why this is an after the fact permit and whether the City was involved before a permit was requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the applicant did call the City the day before the tree removal contractor was scheduled to show up. He stated that it was explained that ash and boxelders were being removed and noted that dead and diseased trees can be removed without a permit. He stated that once they received a call from a neighboring property owner,the City visited the property to see which trees were being removed. He agreed that some trees were dead and leaning over the property or were ash trees or other trees that would soon need to be removed. He explained that he told the property owners they could continue with the tree removal but then would need to stop work and apply for a permit for the remainder of the work. He stated that the applicant was instructed that absolutely no work could be completed within the 25-foot buffer area. He stated that the trees that were removed were not quality trees and/or imposed a risk to the home. Commissioner Corbett asked if staff believes that activity was within what was allowed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that the tree removal was allowed but the stop work order was issued on the remainder of the work planned. He commented that homeowners can remove dead/diseased/dying trees without a wetland permit. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan but believes that would be more appropriately described as a hardscape plan. She stated that specific information is not provided related to the trees, grading, or vegetation. She stated that there would need to be excavation to install the boulders. She noted that she would also like more details on the rock spill. She stated October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 29 page 142 that a detailed site plan identifying drainage, grading, and landscaping is required for a wetlands permit. She commented on the other items that she also believed are missing in terms of the existing drainage and grading of the site. She stated that she would prefer to table the request and extend the review by 60 days in order to gain those specific elements. She stated that the Commission needs those items in order to provide an accurate review and ensure reviews are being done consistently. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE REVIEW PERIOD. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THE READING OF THE ORDINANCES BUT ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CODE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD MATERIAL INFORMATION TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED HE DID NOT BELIEVE A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WOULD ADD TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED THAT HE COULD SUPPORT THE MOTION BUT NOTED THAT THIS WOULD DELAY THE PROJECT AND WOULD THEN POSTPONE WORK UNTIL THE SPRING. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE AGREES WITH WHAT HAD BEEN SAID, NOTING THAT THERE ARE ITEMS MISSING THAT ARE REQUIRED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION PROVIDING THE DIRECTION RELATED TO TREE PLANTING. SHE STATED THAT ABOUT 30 TREES WERE REMOVED AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THREE TREES ARE BEING REPLANTED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE A MORE DETAILED PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED IF IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT, THE AREA WAS PROBABLY CLEAN AND THE YARD BECAME OVERGROWN BECAUSE OF NEGLECT. HE STATED THAT THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND REMOVE UNDESIRED TREES. HE STATED THAT TO A POINT THE COMMISSIONXITY SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT PERHAPS STAFF SHOULD PLACE AN ARTICLE IN THE CITY NEWSLETTER EDUCATING RESIDENTS ABOUT THE NEED FOR PERMITS FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (FIELD) Chair Field noted that this would be scheduled to come back to the Commission at its November meeting. He asked staff to reach out to the applicant and attempt to assist them with ensuring their application is in order. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 29 page143 From: JAMES NEUHARTH To: Tim Benetti Cc: Ultan Duggan,;Cheryl Jacobson,;Jill Smith;Sally Lorberbaur- Subject: Planning Case#2021-18&impact on 2458 Pond Circle E. Date: Friday,October 22,2021 4:59:20 PM Members of the Planning Commission: Since we aren't available to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 2021, we decided to exercise our Right to make a Public Statement concerning Case # 2021-18. We have lived at 2458 Pond Circle E., Hampshire Estates Addition in Mendota Heights since Sept. of 1989. We have enjoyed living in this community because of the privacy provided by the wetlands buffers in our area. We paid a significant premium for the wetland/wooded lot when we purchased with our property. In 1990, one year after building our home, we made an addition of a second story deck & porch on the back of our home facing the pond. In order to begin construction, we were required to obtain a wetlands permit/variance requiring approval by the the Planning Commission, Neighbors, & final approval by the City Counsel. The duration of the approval process was approximately four months & was very worthwhile to insure wetlands preservation. City Ordinance 12-2-6 states: A PERMIT REQUIRED: NO PERSON shall perform any action upon or otherwise alter a wetland or water related resource area without first obtaining a written permit from the city. The following activities in or upon a wetland or water resource related area shall require a permit. Since there are several requirements related to this permit, only those appropriate to this situation will be highlighted at this time, as stated in the Permit Required: Application 12-2-6. #5. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION, which includes trees, etc. B. Required Information & Data #2. The following Drawings & Exhibits shall be included with a permit application: A Landscape Design drawing of the project. Based on my discussions with the homeowner @ 2452 Pond Circle E. & the MH Public Works Director, I have the following concerns related to Case # 2021-18. 1) The Demolition Work commenced without the required Wetlands Permit. 2). The Project lacks public input. Landscape Design Drawings should be available for public review before work commenced, instead of after the fact. 3) Vegetation including healthy shade trees were removed during the demolition. (We used to enjoy our privacy) 4) The lack drawings & engineering data that indicates the impact on the Wetlands & wildlife. 5) Potential damage to mature Oak trees near the property line between 2458 & 2452 Pond Circle E. throughout the project. page 144 We are available for additional input/discussion. Feel free to contact us. Regards: Jim & Bev Neuharth 612-600-4662(C) page145 From: Devin Creurer To: Tim Benetti Cc: Sara Creurer Subject: Case#2021-18 permit request 2452 Pond Cir.E Date: Sunday,October 17,2021 11:31:56 AM Tim Benetti, Both my wife and I live at 2471 Pond Cir E,Mendota Heights MN 55120 and we are in favor of approving Erik Iversons request for a wetland permit. We see no problem with allowing this work to be done. Devin Creurer Sara Creurer page146 From: Scott Nelson To: Tim Benetti Subject: support for wetlands permit application(2021-18) Date: Tuesday, November 9,2021 10:40:03 PM Attn: Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights I live at 2461 Pond Circle West, on the same cul de sac as the Iverson family (2452 Pond Circle East). I'm writing to express my support for their application for a wetlands permit (planning case 2021-18) to develop a backyard on their property. My family has lived on the street since November of 2017 and knew the previous owners of 2452 Pond Circle East. Over the years, we had the opportunity to spend some time around the house and by the pond. When Iversons moved in, the house had no real backyard. The space behind the house was completely overgrown and unusable. It was an unsafe play area for children. There were trees right up to the deck and patio. There was no grass,just mud, weeds, and a load of wood chips the previous owner had spread around to try and deal with the mess. I'm happy that the Iversons are willing to make the investment in the property required to develop a functional backyard. The house has five bedrooms, is in a wonderful neighborhood with good schools and will likely always be occupied by a family with children. I believe the improvements Iversons intend to make will increase the usefulness of the property for their family and any future occupants of 2452 Pond Circle East. We live on a different pond than Iversons, but a similar property and a similar distance from the water. We have a nice, albeit small, backyard that our kids love to play in. Beyond the grassy area there is a wooded embankment down to the pond. We enjoy the wildlife, privacy, and beauty that the pond provides but still have a backyard space, as do most other properties in the neighborhood. I would like to see Iversons have the same opportunity to enjoy both, as we do. Sincerely, Scott Nelson page147 9b. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 16,2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director Shana Conklin, City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2021-92 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Amend Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development and Wetlands Permit for Planning Case No. 2021-12 (Phase II/58-Unit Apartments) INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to give consideration of Resolution No.2021-92,which would approve a conditional use permit(CUP) authorizing an amendment to the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, along with a Wetlands Permit to allow new work adjacent to an established wetland feature. Consideration of this draft resolution is only for the proposed Phase II/58-Unit apartment project by At Home Apartments. BACKGROUND The proposed development is identified as Phase II of The Reserves. Phase II is scheduled to take place on the northerly 2.05 acre vacant parcel located along Hwy. 62 and next to The Reserve apartments.Phase II is planned to be a three story,74,400-sq. ft. apartment building,with 58-living units,and a smaller fourth floor of 3,250-sq. ft. common/leisure space area. At the August 24' and October 26'meetings, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted two separate public hearings on this proposed apartment development; and after considerable discussion, recommended to deny(by 5-2 vote)Planning Case No. 2021-12,with findings-of-fact. At the November 3,2021 city council meeting,this case appeared before the city council for consideration. After allowing additional public comments and testimony from the Developer/Applicants,the council first acted on a motion made by Councilor Miller, seconded by Councilor Duggan to deny Planning Case No. 2021-12,which motion failed on 2-3 vote(Councilors Miller,Duggan—yay/Councilors Paper,Mazzitello, Levine—nay). A subsequent motion was then made by Councilor Mazzitello,seconded by Councilor Paper to approve Planning Case No.2021-12,and passed by a 3-2 vote in favor(Mayor Levine,Councilors Paper, Mazzitello—yay/Councilors Miller,Duggan—nay). ACTION REQUESTED The City Council may consider adopting the draft Resolution No. 2021-92 as presented, with findings-of fact and conditions memorialized in the draft document. These findings have been carefully prepared by city staff and the City Attorney for council's final consideration on this planning case item. The city council may choose to accept these findings or modify accordingly prior to taking any final action of adopting this resolution. Any motion or action to adopt this resolution requires a simple majority vote. page148 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2021-92 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE 2009 MENDOTA PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT— FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WETLANDS PERMIT TO LOT 1,BLOCK 1,MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION SECOND ADDITION [PLANNING CASE NO. 2021-121 WHEREAS At Home Apartments, LLC ("At Homes" or"Applicant" or"Developer") in cooperation with Mendota Mall Associates, LLC (Paster Properties and as "Owner") has applied for a conditional use permit to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development(PUD) —Final Development Plan, along with a wetlands permit as proposed under Planning Case 2021- 12 (Phase 11/58-Unit Apartments)("Project")for the property located at a 2.05 acre vacant parcel located along Highway 62 and legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS the conditional use permit to amend the PUD as presented herein would authorize the construction of a 74,000 square foot apartment building with three stories containing 58-units and a smaller fourth story of 3,250 square feet to contain indoor pickle ball and bocce ball courts, a wine bar,patio with a fire pit, fitness area, and common lounge space; and WHEREAS the wetlands permit will allow new construction work and activities within 100-feet of an adjacent wetland feature recognized on the City's official Wetlands Map as Interstate Creek; and WHEREAS the Mendota Heights Planning Commission took this matter up again at their regular meeting of August 24, 2021, whereby the commission allowed for additional comments and testimony under a public hearing on this matter on an additional meeting date of October 26, 2021, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended denial (by 5-2 vote) of the conditional use permit to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, along with the wetlands permit, with certain findings of fact and recommended conditions of approval; and WHEREAS on November 3, 2021, the Mendota Heights City Council held a regular meeting to discuss Planning Case 2021-12 and receive public comment; and WHEREAS on November 3, 2021, the Mendota Heights City Council voted to approve (by 3-2 vote)Planning Case 2021-12 for Phase II/ 58-Unit Apartments; and WHEREAS the Mendota Heights City Council wishes to adopt written findings of fact in support of the approval of Planning Case 2021-12 consistent with Minn. Stat. § 15.99; and page149 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit to amend 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD)— Final Development Plan and wetlands permit as proposed under Planning Case 2021-12, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: A. The proposed amendment to the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Project is consistent with the City's goal to provide a range of housing options to enhance the opportunity for people of all generations and in all stages of life to reside in the City of Mendota Heights. Currently, the City contains mostly high-end and mid-range valued single-family homes. This Project provides much needed multi-family housing stock, consistent with the stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The Project is designed to attract young professionals by providing more affordable units with smaller square footage and high-end amenities, but it will be accessible to people of all generations. B. The Project enhances the City's stated goal in the Comprehensive Plan of sustainability. The Project promotes sustainability and resilience by utilizing design features such as a solar ray on roof, low flow toilets, slower showerheads, and single-metered water for each residential unit to encourage conscientious use of water. The Project includes energy-efficient appliances, poured concrete, and adequate insulation. The parking is contained within the envelope of the building to reduce the impervious surface of the apartment building and grounds. The Project provides for green space and landscaping to include pollinator friendly gardens and nine over-story trees. The number of trees is sufficient for the site when considering traffic sight lines, underground utilities, and the integrity of the retaining wall. C. The proposed amendment to the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent with the applicable City Code requirements for such a development. D. The Project complies with the allowable density range of 21 — 30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development) land uses. This is consistent with the density for a MU-Mixed Use land category in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council specifically adopts the density calculation as presented in the Planning Report (Supplemental) dated August 24, 2021, presented to the Planning Commission and fully incorporated into this Resolution. E. The Project will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD, and the development includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas. In particular, the Developer has provided for natural wetland buffers around Interstate Creek, created natural looking ponds, made pedestrian connections accessible to Dodge Nature Center lands to the east, and created trail systems. Res. 2021-92 Page 2 of 7 page 150 F. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided by the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. G. The Project utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property, without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. H. The design of the Project provides reasonable building and parking lot setbacks and a reasonable number of parking stalls. In particular,the Project provides 49 surface parking spaces and 69 underground spaces, for a total of 118 spaces. This provides a ratio of 2.03 parking spaces/unit. For comparison, the R-3 District requires a minimum of 2.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit,which would amount to 145 spaces for this Project, if that standard were applicable. Requiring 145 spaces for this Project would be excessive considering the newer multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and the nation. I. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes, reduced land area, and overall density of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties, nor diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. J. The reduced parking ratio supports the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking would require. K. The Project is not excessive compared to the originally planned development for the site. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will generate fewer vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the retail/commercial development(s) previously proposed for this PUD. This 58-unit apartment building is estimated to increase traffic 318 vehicles on Dodd Road. This increase in traffic is minimal and will not adversely affect public safety or the general welfare. In addition, this Project adequately provides sidewalks to enhance walkability for future residents of the 58-unit apartment building to encourage residents to access nearby retail and commercial areas on foot. L. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. M. The Project can and has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with adjacent projects or proposals. The Project enhances the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan. The proposed apartment Res. 2021-92 Page 3 of 7 page 151 development use is in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. N. The Sixth Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement dated November 2016 provides that Section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety as it relates to the Mendota Plaza Expansion Second Addition, which includes this Project. Section 3.2 governed the timeframe in which the development must be completed. Since 3.2 was deleted in its entirety, there is currently no completion deadline in place, and accordingly, there is no timeframe limitation that prevents City Council from approving this Project. Furthermore, City Council has the authority to adjust the deadlines for development projects consistent with the City Code. O. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report(Supplemental) for Planning Case No. 2021-12, dated August 24, 2021, prepared for the Planning Commission (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution, excluding the draft Findings of Fact for Denial. P. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021-12, dated and presented November 3, 2021, (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution, excluding Exhibit A: Findings of Fact for denial. Q. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report(Supplemental) for Planning Case No. 2021-12, dated October 26, 2021, (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution. R. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this land use request, including a deadline for completion of the Project. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development,and wetlands permit as proposed under Planning Case 2021-12, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall enter into an amended Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the City Council; and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Res. 2021-92 Page 4 of 7 page 152 Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G— Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re-established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. 5. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 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 applicant, owner, tenant and 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. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. 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. Res. 2021-92 Page 5 of 7 page 153 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction or excavation. 14. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the City's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of November 2021. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mayor Stephanie Levine ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights,MN 55118 Res. 2021-92 Page 6 of 7 page 154 EXHIBIT A Legal Description PID No. 27-48402-01-010 Lot 1, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion 2nd Addition Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights,MN 55118 Res. 2021-92 Page 7 of 7 page 155 9c. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor Levine, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of an Amendment to Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Planning Case No. 2021-13 (Phase III/ 89-Unit Apartments) INTRODUCTION The City Council is being asked to provide consideration of the conditional use permit (CUP) authorizing an amendment to the Mendota Plaza PUD of 2009. At Home Apartments is seeking this amendment in order to provide a new 89-Unit apartment facility in the mall project area. BACKGROUND The proposed development is for the vacant 2.04 parcel located behind the main mall building, is identified as Phase III, which is a proposed for development with a new four story, 89-unit apartment building. At the August 24 and October 26 meetings,the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted two separate public hearings on this proposed apartment development; and after considerable discussion,recommended to deny(by 6-1 vote)Planning Case No. 2021-13,with findings-of-fact. At the November 3, 2021 city council meeting, this case (along with Planning Case No. 2021-12) appeared before the city council for joint consideration. Staff presented information on both of the proposed developments, public comments were taken and discussion with the Applicant was had. Though the presentations, public comments and council discussion focused on both development proposals, the City Council considered Planning Case No. 2021-12 and 2021-13, separately. The City Council acted on an original motion to deny Planning Case No. 2021-12, which motion failed on 2-3 vote(Councilors Miller,Duggan—yay/Councilors Paper,Mazzitello, Levine—nay) and a subsequent motion was then made to approve Planning Case No. 2021-12, which passed by 3-2 vote in favor(Mayor Levine, Councilors Paper, Mazzitello—yay/Councilors Miller, Duggan —nay). Due to the late hour of November 3 meeting, the city council elected to postpone and table further discussion on Planning Case No. 2021-13; and have the proposal brought back for discussion at the November 16 city council meeting. page 156 Attachments: • Council Memo and Supporting Documents from the November 3, 2021 City Council Packet ACTION REQUESTED The City Council should move to take from the table, Planning Case 2021-13 (Phase III/ 89- Unit Apartments); and The City Council should consider denial or approval of Planning Case 2021-13, and direct staff and the city attorney to prepare a final list of findings-of—fact related to this planning case item, and that such be brought back for final consideration under a draft resolution (of either approval or denial)f for future adoption. page 157 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Request for City Council Action DATE: November 3,2021 TO: Mayor Levine and City Council, City Administrator Jacobson FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of an Amendment to Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Planning Case No.2021-12 (Phase II/58-Unit Apartments) and Planning Case No.2021-13 (Phase III/89-Unit Apartments) Introduction The City Council is asked to give consideration of a conditional use permit (CUP) authorizing an amendment to a previously approved planned unit development(PUD)for two separate sites located within the Mendota Plaza Mall project area. This original Mendota Plaza PUD was created in 2009. At Home Apartments,in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates,is seeking this amendment in order to provide two,new multi-family residential developments. City Code Section 12-1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. Background The Mendota Plaza PUD project site encompasses 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009, Mendota Mall Associates (Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development,which included a new overall land use and zoning category of Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development(MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential development area, which would include the large retail (strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf. high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant pad sites,various sized offices,childcare center and a pharmacy (refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD Master/Final Development Plan 2009). Since 2009,the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments, with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment No.6 in 2016,and the latest No.7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. The Reserve apartment development under Amendment No. 6 was approved as the 4-story, 139-unit apartment building seen today,and redefined the area of the vacant,triangular shaped parcel to the west,with"Restaurant"and "Retail/Restaurant" for future developments. The proposed development for the northerly 2.05 acre vacant parcel located along Hwy. 62 and next to The Reserve apartment,is identified as Phase II of The Reserves. This Phase II is planned to be a three story, 74,400-sq. ft. apartment building,with 58-living units, and a smaller fourth floor of 3,250-sq. ft.to contain indoor pickle-ball and bocce ball courts;wine bar,patio with fire pit,fitness area and common lounge space. The apartment will have luxury,high-end finishes harmonious with The Reserve, and provide indoor and outdoor parking. (Please refer to attached Planning Report Case No. 2021-12 for full details and plan sets related to this proposed 58-Unit project). page 158 The proposed development on the vacant 2.04 parcel located behind the main mall building, is identified as Phase III,and is proposed as a four story, 89-unit apartment building,with 139,126 gross square feet of indoor parking and living area. The building will consist of one and one-half levels of underground parking, with 110 stalls and 47 outdoor parking stalls. (Please refer to attached Planning Report Case No. 2021- 13 for full details and plan sets related to this proposed 89-Unit project). On August 24, 2021, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held an initial public hearing on these two planning case items; whereby a planning staff report was presented on each project site; and received by the commission. Comments from the Applicant/Developer and public were received and noted for the record, and both planning case items were tabled to the October 26, 2021 meeting, in order for the Developer to bring more information to the commission for further consideration. At the October 26 meeting, the planning commission was presented with the additional (requested) information from the Developer; and upon a brief update by city staff,the commission re-opened the public hearings on both items; and allowed for additional comments from the general public. Appended to this memo report are the August 24 and October 26 meeting minutes. This report also includes copies of a number of email/letters from local residents and business owners expressing support or concerns with these new apartment proposals. Discussion The City can use its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on certain land use or zoning decisions, such as this variance, and has broad discretion. A determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation At the October 26, 2021 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of Planning Case No. 2021-12 (by 5-2 vote), a conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to the Mendota Mall Planned Unit Development, which would allow the development of a proposed Phase II -/ 58-Unit Apartment project,including a related Wetlands Permit allowing work adjacent to a wetland feature(Interstate Creek), with findings-of fact supporting such recommendation(see attached Exhibit-A to this memo report). Subsequent to this action,the Planning Commission also recommended denial of Planning Case No.2021- 13 (by 6-1 vote), a conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to the Mendota Mall Planned Unit Development,which would allow the development of a proposed Phase III-/89-Unit Apartment project, with findings-of fact supporting such recommendation(see attached Exhibit-B to this memo report). Action Requested The City Council should consider Planning Case No. 2021-12 and Planning Case No. 2021-13, separately. Appended to this memo report, are the findings-of fact for denial related with each planning case, along with additional Exhibit-C and Exhibit-D, which contain findings-of fact for approval on each planning case. The City Attorney recommends that the City Council give consideration to both project areas presented herein, and once the Council decides to make a motion to either deny or approve these two planning cases, the Council should reference the specific list of findings-of-fact related to each case, and make a motion accordingly. The Council may choose to modify or verbally add to these findings as deemed appropriate. Once a motion has been made and decided on,the Council should then direct the city attorney to prepare a resolution on each case with all the preferred and final findings-of-fact in a final resolution document. This resolution will be brought back to the City Council at the November 16 regular meeting for final action and adoption. Any motion or action to deny or approve these planning case items requires a simple majority vote. page 159 EXHIBIT-A FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-12 PHASE II/58-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit Lot 1,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion 2°d Addition The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 1. The 58-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses,natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. page 160 EXHIBIT-B FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR DENIAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-13 PHASE III/89-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD AMENDMENT Lot 7,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 7. The 89-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 8. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 9. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 10. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 11. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses,natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 12. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. page 161 EXHIBIT-C FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-12 PHASE II/58-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit Lot 1,Bloch 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion 2°d Addition The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 58-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza,is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community;provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD(Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area, and overall density of this development 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. 8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. page 162 EXHIBIT-D FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL PLANNING CASE NO.2021-13 PHASE III/89-UNIT APARTMENT CUP for PUD AMENDMENT Lot 7,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 12. The proposed amendment to allow a new 89-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza,is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 13. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community;provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 14. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD(Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 15. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 16. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 17. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 18. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area, and overall density of this development 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. 19. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 20. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 21. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 22. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. page 163 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei ghts.com mCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT (Supplemental) revised 1 012 812 02 1 MEETING DATE: October 26,2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No.2021-12 & No.2021-13 New Apartment Developments Phase II&Phase III of The Mendota Plaza APPLICANT: At Home Apartments/Mendota Mall Associates,LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: Highway 62& South Plaza Way Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE: December 25,2021 (Extended Review Period by Applicant) INTRODUCTION This report packet contains additional information submitted by At Home Apartments, the Applicant/Developer of the proposed Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 24t1i meeting, these two planning case items were presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the commission determined additional information was needed from the Applicant/Developer, and voted to table both cases to a future meeting date. The additional (requested) information was determined as follows: 1) Provide an overall and proposed Impervious Surface calculation; 2) Provide a Lighting Plan; 3) Provide a Traffic Circulation Plan; 4) Provide an updated Parking Analysis or parking data on the existing site; 5) Provide an updated Traffic Analysis; 6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap stalls; 7) Provide an updated Landscape Plan; and 8) Address fire protection and safety measures(with city's Fire Department). page 164 This report also includes an update on the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24t1' hearing; along with a legal opinion from our city attorneys addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. Please note the Site Development and Elevation (Architectural) Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those presented at the August 24t1i meeting (attached to the August 24'1i Planning Report). The Commissioners should also refer to the information and analysis contained in the original August 24'i'Planning Reports,which are included in this Supplemental Packet. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 1) Impervious Surface Calculations According to the Developer, the original Mendota Mall Planned Unit Development was approved or allowed to have up to 75% impervious surfaces. The Developer has determined the total impervious coverage within the existing overall PUD is currently at 62.4% of the site. The Developer has also determined(and states)the with the two proposed apartment projects,the total impervious coverage within the PUD area will increase slightly to 65.5% of the PUD area, which is within the 75% overall impervious value approved in the 2009 PUD. The Developer also provides a comparison of what the proposed lots (individually) would have been had they been developed vs. the new or proposed apartment developments on each site. For Parcel 2/Phase II,the original restaurant/retail centers was intended to have up to 62.8%of impervious,while the new 58-unit apartment and its facilities would only be approx. 51.5% of impervious cover. For Phase III/Lot 7 site,the current parcel consists of 21.6%impervious due to the perimeter roadways, and the new 89-unit development adds 47,980-sf. of cover, totaling 67,115-s£, or 75.7% impervious coverage. Overall,the total added surfaces for both Phased II and III sites increases to 65.5% of impervious area over the entire PUD project area,which is still below the 75% approved under the 2008 PUD approval. 2) Lighting Plan The Developer has provided for the commissioners review a Lighting Illumination (or Photometric) Plan for both sites, and has submitted their choice of proposed light heads or luminaries for both building wall and pole mounted lighting sources. City Code Section 12-1I-15 LIGHTING states: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. For the Phase II site, it appears the lighting meets or exceeds the 0.2 candle standards per Code. On the Phase III site,it appears some lights along the north side of the apartment—facing towards the back side of the main mall building,have projected readings between 0.2—0.3 candles along this share line. This slight increase is nominal, and city staff does not have any concerns or issues with these lighting values illustrated on the plan. All new luminaries or light heads will be equipped with energy efficient LED lighting, and are seamless/down-cast fixtures that help direct lighting downward and avoid glare or spill-out. City staff has no additional comments or recommendations with this lighting plan. page 165 3) Traffic Circulation Plan Even though the proposed project(s)do not change existing access points or change the interior roadways within the Plaza PUD,the Developer has provided a circulation plan for the commission's review(See attached Exhibit C with the 10/13/2021 Updated Narrative). The traffic circulation plan denotes existing or current vehicle movements within the PUD by the "wide blue"lines; current pedestrian movements(i.e. sidewalks)as the "narrow red"lines; and the "green"lines represent new or proposed vehicle movement areas; and the "yellow"highlights the additional pedestrian paths that will be provided with the construction of the proposed projects. City staff has no additional comments or recommendations with this circulation plan. 4) Parking Analysis Numbers As was noted in the August 24t1i Report,the proposed Phase II/58-unit development includes a total of 118 spaces,equating to a ratio of 2.03 spaces/unit;while Phase III/89-unit development provides a total of 157 spaces,equating to a ratio of 1.76 spaces/unit. City Code requires a standard of 2 spaces /unit for residential uses; while the R-3 High Density Residential districts requires 2.5 spaces/unit. The required amount or standards used for parking with a development in a PUD request can be flexible, as was allowed with the 2002 Village PUD by granting 2 spaces/unit; The Reserves of 2016 approved with a 1.6 space/unit; The Heights Apartments of 2017 approved with 2 spaces/unit; and the recent Linden Apartments of 2020 were allowed 1.4 spaces/unit (for residential use). As was noted in the previous August 24'Report,starting with the high density residential uses approved in the 2002 Village PUD, and based on the Stantec parking study/analysis submitted with The Reserve project in 2016,parking needs for high density housing developments can be accommodated in a range between 1.5—2.0 spaces per unit. The Aug.24'Report included a recommendation to provide the same 1.6 spaces/unit or 1.2 spaces/bedroom standard granted under The Reserves in 2016, which calculates as follows: PHASE II(58-unit) • 1.6 Spaces/Unit: 58-units x 1.6 =92.8 or 93 spaces or • 1.2 Spaces/Bedroom: (28-1 bed units @ 1.2=34)+(30-2-bed @ 2.4=72)= 106 spaces PHASE III(89-unit) • 1.6 Spaces/Unit: 89-units x 1.6= 142.4 or 143 spaces or • 1.2 Spaces/Bedroom: 62 one bedroom units @ 1.2 =74.4,or 75 spaces 27 two bedroom units @ 2.4= 64.8,or 65 spaces TOTAL: 140 spaces Based on the previous studies and analysis performed on The Reserves, The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years, and on-site observations of these development uses, it remains the opinion of staff that the 118 spaces proposed in Phase II and 157 spaces in Phase III should be adequate to serve the residents of these individual development sites. page 166 Parkinz Stall Standards/Sizes: Per City Code Section 12-1D-16-D-4, Size Of Spaces: `Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet(9)wide and twenty feet(20)in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet(24) in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway." Code Section 12-113-2: Definitions also provides the following for handicapped parking spaces: "A surfaced and maintained area(12 by 20 feet)for the parking of one standard automobile and identified for use by handicapped individuals." The submitted plans with the Aug.24'Report illustrated stall lengths of 9'x 18'in size. As part of this update, the Developer has indicated they have revised their plans so that the majority of the interior (underground) stalls meet the 9' x 20' standards;however they are requesting at least 30% of the stalls remain at 9'x 18'to allow for compact parking stalls.The Developer also requests outside parking stalls remain at 9 'x 18'in size,due to the consideration of curb bumpers and front overhang of the vehicles. Handicap stalls will be 12' x 20' for interior, and 12' x 18' for exterior; with a total of 2 interior and 2 exterior handicap stalls to be provided for Phase II and 2 interior and 2 exterior of handicap stalls provided for Phase III. This request by the Developer is supported by their intent to reduce hard-surface/impervious cover,and create more green space. The Developer feels these reduced stall standards are consistent with what was approved in The Reserves, The Heights and also The Linden/Copperfield Diner. The planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on the number of spaces provided, reduced stall sizes, and reduced setbacks for parking lot areas. Parking Needs Analysis/Tabulation The Developer has provided an updated parking analysis to demonstrate that current parking is adequate to serve the needs of the individual developments and the entire PUD. This update includes a parking summary and analysis addressing the parking at the Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota Plaza PUD area. The Parking Data Tables show the amount of parking that could have been required vs. the parking provided on certain sites/areas of the PUD. The Main Mall and surrounding land uses are shown to have 385 stalls required, but only 341 have been provided, and The Reserve Apartments may have needed up to 278 spaces, but only 245 were provided. It is important to note these current parking numbers were approved or allowed under the original 2009 PUD approval and its subsequent amendments for different land uses. Based on the 957 spaces that may have been required versus the 861 spaces proposed,this results in a 11%reduction from required to proposed space counts. The Developer has also provided a detailed Daily Avg. Use (Parking) on the various uses in the Mall Property, which is based on an initial morning, peak noon, mid-afternoon, and peak evening time frames. The comparisons between Week 1 and Week 2 appear very similar, with little fluctuations even during these different time frames. The table includes a detailed count of parked vehicles at certain times of the day and locations inside the Mall Property. 5) Traffic Analysis The Developer included in the August 24t'PC Packet, a Technical Memorandum(Traffic Analysis) from Biko Associates(dated 08/09/21). According to the Developer,the proposed apartment uses appear to actually work better than the current approved uses when it comes to traffic,especially during peak times. page 167 The Developer have now also provide an updated analysis (also from Biko Assoc.—dated 09/09/21) that reviews current daily vehicle trips on Dodd Road and how the proposed apartment projects may impact these daily amounts. The Developer shows the level of service (Daily Trips) along Dodd Road in both the"Approved/Adopted Scenario" and a revised or"Proposed Amendment Scenario" as 7,700 vehicles. However,the Approved daily trip generation(restaurants+childcare center) shows a Daily Trip generation of 1,024 vehicles vs. 798 attributed to both apartment project uses. The "Impact of DT's"on Dodd Road go from 8,724 down to 8,498,which represents a 3% drop between both scenarios. The Developer's traffic engineers conclude the level of service of either 13%vs. 10% is not significant; and further conclude "...if there is a concern that vacant parcels within Mendota Plaza should be developed with uses that generate the least daily traffic volumes, Scenario #2 (the two apartments)should be the preferred alternative." City staff has no additional comments or recommendations with this Traffic Analysis information. 6) Landscape Plan Updates The Developer has submitted a revised landscape plans for both sites. Prior to the preparation of these plans,the Developer was encouraged to discuss any new landscape designs and planting materials list with local resident Master Gardener Sue Light. Ms. Light provided an initial review memo dated 08/22/2021, which was added to the August 24t1i Report and presentations; and has amended this original recommendation with "Landscaping Planting Plan Recommendations for Mendota Plaza" — dated 08/13/2021 (attached). According to the Developer's Narrative Update,each plan maximizes the use of over story,ornamental and coniferous trees while providing native plants and foundation plantings above and beyond what is required by City Code requirements. The current landscape plans include the following: • Twenty-five (25) species of trees have been proposed over the two sites with an average of 16% per species. (City requirement is not more than 50% of trees shall be comprised of one species). • Amended planting soil will be incorporated within the planting beds to promote a healthy soil that allows root growth and plant establishment. • 82 % of the plant species specified are native to the area, with over 77% of the total individual plants being native. In addition to the individual plantings,the plans incorporate 8,800 square feet of central Minnesota wildflower seed mix that is proposed on Lot 2. (There is no City requirement and GreenStep Cities Program requires a minimum of 75% native to the local area.) • Planting surrounding the parking lots exceed the City Zoning Code requirements and also meet the GreenStep Cities program requirements of providing landscape islands(at the end of each row)of over 180 square feet. (This exceeds the City Requirements.) 7) Fire Protection The Developers met with Mendota Heights Fire Chief Dreelan on October 12,2021 to review the plans for the two new apartment projects,and discuss any fire protection measures and plans. This discussion included identifying the proper placement/locations for fire hydrants and the locations for the FDCs (fire department connections) and confirmed that two proposed buildings would be completed sprinklered with standpipe systems. The Developer indicated Chief Dreelan was comfortable with their fire protection services and plan. page 168 As was indicated at the August 24' meeting, there was some concerns raised about traffic on Dodd Road and the potential impact(s)this development may have on emergency vehicle leaving the nearby fire station. A suggestion was made to have an Opticom system installed,which would trigger the stop lights at Hwy 62 and Dodd Road in a certain direction,in order to free-up or release any queued vehicles sitting along Dodd Road,thereby opening up the area in front of the station. City staff has indicated to the Developer that any Opticom or similar system will require MnDOT review and approvals(as Dodd Road is a state highway), and this system would be the responsibility of the city,not the developer. Wetlands Permit The proposed Phase II project includes grading and construction activities within 100-feet of a wetland resource - Interstate Valley Creek,thus a Wetlands Permit is needed to be approved. A concern was raised at the August 24'meeting of the "wetland in the back corner of the parcel, and the setbacks from the pond and creek edges. This pond feature is actually a man-made pond that was installed as part of the sheet-pile wall system construction in 2017; and is not recognized as a"wetland" or system on the City of Mendota Heights official Wetlands Map,therefore,no buffering or setbacks are required. As indicated in the August 24'Report,the northerly area or creek edge was stabilized and improved with a very large and considerable steel sheet pile wall along this north embankment(see image—below). F � Y[2 � y �� a The areas near the bottom of the wall and along the flattened or sloped creek banks are heavily vegetated, and will remain so during and after construction. The creek channel measures anywhere from 15-ft.to 27- ft. away from this wall. Developer has no plans to impact or affect this waterway or wall during the construction of this project. The building along this creek/wall edge is shown with a 15-foot setback,while the parking lot is setback 25- ft. from the lot line and approx. 20-ft. from the wall edge. This open/green space,plus the vegetated buffer created along the creek bed, should provide the added protection called for along this waterway. No additional buffers are required. The stormwater pollution prevention plans(SWPPP)indicate extraordinary measures will be used to protect and safeguard this area during and after construction is completed,and all disturbed areas have been restored. page 169 PUD Agreement Timeframe Issues At the August 24t1i hearing, a comment was made addressing the five year time frame for completing a planned unit development. City Code Section 12-IK-6: Procedure for PUD indicates a provision as part of the written statement accompanying the PUD Concept Plan application process,noted as follows: "3.d.: A general indication of the expected schedule of development including progressive phasing and time schedules which shall not exceed five (5) years from the date of approval of the final development plan for the planned unit development to the completion of all construction." City staff asked our city attorneys to review the original 2009 Mendota Mall PUD Agreement, and its subsequent amendments (all seven). The attorneys found that under the original 2009 PUD Agreement between the City and the mall developers,a Section 3.2 was include that provided for"The Project shall be fully completed no later than five (5)years after the date of the approval of the final development plan by the City." The first,second,third fifth and seventh amendments did not amend or change this or any other timeframes. The fourth amendment however,did delete and replaced Section 3.2 with the following: 8. < 3_2 is hcrclby deleted in its n .:1c SUJk Mt to tt1.e-}7::r1, iii.r rUclu:remen:s out_i;rctl r rvlr, the Projcct shrill be fully comrllrr'•r+ r;, '',i!:;r ±hr:r1 \�ov!:ibv: 15, 2026. ,Ary 1�'rrasas of the Projcct yet 1,3 L7c c -r=t;.3ctc:l a;at 1`10 date ofthis t�otirta;i.im::OmL,irt,may be conuncneed by..;-,%dL p --ni :giny Limc prior to N>VC 11h(:- 15, 2023„but nwu i b 1)eveloper thirtty-six (36) ni th= irmm 11-pe issuance of:he buiLding I-cirm i1. The City Attorney states the five-year requirement for completion in Section 3.2 of the Original PUD was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. The sixth amendment, which was created as part of the 2016 The Reserves development, included the following language: IL. t:.:ili''I .I i:11511'1i.r4't.'}1,..1I i k.•4111 ll�.r_,I=t. �s'4'?-_on 3.1 is het`L'•by delciccl to its. LTAircty and rep6LLLC L'AdLi7.1ts4 it hlWillg: ;I•.%'L'L to Un.Aiv•:iil .!�[e Delays,th-e 1), tr': . 4:,-r r,'i .• Lh� lnfr:,.:!::�.!::.: .i:lh�:.'am• .�s•:14 a�rJ rl;r .�.,,.,...;I ... I�:icrn __ , . :I;.• . . 1'.t.: ._ i; . it ,.I',r 1:, i. i.:.i r..::i in,_ sIL il. _ iI,P..4 �,i:J a.11�n1,�n7u1t� 1 , . ..,.... .- iI ; reas ,:iable tii.:. _1ce_°• 13. Section 3.2 "completion of DevelpMent. Section 1.2 is hereby duitted in its entirety,as said Section relatcLs to die Second Addition. The City Attorney concludes that the Phase III/ 89-unit development or any other approved development is allowed to be completed by November 15, 2026. The Phase II/ 58-unit project is situated on that part governed under the Sixth Amendment (2"d Addition—Mendota Mall); and therefore since this timeframe was deleted under this 6t1i PUD Agreement, this property does not have a deadline or required completion date for any development or project. page 170 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein,based on the attached finding-of-fact,with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting(if necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this hearing was tabled at the August 24t1i meeting,the Planning Commission should make a motion to re-open the public hearing; allow for additional comments; and if enough information has been given and discussion has concluded,make a final motion on one of the alternatives noted above. The following are suggested conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council; and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G—Structural,Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re- established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. 5. A park dedication fee of$4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 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. page 171 9. The owner, tenant and 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. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. 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. 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction. 14. All applicable fire and building codes,as adopted/amended by the City,shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the city's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Developer's Updated Narrative+Attachments- 10/13/2021 2. August 24,2021 Planning Staff Reports for Planning Case Nos.2021-12 and 2021-13 page 172 at home APARTMENTS October 13, 2021 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Attn: Mr. Tim Benetti Re: Update: At Home Apartments Planning Application &Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. Dear Mr. Benetti: This letter is being provided to you as an update and response to certain matters raised during the Planning Commission meeting held on August 26, 2021. At this meeting, At Home Apartments presented two housing development proposals for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve at Mendota Village and Parcel 1/Lot 7 located within the Mixed Use Mendota Plaza PUD. During the discussion with the Planning Commissioners we were asked to provide additional information as it related to our application and/or provide further clarification. Below we have separated out each of the areas we were asked to address. impervious Surface: During the August 26th meeting, Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for specifications on the impervious surface calculations, not just for the two proposed projects, but for the entire Mendota Plaza PUD. We did not have that information available to us during the meeting, but promised to follow up with the desired calculation. When the original PUD was approved the overall development was approved to be 75% impervious. The total impervious coverage within the existing overall PUD is currently 62.4%. With the PUD as it is currently constructed combined with the two proposed apartment projects the total impervious coverage within the PUD area would increase to 65.5%, still well within the 75% overall impervious value that was approved in 2009 with the original PUD. When looking at each of the proposed lots individually, Parcel 2/Phase II proposes to decrease impervious coverage from 62.8% to 51.5%. Parcel 1/Lot 7 is proposed with 75.7% impervious coverage. The two parcels together have 65.5% impervious. One objective of a PUD is to allow flexibility between lots to account for unusual circumstances. Parcel 1/Lot 7 is completely surrounded by existing access drives, which cover more than 20% of the lot. The impervious area of the remainder of the Parcel 1/Lot 7 is only 69.0%. Please see Exhibit A. /pd�ge 173 at home APARTMENTS Litzhting Plan: During the August 26th meeting, Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about the lighting plan for the two proposed projects. The lighting plan was not provided with our application at the time of submission, but it has been attached to this letter for review and comment. The lighting plan consists of pole mount lights at the parking areas and wall mount lights at the building. Please see Exhibit B. Traffic Circulation Plan: Our application did not provide a circulation plan as we did not believe it was warranted since the proposed projects do not change access points or change the interior roadways within the Plaza development. However, we do realize that information is helpful when reviewing the requested PUD amendment. Included with this letter is a traffic circulation plan which denotes vehicle movement within the PUD, current pedestrian movements (i.e. sidewalks) and also highlights the additional pedestrian paths that will be provided with the construction of the proposed projects. Please see Exhibit C. Parking Analysis: During the meeting, several commissioners had questions and comments regarding parking at the Reserve at Mendota Village,the parking ratios for the proposed projects, and also the availability for the Mendota Plaza PUD as a whole. It was requested that we provide a parking analysis to demonstrate that current parking is adequate to serve the needs of the individual developments and the entire PUD. With this update we have included a parking summary and analysis addressing the parking at the Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota Plaza PUD area. Please see Exhibit D. Traffic Analysis: With the submitted application, we provided a detailed traffic memo that showed that the proposed uses are actually better than the current approved uses when it comes to traffic, especially during peak times. Further analysis was done to review the current daily car trips on Dodd Road and how the proposed projects impact that daily amount. Please see Exhibit E. Parking Stalls and Handicap stalls: During the parking discussion, it was noted by Commissioner Lorberbaum that the stalls provided for in the proposed projects were shorter than what is required under the municipal code. The stalls detailed in the application showed stall lengths of 9' x 18' whereas code requires parking stalls to be 9'x 20.' The last PUD approval did allow for 9' x 18' stall lengths. We have been able to revise the plans so that the majority of the interior parking stalls (the underground parking stalls) will be 9' x 20', however we are requesting that 30% of the stalls remain at 9' x 18' to allow dedicated compact parking stalls. We also request that the outside parking stalls remain at 9'x 18' as there is additional length that is automatically provided when you take into consideration the curb bumpers and front overhang of the vehicles. The reduced asphalt at the exterior will create more green area, less impervious area and would be a benefit to the residents and the community. These requests would be consistent with what was approved in 2016 with the PUD Amendment for the Reserve at Mendota Village. Additionally, granting of these requests would be consistent with the deviations that were approved for The Heights and also The Linden/Copperfield Diner. The Heights Apartment was /p�ye 174 at home APARTMENTS approved with 9' x 18' for its underground stalls and 9' x 20' for the outdoor stalls, The Linden, which is both a residential and commercial use, was approved with 9' x 18' stalls for both interior and exterior parking. The Handicap stalls will be 12' x 20'for interior, and 12' x 18' for exterior. A total of 2 interior and 2 exterior handicap stalls will be provided for Phase 2 and a total 2 interior and 2 exterior of handicap stalls will be provided for development located on Lot 7. Please Exhibit F, Landscape Plan Update: Revised landscape plans have been provided for both sites. Each project maximizes the use of overstory, ornamental and coniferous trees while providing native plants and foundation plantings above and beyond what is required by City Zoning Code requirements. The current landscape plans include the following, but are not limited to: • Twenty-five (25) species of trees have been proposed over the two sites with an average of 16% per species. (City requirement is not more than 50% of trees shall be comprised of one species). • Amended planting soil will be incorporated within the planting beds to promote a healthy soil that allows root growth and plant establishment. • 82 % of the plant species specified are native to the area, with over 77% of the total individual plants being native. In addition to the individual plantings, the plans incorporate 8,800 square feet of central Minnesota wildflower seed mix that is proposed on Lot 2. (There is no City requirement and GreenStep Cities Program requires a minimum of 75% native to the local area.) • Planting surrounding the parking lots exceed the City Zoning Code requirements and also meet the GreenStep Cities program requirements of providing landscape islands (at the end of each row) of over 180 square feet. (This exceeds the City Requirements.) Additional conversation was had with Susan Light on September 20, 2021 discussing the GreenStep Cities Program Requirements identified in her amended response and what is proposed in the current landscape plans. Our discussion revolved around utilizing the Greenstep requirements as a guideline and implementing improvements where it best fits these sites and the long-term vision of the area. The proposed landscape plan provides an approach that exceeds the City's Zoning Code requirements, strives to comply with additional pollinator and native plant recommendations and provides a long term sustainable product that can be maintained for the best aesthetic quality of the surrounding environment. Please see Exhibit G. Fire Protection: We met with Mendota Heights Fire Chief Dreelan on October 12, 2021 to review our fire protection plan. This discussion included identifying the proper placement/locations for fire hydrants and the locations for the FDCs (fire department connections) and confirmed that two proposed buildings would be completed sprinklered with ^P e 175 at home APARTMENTS standpipe systems. With this information and the agreement on where the hydrants and FDCs should be located, Chief Dreelan was comfortable with our fire protection plan. As it relates to his concerns about traffic on Dodd and what impact these developments the desire to have an Opticom systems installed that is located outside the fire station was discussed. It is our understanding that there are preliminary conversations at a staff level about installation of an Opticom system. A more detailed summary of this meeting will be provided shortly. We hope this letter provides the additional clarification needed by the Planning Commission. If there are any questions or comments concerning this letter or the corresponding materials, please contact me directly at 65 I-294-3282 or via email at lstefaniak(rbaha-nvi.com. qRestfullysubmitted,M. Stefaniak, sq.nt of Real Es ate and Development eral Counsel At Home Apartments, L.L.C. pNe 176 at home APARTMENTS F;XHIBIT A Lnpervious Surface Calculation Lnpervious Surface Calculations (calculated by Anderson Engineering) The total area of the Mendota Plaza PUD is 21.2 acres. In 2008, when the original PUD was filed,the existing site was 31% impervious. The 2008 stormwater report prepared by RLK-Inc. was used to size the ponds that currently exist on the site. These ponds were designed to support a full build-out of the 21.2-acre PUD with an overall impervious surface of 75%, which is 15.9 Ac. or 692,604 SF of impervious. The current Mendota Plaza PUD is 62.4% impervious, (578,330 SF impervious of 927,120 SF of total site area). The area of Lot 1 is 88,920 SF. The existing gravel area on that lot is considered impervious. So,existing impervious coverage of Lot 1, including the area of the normal water level of the existing pond measures 59,285 SF or 66.7% impervious. The proposed development of Lot 1 will actually decrease the impervious surface to 45,800 SF,which is only 51.5%. The total area of Lot 7 is 88,680 SF and currently has an impervious coverage of 19,134 SF for the perimeter roadways,or 21.6%. The development on Lot 7 is proposed to add 47,980 SF of impervious surface, which will would increase the impervious surface to 67,115 SF, or 75.7%. Overall, the impervious coverage proposed on Lot 1 and Lot 7 would increase the impervious coverage within the 21.2 acre PUD to 552,903 SF, or 65.5%,which is still well below the overall 75% impervious coverage that the 2008 PUD was approved for. /Np e 177 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT B Lighting Plan Attached. page 178 u . " , Will a, SE(P AV/< -T]T1 SOJTH VLAZA VAVE xjaI if, i FF QI DOW, These drawings are low conceptual use any and are not 0 Intended for ocnitiuction.Fixture runs and quantities should be vo bled pifor to order.Values represented r we an app,oximation generated from menufachners pholorholrk Inhouse or Independent lab tests volth dabsupplied by lamp manufacturers. NW`s;y6iaH e;Opuew sejeiaoasp�ae�eg erun7 rs,.v��u'.zo.sic=ya a as„pv, •s;drys;y6iaH a;opuaw owo aae - - env 0 Q 00 O _ PPP P O O = � 0s3 N J N N Y C C y C 4,1 m Em N 0 N n- - J 41 U \ � X� N O N .7 :+ P : UO C. o y C U V P av 2 n g y E \ N N O E O O. L .9 a n a C O)U � 20 U O O � m 41� A N J ,7 0 d P P P d O y 0 O. �L J N O.N IA Ill.Ill �� w a , v • em a aaP�O � P�P 1 O a°o .a x P � o O ,, a U ti `e v 0 cl fA s `�. � ��, L'♦ +:�• !`�" as �� { O- r F N J �II I A WAN 11,11t11 l> S .1 I� m H ul N L r C U O Q N O Q V to L y m y 3c d: W � OE== a tun E Z w °y x: J 0 w E y W �r3adNG u V ���� ua N OF Z LL L � � a� c O i m E O J � � m 9 � v° EE N w •m DW U in N O O 0 U► m c � �_ � U c C YI O �,/, Q O O O N C Q. E"i.�WO.. N 0 d aY � m c� a � N VI a� a Y m m O 3 c 2 � O I W t dL; 3 J m m w Q C f -O C 2 z E 8 Q r O y C ' C � 3 Z LL i m m O m ao I as W w m m E L Z (/� C 5 in U)a az V l U = r � Z LL Y/ F F- Z U a . c m l G G Z Z U N In of co 7 � U T C a U 0 C L � Cl Q r 7 Ir Q 7 L O rn (n L OL m O ~ C u; L m li U Y T � � 7 N Q C 9 'E N C 7 7 WCl N U N / O m Q � � L � c 3 m I to 3 C C 02 J z D. c 3 I E c I s o > :o I L O m C m N O C Q a a N L O I U r 3 IUD f0 i `" Z w ° Q m 3 Q O L L t L Z, 2�° � c� I mrn Srw cam 6 M. Jam; a y� E 2 L a 'U Q) a m >> I f mm w umE w C o a waJ a O7 L y 0) 4 LL `gym=� I p Ey C _"wmo dm m O m m� E LL " 'O . Ou-0 w Dr E m O C U Q S C 7 O L L C U S ut m E f0 N V QO O J mmOJ I Z O C'� CL y a� m Q rc•3: 3 0mio Q m � rntp v ° C C 7 m m o f E a)z. 2 m o,o rn N JDOJ O (A U)� Z F`>0. a � o > > y LL W U 0 LLJ • " • ca • IN • !•^ ,r � 9 ' i f .>� F09 ZIP y..� . a yo ate. ♦ � � � � �,.�, ��t�. �� ` i6 Q d T N m C c N P I--- o ta3 vv ' .O 4 O - O lo Y �s Ql s a J u O c Q p 7D c s � d � m CL O v a 0 v b o J .� N 6 N i v o > c u l ua o O a Y z c y a o O a O $ u o O [ U C J > O N O N m u X N T O u a m m c O N o O N a y N O m O N L V N 1 N O O O u N y Zp � C O v C o > w J ° ,o LD " aox � °Z am Lu N O U G J � O N 6 N C O N T W U N o X N N O N O- - o Q t E C T O 6 a)o as � JPIP U LM r { 7 r + Inn " t �4` _ , J v t J P l /Npdge 184 at home APARTMENTS I?XIIII3I1' C, 'Fraffic Circulation Ilan Attached. E z Z m 0.i H6 Lu 0 z O �g 0 Mz co I 2 X LLJ m < m LL EE Lu —.-,u a - I 4� a L) lo <I-- z 0 in CL LO qg z-C g '.< -, 9 z z< I z o'er o wo I , �w- w', z,2zz 2 00, FlUf 'o o' z� oozy w�o m o /44 zz- z o,wow ww w-o w AD z w ol zw o z w w I I A w w NI-I 7� 0 ——�M It F7-R II %A ti I t N-I Ub" —ld—11— —ld-11-61-1—\---Id �-Il—ld-11-10-9-1— —ld 1, 1 10-\I!I!D 10-\SIH-H V-- IZV]d-SIJIIIH38V IIV— ,j­ /OhQe 186 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT D Parking Analysis Attached. I� y [] w US Z ® CI7 U? ■ m m F fY 0 U) U) 00 Q Of C] Ca a- o- � CD N [� w w Z ❑ Z of 0 Of � U) I- d- a- tY N _ + w U m T p � z d ` U7 LLU (} �}' LL LL u) LL M LL LL C: N X z U) U) LL D U) Q U) U) M p� 3 0 O � L O < C) � � D 4l w d J Q a 0 Q 4 N �� c (6 E �' tl N 1Y] � + Wu- N + QT- wr E z U) LL C) c+7 v M LL U) U o Csj� 0 � �s o a) o w T C) T a L @ J H cn c�0 V? N :D Z °7 .�C w U1 ° U) m U) U) Ul $ tn © m M U N U " C Z O) cl 0 n. w M S V D w D U) tS3 N o (n D d N z c°Di o � < W (Y12 (L @ 0 LW Cl. W a m LUCD Z N G�J in D u a c r � < a) vpw x3 .x �, aD o ,- -10 w � ❑ w wU a � A E E c ®. p p ■ i M Lo to ury tit M N M M • 1. t17 t` h f� f+ d p M M 16 M/ N p co b b p b l9 p E E ❑ dCD !Z LL •• W C7 M f h p M M M 1- M P7 M to U7 U7 [`7 M b tt M M n N [O _ `° D 0 Qp Q ci th cLa- r � NCL 0 0 ❑ • ] �• e' fM7 i~ N Uf M r N rn n N +l] W W CJ g tb ry n (� g v of tsi ni ti oo z � z a Qi b W o LU < a� < r "r LL� I LjJ N N N L a V A 14 11 W 61 d N Q 2 a � (0 C rJ Q U [1 G M M N ZJ O U1 Z O UJ �j b P+ M M y p _ U .� _ � L Q� � F ~ C] Z (7 D Z Cl) Va L 03 D u� i m D im - Cl) 0 Cl) r z Q m < W U7 • co co �{ a QY (V Q cm Cwt N •* W (cn z c w m c `rL o = o 7 ' 7 w a2B = az � = = F c w is m T3 W W ° 1 d_ a) l] N 4. 41 G N J U �+ to a J U N an d sa . . d O d Rs N 3 t+ E C tS -i �-' (L' ill ❑ C7 -J W v1 O 0 2 is # i vo �0 t+ �) w ( �,,� page 189 TU1ErS•DTA,Y (+ WEDNESDAY THURSDAY SATURDAY Date: 9/14/20210 Date: 911512021 Date: 9116/2021 Date: 9/18/2021 Time:Approx: 10:00am Time Approx: 9:30am Time Approx: 9:30m Time Approx NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 14 Walgreens 12 Walgreens 14 Plaza Large Lot 47 Plaza Large Lot 46 Plaza Large Lot 26 Plaza Rear Lot 4 Plaza Rear Lot 5 Plaza Rear Lot 4 Lot 8 Lot 8 Lot 6 Gemini Lot 14 Gemini Lot 21 Gemini Lot 17 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza.Way 4 South Plaza Way 4 Dirt lot 5 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 4 TOTAL 95 TOTAL 100 TOTAL 75 Time:Approx 12:45 Time Approx 12:30pm Approx 12:30pm Time Approx NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 14 Walgreens 17 Walgreens 20 Plaza Large Lot 58 Plaza Large Lot 80 Plaza Large Lot 81 Plaza Rear Lot 7 Plaza Rear Lot 9 Plaza Rear Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 11 Lot 5 Gemini Lot 16 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 14 South Plaza Way 2 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 Dirt lot 5 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 3 TOTAL 111 TOTAL 139 TOTAL 135 Time Approx: NIA Time Approx 3:30pm Time Approx 3:30pm Time Approx 3:15PM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 18 Walgreens 27 Walgreens 13 Plaza Large Lot 61 Plaza Large Lot 51 Plaza Large Lot 47 Plaza Rear Lot 12 Plaza Rear Lot 10 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 7 Lot 12 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 16 Gemini 1 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 3 Dirk Lot 2 TOTAL 127 TOTAL 117 TOTAL 91 Time:Approx 6:45pm Time Approx 7:30pm Time Approx 6:05pm Time Approx 7:30PM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 16 Walgreens 14 Walgreens 20 Walgreens 0 Plaza Large Lot 79 Plaza Large Lot 59 Plaza Large Lot 106 Plaza Large Lot 46 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Plaza Rear Lot 15 Plaza Rear Lot 18 Plaza Rear Lot 14 Lot 17 Lot 13 Lot 15 Lot 17 Gemini Lot 0 Gemini Lot 0 Gemini Lot 1 Gemini Lot 1 South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 7 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 9 Dirt lot 7 Dirk lot 7 Dirt lot 3 Dirt Lot 19 TOTAL 136 TOTAL 115 1 TOTAL 166 TOTAL 106 kj �(y�• page 190 TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY SATURDAY Date: 9121/2021 Date: 912212021 Date: 9/2312021 Date: 9/25/2021 Time:Apprx 9:30am Time Approx 9:40arn Time Approx 9:40am Time Approx: NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 11 Walgreens 15 Walgreens 14 Plaza Large Lot 28 Plaza Large Lot 37 Plaza Large Lot 28 Plaza Rear Lot 4 Plaza Rear Lot 7 Plaza Rear Lot 7 Reserve Surface 7 Reserve Surface 11 Reserve Surface 7 Gemini Lot 25 Gemini Lot 23 Gemini Lot 24 South Plaza Way 2 South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 3 Dirt lot 6 Dirt lot 2 Dirt lot 3 TOTAL 83 TOTAL 99 TOTAL 86 Time: Approx 12:30pm Time Approx 1.2:40pm Time Approx 12:30pm Time Approx 1:OOPM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 20 Walgreens 27 Walgreens 19 Walgreens 13 Plaza Large Lot 69 Plaza Large Lot 65 Plaza Large Lot 79 Plaza Large Lot 50 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Plaza Rear Lot 11 Plaza Rear Lot 10 Plaza Rear Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 8 Surface Lot 17 Gemini Lot 19 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 15 Gemini Lot 0 South Plaza Way 2 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza 5 Dirt lot 5 Dirt lot 3 Dirt lot 3 Dirt Lot 3 TOTAL 137 TOTAL 139 TOTAL 137 TOTAL 97 Time Approx 3:40pm Time Approx 3:30pm Time Approx 4:00pm Time Approx: NIA LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens 18 Walgreens 18 Walgreens 16 Plaza Large Lot 62 Plaza Large Lot 42 Plaza Large Lot 48 Plaza Rear Lot 19 Plaza Rear Lot 10 Plaza Rear Lot 13 Lot 15 Lot 13 Lot 12 Gemini Lot 23 Gemini Lot 22 Gemini Lot 24 South Plaza Way 3 South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 4 Dirt lot 4 Dirt lot 3 Dirt lot 3 TOTAL 144 TOTAL 112 TOTAL 120 Time: Approx NIA Time Approx 6:30pm Time Approx 6:45PM Time Approx 7:OOPM LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total LOTS Car Total Walgreens Walgreens 16 Walgreens 18 Walgreens 7 Plaza Large Lot Plaza Large Lot 126 Plaza Large Lot 86 Plaza Large Lot 92 Plaza Rear Lot Plaza Rear Lot 14 Plaza Rear Lot 17 Plaza Rear Lot 11 Lot. Lot 11 Lot 15 Surface Lot 16 Gemini Lot Gemini Lot 5 Gemini Lot 8 Gemini Lot 0 South Plaza Way South Plaza Way 4 South Plaza Way 6 South Plaza 8 Dirt lot Dirt lot 3 Dirt lot 5 Dirt Lot 5 TOTAL 0 TOTAL 179 1 TOTAL 155 TOTAL 139 a � I rn Q W Q N �m` � c Ln oW � a LUI I I LUI Vl I N N y N 11 VI Vl da � r, Ln W N .-1 N H ri ❑1 crLU a N N N N in a I a u © Z vLL M 00 ! yoF° a � cc rn 7- a t- y L 00 o o k a w a ! � Z � � o N o � � r= a �, a C�Q LA — � Z Wkn I' 2 C LL v O I 40 m C -_ 0 C a m m Cl L A U�7 � �O 4 cA LAri N �I _ l N y '� N rl' a �- N N Y a� Ln W I ! n N c cm i ,o W e C17 c ❑ i0 V ❑ 'C7 OJ 'C ;P N 2 c O a"i w � a •a ! c C � a Q 4 u c Cy o w t§ r n m d a i b4 w _ a a c .� U a m d iJ7 H ao- y a a p a ! Q 0 0 N x x J kil E 0 :ill 53" z -j IL CL k. PIP, ir "N' 77,y1w 14 k Lo tb wJJ IF ' pie 193 at home APARTMENTS EXHIBIT E Traffic Analysis Attached. BIKO ASSOCIATES � � page 194 L-LI- I NCO RPO RATE D Technical Memorandum DATE: September 9, 2021 TO: Leanna Stefaniak, President Real Estate & Development,At-Home Apartments FROM; William Smith,AICP RE: Comparative Daily Traffic Impact Introduction This memorandum was prepared in response to questions raised about traffic circulation by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission at its August 31,2021 meeting. The memorandum compares the impacts of two alternative development scenarios on daily traffic circulating on. Dodd Road (TH 149)south of TH 62. The first development scenario land uses includes the already approved and adopted 2008/2009 PUD and the already approved and adopted 2016 Mendota Plaza Expansion program. The land uses included in second development scenario are uses proposed in At Home Apartments' amendment to the previously approved and adopted uses. These are the Mendota 2 and Mendota Lot 7 developments. Most Current Two-Way Daily Traffic Figure 1 on the following page shows the most current daily traffic volumes in the vicinity of Mendota Plaza, on TH 62 and Dodd Road. With the exception of the traffic volume shown for the segment of Dodd Road that is north of TH 62, the illustrated daily traffic volumes are more current than those presented in the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DESIGN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS GRALN BELT BRE«'ERY BOTTLMG HOUSE 79 13th AVENUE N.E. STUDIO 107 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413-1073 PHONE:612-623-4000 FAX:612-623-0200 ww w. bikoassoeiates . c o m O rn � 3 Li O 'tit 13 �- M +d z Oo W a oo � 0 w � d3 Lm 4-0 :3 (A a) O > a Lj- 006 lid i �,. � � � ,$� '' p•� 1't, r � .fir+ � • - � �, t j'j w N . f4 E N too a page 196 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak September 9,2021 Page 3 Daily Trip Generation Comparative trip generation analyses were conducted in a previous memorandum, which was discussed at the August 31 Planning Commission meeting. Table 1 summarizes the results of the analyses and focuses on daily trip generation for the two development scenarios. Table 1 Comparative Daily Trip Generation for Two Development Scenarios Alternative Development Scenario Daily Trip Generation Approved and Adapted Scenario 1: ■ 2008/2009 Approved and Adopted PUD (10,130 SF Childcare Facility) 482 ■ 2016 Approved and Adopted Mendota Plaza Expansion Program: - 6,000 SF Restaurant 422 - 4,826 SF Retail 120 • Total 1,024 Proposed Amendment Scenario 2: • Phase 2 of the Reserve at Mendota Village (58-Unit Apartment) 314 • Mendota Lot 7 (89-Unit Apartment) 484 • Total 798 Source: Biko Associates, Inc., September 9, 2021. As shown in Table 1, the already-approved and adopted developments will generate 1,024 daily trips, and, by comparison, the currently proposed amendments will generate 798 daily trips; essentially 226 (22 percent) fewer daily trips. The trip generation analyses, which are documented in Biko Associates' August 9, 2021 memorandum, were conducted with inputs provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in Trig Generation:10th Edition. Information provided in this resource,which is nationally recognized as the most reliable source of trip generation rates, is based on studies that correlate land use type, land use intensity, and geographic setting against daily and peak hour trip generation. The geographic settings considered in the nation-wide studies include both central city and suburban environments. Impact on Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Were the daily trips 'identified in Table 1 to exit and enter the development site to and from Dodd Road, the volumes shown on Figure 1 would increase. Table 2 shows what the comparative increase would be for each of the two alternative development scenarios. page 197 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak September 9, 2021 Page 4 Table 2 Comparative Daily Traffic Impact for Two Development Scenarios Alternative Most Current Daily Daily Trip Impact on Dodd Percent Above Development Traffic on Dodd Generation Road Daily Most Current Scenario Road Traffic Daily Traffic Approved and 7,700 1,02.4 9,724 13% Adopted Scenario 1: Proposed 7,700 798 8,498 10% Amendment Scenario 2: Source: Bik❑Associates, Inc., September 9, 2021. What Table 2 Tells Us: The Scenario 1 development program, which is already approved and already adopted,will result in a daily traffic volume of 8,724 vehicles on Dodd Road. By comparison, implementing the proposed amendment to Scenario 1 (At Home Apartments' Phase 2 of the Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota Lot 7) will result in 8,498 daily vehicles on Dodd Road; 226 (approximately 3 percent) fewer daily vehicles. The additional volume of daily traffic from either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 is not significant and does not represent any substantial change in the daily traffic volume on Dodd Road. Neither a 13 percent increase in daily traffic nor a 10 percent increase in daily traffic is a significant change, at this particular location. However, if there is a concern that vacant parcels within Mendota Plaza should be developed with uses that generate the least daily traffic volume, Scenario 2 (i.e., uses included in the proposed amendment) should be the preferred alternative. / p 'fie 198 at home APARTMENTS FXHII3IT .h I'arkiI g Stalls Attached. page 199 ['XVV4 LUW9609—'NIA WW98tr9] 'X`dVV ,OZ--'NIA ,21 N[mm902l T w _ r� J l Ln E n m N � j w ¢ u z c� V7 Z m Ln ¢ E� V) < V) E cy- L.1 U x no a a 0 ¢ o� n �,a E ¢ ¢ � < to ¢ 00 m y - 0 Q a w Ld a N � L 1 m V7 u p CD ¢ D m E',5 a: W a C� z z 4 tI) r� J Q r E ww WQ co ¢ N r'i z (n ch � w co z w LA cc w <uj r-n¢ V) z w Z w ¢ �- Ecn ¢ m < � m Q V) r-� N 0 5 W ¢ d cn E W O Z D Fn 7 Li Ln U? _ Z_ C) L7 w LU E --J v Q L W W L¢L Lam] Lo E J n Ni- a- V7 (4 V) ¢u N O 0 © Z 4 C� Z—LL5Z0 �IV130 dad dais -IJ3HM/d3un0 8?Un0 NOliVN19AOO DETAIL TITLE /PARKING STALL LAYOUT SCALE :NONE DATE ISSUED: DECEMBER 2008 GAD DETAIL NO.: SD321723-0i.DWG al e 200 at ome APARTMENTS EXHIBI'[' fY Landscape and Planting; Plans .Attached, page 201 Landscaping Planting Plan Recommendations for Parcel 2 Mendota Plaza September 13, 2021 1 am amending the recommendations I submitted on August 23, 2021 because case # 2021-12 and 2021-13 was tabled until the September 28 meeting. This has allowed more time for me to review the plans. I know that the City of Mendota Heights does not require many of the following recommendations. However, I listened to the public comments at the last Planning Commission meeting. The citizens who are concerned about light and noise pollution, increased traffic and loss of green space will all benefit if these recommendations are adopted. The development would be more park-like and less parking lot. Residents of the apartment buildings will enjoy their outside environment, and commercial space may be easier to lease. The entire city will benefit. Our residents appreciate the sense of well being that comes from living in a green city. This space can be developed for the benefit of the developer AND the citizens of our community. Because Mendota Heights does not yet have a comprehensive landscape ordinance for developments, I am basing my comments and recommendations on the Model Landscape Ordinance from the GreenStep Cities Program in partnership with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In March 2021 , the City Council passed a Resolution authorizing the City of Mendota Heights to participate in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program. Mendota Heights is planning to develop a similar landscaping ordinance in the near future. My recommendations in this document are specifically for Parcel 2. 1 have not seen the planting plan for Parcel 1 , but the same comments and recommendations can be applied to both parcels. General Comments: A minimum of 75% of vegetation, including trees and shrubs should be native to the local area. Native is defined as naturally growing within a 200-mile radius of the site. All vegetation must be guaranteed to be free of systemic and topical neonicotinoids. (a class of insecticides that are long-lived and highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects). I understand that by agreement with the city, the owners are responsible to replace dead or dying vegetation. If the owners sell the property, the agreement page 202 extends to the new owners. I would ask Planning Commission to confirm that dead or dying vegetation will be replaced in perpetuity. Tree Diversity - The Model Plan recommends that the developer use the 5-10-15 rule to increase species diversity in development projects. The rule suggests an urban tree population should include no more than 5% of any one species, 10% of any one genus, or 15% of any family. This diversity will minimize the potential losses from insect damage and disease. I recommend selecting trees as close to this model as possible. A minimum of 2 cubic feet of un-compacted, biologically healthy soil that allows healthy tree root growth shall be provided per 1 sq. ft. of mature tree canopy. Trees should be a very important feature of this development. They clean the air, reduce stormwater runoff, and mitigate the impacts of the urban heat island effect. Trees create privacy and emphasize selected views while screening out objectionable ones. Trees reduce glare and reflection. They provide background to and soften, complement, or enhance architecture. Street trees increase the comfort of the pedestrian environment, provide unity to public spaces, reduce crime, and create a sense of place in our communities. They also provide important habitat for our local wildlife including bees, butterflies and other beneficial insects. The bottom line is that the right number and species of trees planted correctly can add value for the development and for the people living in the buildings as well as the rest of the community. Tree and Shrub Density The GreenStep Model Plan recommends the following number of trees on this approximately 2 acre site with approximately 62,300 sq. ft. not occupied by buildings. a. Two overstory trees per 3,000 sq. ft. of site not occupied by buildings b. Two evergreen trees per 3,000 sq. ft. of site not occupied by buildings C. Two ornamental trees per 3,000 sq. ft. of site not occupied by buildings d. One deciduous or evergreen shrub per 100 sq. ft. of the site not occupied by buildings. page 203 Model Plan # Plaza Parcel #2 Difference current planting plan Overstory Trees 40 11 29 Ornamental Trees 40 14 26 Evergreen Trees 40 36 4 Shrubs 623 185 438 I understand the developer is not obligated to plant these numbers of trees and shrubs, but I think this development can do much better to get closer to the numbers in the Model Plan. It looks like there is an opportunity for more trees to be planted along South Plaza Way. It also appears that smaller ornamental native trees can be planted behind the building along the north and west sides of the parking lot. Over the whole site there is an opportunity to plant more trees. For example, it looks like there can be more trees planted on the slopes surrounding the existing pond on the NW side, even though it is outside the parcel boundary. Surface Parking Lots - Heat Island Reduction To minimize impact on microclimate and on human and wildlife habitat, shading of parking lots is strongly recommended. The Model Plan calls for 2 overstory trees planted for every 5 stalls on site. There are 2 surface lots in the Parcel 2 plan. The southern most lot has 22 stalls which would mean 8 overstory trees . The plaza plan includes 5 overstory trees and 3 ornamental trees. There may be space for another overstory tree in the sod area that juts into the entry of the lot. The larger lot has 28 stalls. This lot should have 10 overstory trees according to the Model Plan. The plaza plan looks like it has 2 overstory trees and 2 ornamental trees. There may be space for more trees on the west and north sides of the lot. Additionally, the Model Plan recommends a parking island for lots with more than 25 stalls. Accordingly, the larger lot should have a parking island at the beginning and end of each row. The islands should be a minimum of 180 sq. ft. with a min. width of 9 ft. with 1 overstory tree planted per island. The islands should be prepared with healthy topsoil and be irrigated. page 204 1 have not seen the plans for Parcel 1 , but I think there is a surface parking lot planned for that Parcel. I would make the same recommendations for that parking lot. There should also be a buffer between the proposed building on Parcel 1 and the back of the existing retail buildings. The buffer should provide opaqueness of 80% during all seasons. The recommendations from my email of August 23 still hold. I would like to see many of the Miss Kim Lilacs replaced with chokeberry or a similar native shrub, and the butterfly milkweed should be the straight species, not a cultivar. The plan calls for a wildflower mix and I recommend adding a mix of native grasses and sedges to the wildflowers. There will be less opportunity for weeds to germinate if grasses and sedges are in the mix providing more cover. Thank you, Sue Light Dakota County Master Gardener page 205 12-1 G-6: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING (from Mendota Heights code A. Landscaping Plans: All areas of any lot or combination of lots which comprise the site for one or more buildings, except those areas used for parking or buildings, shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plans prepared and signed by a landscape architect. B. Bond: A bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the cost of landscaping and screening shall be required to guarantee the placement and construction thereof as required in this chapter. C. Maintenance Required: In addition, the owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition at all times. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) 12-11-14: MAINTENANCE: In all districts, all structures, required landscaping and fences shall be maintained so as not to be unsightly or present harmful health or safety conditions. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) zos a f z g o y o F _ w O_ w a U - _ W2 CoH II m v aw y U xw = m Q o cDLu _ 4 0 z < g a w z U ff<sLL R in a a U Q O Q .as 3 ioo W a w 53>= Q J z< _S"w5 a d O �Byao a m o 8�x w d Q =ad m m � �a / a z o w \ Q i m d o= o°o opm� 'a w _ I o z >w 0 ol LU a� _ g� wui LLow II` z O O w J O 0IS) ui -- — A: J L � w / C71 - I a: I LU LU k. I � — I w / w V off,t J y M i a Q I w U) ) � LII IIII •o� .. / / / I I I Il�il I III //jam/ � a II IL iIi iiiIIIIII // § w= a I I Illf III � I ,I� 0 � 1111111 i� �a I � �> IILIIIII � IIIII\11 ��� w � ox LU C P z�sved mv�d 3dvasaNv�ogre��s�a3�s�o��a�� avo w—w�eo—�sub�a�o,°o�aw�nP o=o�d—��=ai,�=,o abo��o,oeregooreq.:. �.ar bo e—�zoz z��o ooW z z LU U « - — — N _ W2 �H OG - w �-3pQ 3 UU 1. =W = m Q J CJ C A a6YN� H K Z J U ~ J o g o< ga � z W cm Q c d ��yao a m o 8�x W - - & \.. m m j o o u u u u u u u u o u < m d o= a w- V I w o a a a O O w I p & o' uiIa of ? os \\ \ p5 a� "\ a ma ma �8 \ \ \X - i p n� o o m o� o- 4 1 =rry \ I 1 I1 a a a a J Q o F d oy w > as au 1 w -Z w z a p _ p o I o FFI- 1 a Q s r I: I . �x, Ex o U) cnLU — I I� 1 k 1 oa N c L L I o °1 o Ea Q Z 133HS NV�d 33S ��ow�=aP o�d��,a,aboo���a�o�d oioParre�—eo—�zoz z I— :.�rn�32G9Ne' �n� zazoud—azoa—� �owi�aa—�o�d,00��16��1 a�o�d o�oParr�o-91—�zoa o9191\a azou�:�o11 a1111 91 :awo�a1111 1 Pz�S_N—3dvasaNv�o9re��na3Hs 10�� avo w—w�9o—�suba�o,�o�aw�,P o=o�d_��=ai,�=�o aeo��� oer9noore��.:. �.ar m e—�zoz z� o oow Z �1�2 _ w 0 z 0- U — — _ w z Co N I� OG - w3Q U =w = Q J N LU C `-° a6aN� H K z J CU H J � z has 4 oa _ 3 a Q zQ O Q .as 3 oo Wa - >�_ Q d J N 3 m�¢ - wndrsg c d o w c - w asy m ol ilo s r3 a 0.o j o 0 og _ w� _ 3Q �` ° o m p g w p 81 a a w m a 0 °1 m a o �� w J p �q �} y�y !��cps (/�`�! (/�) 0 V 'si l',/ 'v` 0 l��, ¢ (D `4' *..� ems' 1 / 1 1 I I 1 l l�133HS NV�d 33S 1 I 1 � I 1 Ji Ji I 1 I 1 .... F I" i Ji Ji P. LU a - A I , O ZQ h�� ,,,III � • �' '�� ������y�—— _ z e I— x��,���eare'o��� zazoud—azoa—� pow„aa—�o�d,00��,�� a�o�d o�oP�aw 10-9o—aoz z a�o�d��oa�oara� a aSHa N-3avasaNv,are AnaSHS 10�� avo w-w,eo-�suaia�o,op�aw a.i,p ovoid_s,- -azouo�oereg-91\a W O O 0- U - _ W 2 a CO H (n = �I W = M Q N CDM C A a6aN� F H K Z J LU J CY) z z�< LL o a o a .as 3 w o Ld o, �yao Q - & 0I 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0I ios m83. oa 1 go p s w r= LL p w� ' 00 oo �p �� �F m> m' ,I ma ma 0w rya m� P 1 00I a u ° 00Ia u o � 00I a w a 1 ply p � 0G) (D �J o 0 c o a� r - r w_ / \ o r -- - a m < z �. o w z N / i u m a o= a x p / 0ue i N y� o I I 0 0 z I I �Ji / cD J I a QQ � 10 90 Izoa\a a�o�d a�oa I'll a azova ova any,o9re� :awo�a��i,ass P z�svHd Nv�d 3dvasaNv�o9re��s�a3�s�o��a�� avo w—w�eo—�sub�a�o,�o�aw�nP o=o�d—��=ai,�=�o aeo����oer9��ooreq.:. V z 0- E 12 �i 0 z Z Lu 0 LU Mz Co 0 0 04 uj _j F z o O-C In a. LU q Ld < z <Z- 0) z Z.I CL Z' z o o z zww Hm z z z LLI o o-W 'z o wwo o z z zw, z oz, UJ o o z o zw -o go L(�Dj po �o o -o,z CD CD CO LLJ T-z �z -o zow rca 0 Ji 11 Z n m o z o to 0 ---- ),VAtVZVld Hinos lo T- mM z L.0 G11 U) ur ui z ow z o w o Ji Ji U) z LU EL LU U) LU LU z I z 'T Ji Ji z P: Z (if LU ww 0 =]AltKJ A LU 7�1 \lNlld 1111 1"'""'d—" 1 ' 6—1—d—ld]—SON—O—I\Sl]]HS IQ—\_j!,_ o\,,s, .P, G � a f.�F W O O w J — — a z F- Z m J LU H Z u has 13d J d V N Q .os � o � Ld t �`w Q Q w 0 rc W � aI m m m m m 'WI o w - " z w� z _ rc w oo m= rc m ofp p rc; z I O O LLJ wa po ms �o ° ma .a x. m> a> a ma ma aw mm aN m> J C7 U z Z Z�133HS NV�d 33S z �}} 0 / e ° N �/ z p10 0 a O O G O 1 i 1 % 1 r N W � W U) z a LU a a - - -- - -- - -- -- i ++ z z 1 z ++ + of� + — oa z „ ui d,tl„iwervs uis\iNi=�-''�o'+d�soa-:\a azoud-azoa�-oersV\z a�vd-d=ola aniti osnsd\aw"aiii ta'+ v c—Hd Nd,d 3dtlsso NdTosns V\s,33Hs uolsaw w�Vo vt so\�werev otov�aw a^Vv oioia-st=atiw�o aboiio�osnau\Donau\�A �o ev sV c-woa as s E N z LU z Ou 0 CO LU CO Z V)F- 14 Ci Lu LU 04 z-i z. LLI f IL 0) .... ME CL rc o I w lw .o w z z o- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - w z W, 1. 1 a wo z 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D S ui CD LLJ (D 0 0 c o VM /VZV�d Hinos--,\- am L-7 --'--' ........... ..... ■ I L I I I I I NEAS� z ap 17 ui it ' LL, U)ui U) LU C Z�133HS NV�d�33S LU U) + \INVId IVII d-" 6——Hd— ]-ld]—SONVO—l\SI]]HS IQ-\_j!, \Vv G � a f.�F W O y J — — a wz H III OG w a. $ =w = N Q _ J V' M m $ a� p U W z J o =6 0 O¢ zJ U H oa Q d m z Ld Q w 0 ao w w, I w o wwo zwo o zJ I wrc rca ° � mao� 9 O O m & _ w mW o w z F 5 Z Z�133HS NV�d 33S a o _ U F o > I 1 � I 0 1 F I u LL a- itI 1 a J t 41 ! 1 J a fC / 1 H ¢ I �I I N - I W 1 _ W z 1 -- - - - - - LU LU z z z 1 L c w — — — — — \— — — — — ----- a,viiiwens uio mi=�so�d�soa—� a azova—azoay oers z a���.r=oia ann osns� awo�ani,ass d�,d add a�rosesns 33� o =a, 10 d,90 =,ba o,oP aw Va,w,o aso 0 ose9 ooe9 A ed aoz zz s page 214 MEMORANDUM (}T CAMPBELL KNUTSON TO: MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL FROM: ELLIOTT KNETSCH AND SHANA CONKLIN CITY ATTORNEYS DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2021 RE: AT HOME PUD/FIVE-YEAR CLAUSE The purpose of this Memorandum is to address the timeframe for completion of development activities for the Planned Unit Development(PUD) Agreement for Mendota Mall Associates, LLP. Original PUD from April 30, 2009 On April 30, 2009, the City of Mendota Heights entered into a PUD agreement with Mendota Mall Associates, LLP. This agreement included Section 3.2, which provided a five-year timeframe for completion of the final development plan. Section 3.2. Completion of Development. The Developer shall complete development activities in accordance with the Development Schedule (Exhibit C). The Project shall be fully completed no later than five(5) years after the date of approval of the final development plan by the City. The term "Project" is defined as "all of the improvements to be constructed by the Developer as required in this Agreement." (Recitals of Original PUD). First Amendment The First Amendment to the PUD dated January 16, 2010, changed the substantial completion date from November 15, 2009, to July 1, 2010, but it did not otherwise alter the timeframes noted in the Original PUD. Second Amendment The Second Amendment to the PUD dated May 2010, changed the substantial completion date from July 1, 2010, to March 1, 2011, but it did not otherwise alter the timeframes noted in the Original PUD. Third Amendment The Third Amendment to the PUD dated October 22, 2010, amended the Hours of Operation for retail establishments in the PUD. It did not alter the timeframe noted in the Original PUD. page 215 Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment to the PUD dated November 28, 2011, deleted and replaced Section 3.2 from the Original PUD in its entirety, as follows: Comajetinn of [)evelopmc t. Stctj n 3.2 is hcrcby deleted in its entirety and replaced v%zth the following; Sul�j r. to the phasing requiremer& outlined hetdn, the project shall he fully complctcd ra 1N!cr %avt Novemr er 15, 2026, Any phases of the Project vet to be constructed an of the date of this FowthAmendment,may be comnnenced by Dcvclaper at any tune prior to Navembcr 15, 2023,bid mtLsl be complet l by 'Ae Developer thir"x (36) months from the issuance of the building permit, Therefore, the five-year requirement for completion in Section 3.2 of the Original PUD was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment dated July 3, 2011, did not alter the timeframe noted in the Fourth Amendment to the PUD. Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment dated November 2016 applies only to the Mendota Plaza Expansion Second Addition (Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, and Outlots A and B Mendota Plaza Expansion Second Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota). The Sixth Amendment indicated that Section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety as it relates to the Second Addition, indicating that the timeframe for completion would not apply to the Second Addition. For reference, the At Home application involves property in and outside of the Second Addition. l '.ommenccment of Deyclopment. Section 3.1 is heR'r:by ddeled in its and replaced with the follov&g., "subject to Unavoidable Delays,the Developer shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cor rnence the Infrastructure Impmvements one the Second Addition Property on nr bel0TL:.Tu11e 30,2019 in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Amendment and, Aar wmmerrcement, shall cornpicte said impmvements t,,ith corarncrcially reasonable diligence." 13. Section 3.2 Completion of Drsvclopment Section 3.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety,as said Section relate to the Necond Addition. Seventh Amendment The Seventh Amendment dated September 2017, did not alter the timeframe noted in the Fourth Amendment to the PUD. page 216 Existing Timeframe The existing proposal from At Home includes some property in the Second Addition (Lot 1, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion, Second Addition/where the Phase II 58 unit apartment is proposed), and with respect to that property, the Sixth Amendment provides that Section 3.2 is "deleted in its entirety" as it relates to the Second Addition. Therefore, there is no completion deadline for property within the Second Addition. The existing proposal from At Home also includes some property outside of the Second Addition. For that property (Lot 7, Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition/where the Phase III 89 unit apartment is proposed), the current timeframe for completion of development is Section 3.2 as deleted and amended in the Fourth Amendment. As previously noted, the Fourth Amendment deleted and replaced Section 3.2 from the Original PUD, which originally required all development activities be completed within a five-year timeframe. Rather, the Fourth Amendment provides that all phases of the Project yet to be constructed may be commenced prior to November 15, 2023, but must be completed within 36 months from issuance of the building permit. The Fourth Amendment provides all phases must be fully completed by November 15, 2026. �icr—'�.r • ,.�� ,.... x VHYId a]iSrH � x Av1 i Hp'111Yd n t 3nN3nv A15?J3AIHff LZLL J m,a314�iaa+l+71'd NpS.\"Vd%� U'Z� ��.� tYld v100�3W N N t� Q ,y IIII Fi $ AA Ott fi iti 9 CS,e:exalt 4 S i a 5 s ����� -li ------, d� rr EIt jig SL a��' �, .7rLU -- _ R I �P p r f _ g D I �I ��! 91, —. k I9R ' § [ CO k . � N§ § M« q 2§ { ) 2 -i\ LU CL - . �� >ma a 07- )ƒ/%� ` . «# • \ . \ § [ CO k . � N§ § M« 2§ { ) -i\ LU CL r/\/ - { }\. . 2 . )} JL §} e c aZ z CO " w O 0 m P z M N �^ a o L w a p 10° a Q d z J Q y s w� it Z PFF-" Z W W i 11• � ® m Emil IPM9, m, EI ® I u i ua � � mom N n v R,, Ate,,, ARE amfl=- =l i err=l' i MILI, 1N ® mom .■ mum IL m e � � ■■■ ■■ ® 6 � a i M • �w ■■ilk ��� M I NEW, �I ■■■ ;■ spppwrrFuem�c Mom Imm4p ME! MIN OW Mm MUM ME! ® q �I I �11 �"�""'�� � r r■t Nrr■I hrr■I ■■■ a ■Mr� I Saar. • U 1 r■I� aar .�� ,i ®�.,����� ' �� ■■■ 'ate° arl� 1 NS Wei ■■■ !� ■■■ aa■ ■r■ ■■■ rwa r■a ■■■ aaa �a rrr� rrrr �r INS rranr arr. rrr rrt■b� aa ■■■■w a ■ � d I_ N■ ICI wI C 12131 ® 'i Mt Ella ME nos PON ® Ir ill immmI 9 illEssig •:� Q lowr■� suit IBM � � rra • \ . � w§ CO 2§ « 22 { ! 04 )_L \ � 2 CL } ;(r Is §:`}}}) \ \ - : C } 4 z w ai w U a Z J CD D N DJ uW o m J a a Q Q a 6a= 2 s„ 0 s� El p�m s� z ¢ a w K w w C7 z Y Q a wda:EE490 ffl z E g z a w0 y H =Q O _ oU O a N O J J Q fn Q a a�o rc LL O o O o Q 17 0 0 o - op 0 0 0 o p® s -= 0 0 0 = o 0 0 0 D� � 0 - � 0 a w K K O H K4 Wd 1M4 lZ ffl W z p LUo 0 za Q N N � = Q W CL CO ED o Q 0 0 0 0 : 0 o � _ s� 000 — - 0 0 0 p O 0 0 � D 0 Q a w K K O 0 z O U o w t O WdSM4lZ ffl z " wO a y P a L) = O LL 3 o (1) Q 0 � 0 i 0 —Eli o� CD Li sm 000 0 0 0 0 � _ 0 0 0 D o � 0 � > 0 ¢ a w K K O 0 s° Wd 6LEE�l 1Z6Z9IB 0 z o Wo y� OJ Ma LLz v oL) zg a w oe = o Ja 0a Q � LL s� 7TFFFFF 00 am 00 00 00 0 a ®® 000O sm z ¢ a w K K O O x H K O° �I WdWEEIlZ ffl N N N (6 Q on Q a v a C U CO Q N N N O N C 7 m co m m � m n N m O N a a co o O m m o� m m m O o� 0w a m io 00 w Ol N o� N m N N m N �n m O m � Q � O m O 0 > N H 0 CO 0 Q H O H � n 9 m oc m o H O H N N W W .ti N O ti m N N - - m 0 0 0 0 n m ti W W I� lD S H p .ti N N ti m N N .ti O m O O m O m Z N D O W N N N C V1 J .-I N N - m N - .-I m O O N m W .-I lD lfl lD � lD Q ~ O N O ti N N N N M. K oc oc o N N N Q m O W W W N O N m N 0 m m m 0 N m O I� O N m m � 0 N N Q Vl H N Z K N z a O v 2 0 0 o w o v Q 0 0 p Q Q Q Q Q p m m p p p p �n io p p p C7 > H H H H H H p H H H H p p H H H Z Q Z CJ 'i v 0 p m Z Z Z Z Z m Z 3 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q y p 0 p in w v w w 7 7 7 7 7 w 7 H 7 7 7 7 Z Z 7 7 7 K in in in 0 o_ O O 7 7 O 2 W. W. W. (7 a O j- O H 04 Z o z. z LU 0 LU rn Mz CO P F- -04 lk xw COO ca LU -6 OR LU Ld CL ZO 0) u u 88 I o oo o u a o II LU (D LU -j 00 O'll co LU LU o C) O U) 0\� 0— N LU 0 0 o 00 ""Id ... ..... ....... ... .......... 0 z E z co LU 0 CO z Mz CO P R 0 LU F- ee mw C-4 Fn LU E6 —J Z OR - g LU- 0 na. Z� L) Ld 4:H 0) CL @0 0 5(D(D(D S -- — — ---- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — is r -1 OT I -i n irWI V "&t PKI .......... &l —Hd SNOIIIONO3 ONIISIKI 0-1\--to-\-11 uy z CO V5 LU F- LU M 0 C-4 Z LU LU —J L) ig X Lj 04 OR z� —i N ... Ld w o lo j I u It 1. I o < l I I u lu < lu 1, lu oy o I u , o o I < al u o 10 o-oll oll, Q, �u: I I I I< I< o < D < < 10 x <lo Q U) U) 0 < -o o < o z C) y - <Q " E t (D z <2 E LU 0 <cl� o LU < o LU 0 <, a- 'o 2 N In — — — ---- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ozo z z C) 00 o 06, <Q O C) 0 o 0- 24 o o< aQ Ifl u (D LIU < U) az Xd oo 1- -\-U 10-\I!I!D 10-\SIH-H VOONIN­0 V-d SIO3IIHD8V Ey z z 0 04 —1 Mz CO _j 2 SW4 I 'I- m m LU lk mw LU m LU L) L) Z z—i OR 6 a. I Ld o u I < , o o o 2 o ,o , ol< lo, > L 10oo -o . 'o 0. lo oo < u d oo o o < I o o o o x -o iQ 11.0 LU (D LU oc — — — --— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o z o z z o < I u 'o oo lo u o 'o" o- c o I II IIo lo u (D LU 9i U) o,< o�o u lo o o 6——H-0-00 NOIS—ONV �s-\-U 10-\I!I!D 10-\SIH-H V,02NIN—2 V—d SIO3IIHD8V 10-00—l\QO—\:l E z 0 z z 0 0 04 Mz CO mw W LU LU lk Lu z—i z 0 OR H. in a. I N Ld < cm I o < o o o o o o ol o o LU (D LU — — — ---- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I oz z zo oo--- A �mnmm 'o o o > ol. W—.> III x x-.oE 'o 'o oam N� 'o 2o o ---------- o o _oR > 2 o o_ (D LIU U) > H > o o� R o o R o o oo o >—o �o E �o X doo o ,­......... 10-\-RI 10-\I!I!D 10-\SIH-H VOCNIN —�d SIO]IIHD8V 1-00 O—l\QO—\:l n' 4 YY N W �y ZL *rn UJ�7 7 �L{{Iy` L �7 r- NLU � IY� w O =� r 7 Q 7 �7 LlJ C C) V U rn u � o� Y4 a w Q CL ui d a U� a g W e a i ti L_ ". _ r lap . t- � f k j. s��2 A C Wim J /►W 1 ■ I mm rCi HUM Apw AWN H., EE"mn ..�.... /H H" LH I ® }fit l R ICI fq� 4 � Q� z w LRRI��� p S2- 0)F w ccoi ILI" W _ Q 7 a 2 F- a U ~ +Z J W Q` ¢ IL a a U Qco act ° € W ffiIL y 9i 6 ■ 1 ti _ S e R p , a 4S? q N w LIB C7I w Q z H 0 N R5: J =� Q Q IY LU Q F Q U ! a U r zJ ! w QQ` " w _ a w 1, u t Q g € ilia _ _ _ x w H 1 m m o° £ IL f•' 'a' �G m � T�y # C7 m 0 m dq C d N S N ,L E rim m a 4 .0 u m m 3 mm a eZ O V m O O O O O C O O Q 5ed r 41 54u r 11 r r 1 If wu r r r r 1 I I I I I I I I tl I I I II I I I tl I ( I 11 I I I I 1 z Q w z J 0 W rig W ......_ ,--.. J LLI IHI—�I Ir�}�J H 0 z II� ° ® E ® � ® � EEj:` Al. �I Yl AAA r , I i Li A i q W N { W *Vl k_ rb J 2 r w ¢E U Q C] z J a� c cc a e CL W Q IL wa _� Q _ w U' r r gM I_ . E I I_ 41 Ib ail§. I$ a°51§ o la 3b Oa b Oa b �q l7sIS ❑�I4 •Ip�p �I I a C► rl l IYL o a o � co d rl l m l co 4V m l I I I I f I I I I I I I I i i I I I I i mac© z z LD C) W w w A L.-Li f N Q w w y� I I f0 HfjH I] dull-- �' i m �9 n m m m 2 y E a u n g a m m onC c a y— m rn f L . � I r m o Y 8 v m e INM V M e z o z 3 iw0 Wo O a = H > LL c w c v LU 1 �La a c.)cr o - z� _ e mza a a iL _ = J as ai M< . a (U eo CL n LL J(/J J0 �O Ir Z N Y Q a 13 - r a� � o w a ..a.RL .0-�bz v U ,Z-ZL i J F Q`max �Q ® �J 9 LLn 00 LtLI 0 O O b-LEZ Z Y Q d W 7 W LNd 96'99�L 1Z9Z5Z19 z ° W ¢ z J z N O iw O a a H 2" w a _ M Q O cv o �Lr o ULL � OQ - z J - J Q d a. J jL Q v U) LU lL 3 ead�w- po Q LL 0 N n 6-9£L N D F ® r Z Om � O O Z O Dy �o F ON � O O N Z O � s f ? � -_--_-- -.-- -.--.- _-- ---- V 00 �- jj_- - -_-_-_-_-_-_--_- J o U)co ¢ —_ cJ¢ 0 Z a 0 O O �v cn- d' LNd OS'SO:L 2OM9 E 0 °u W ¢ Z O (n z N u O LLL Z N C) o - ZJ - e Za Q O. � z Qa O - = J a a w Q m po r W z Ln O � p m w N Z O F - LL - Z N ry p O 0 a O � g g � O �o p m� p F o q — Ko . Z 0 O O Z O4 U W f/J= LNd 65'90�L 1Z9Z5Z19 ■ § LU a z § � 2 j ) ;§ � @§ w §| k g r )! 2 v : R 0 o R © z2 ; -1 k G z a. _ < , § | ± § �� �� g _ ` •- (\ ( K \ LL 0. )< / , \ FL- 0 ;: ) 0 w ¢ z O z g iw O O 2a OJ a _ �Q LLZ a 1 uw _ cv xg v O U Q o Ja v ?a Q N 3 a O _ LL CL m po Z LL z U) O ¢ m .£-A£L w r m N O F Z < g n ry 00 0 O � 0 2 mr c Km ro ~ Z 0 � O ¢<o 4 Z 0-.OL z z 0 00 ttin �o ¢m ttu� �o ttu� Z 7 LtiZ Lr O O H �4 O LNdE ITLLZ0M9 v v N N (6 Q Q a (V a O m n n 00 a ti 00 LL lO r, W Ol cy W Ln W Ln O Ln O O O Ln O O N m m O O O I, N W m 0 0 I, O m O N N m to N W I, c I, m Ln N O m n O m a O m r, O m m m m m r, �o �o Ln a m p r- c-I m N N a m N N N I, (N a m m W W �o Ln �o c-I a) Q ^ m r, N In K � Q oo a cm In cm In r, rn 'o c-I N c-I N W �--I W � } } m J Q 0 O m W m a Ol :t m m m Ol m c-I c-I t m m Ln Ol r, N W m a) c-I c-I W (N O a) n m z lo' Lf1 lo' c-i D m N } m J Q O c-I N c-I c-I to c-I c-I c-I c-I m c-I c-I c-I c-I to O 7 O m O N W m W N � m m m r, rn = m m m K D O LL c-I (N c-I c-I to ti ti ti ti m ti ti N ti a LC O O O O O N W W to :t In m Ln m In In a r, N N N 0 K 2 H ti N ti ti to ti ti ti ti m ti ti ti ti t t0 O O O O O N W W to :t In m Ln rn p In m a r, z N N N X O W a m ti oo m Lin °mLn rn a In N cm m '^ Q to O N l0 W N v O V Q W LL C 0 LL N z ti m O O ti Z J Z J W m to m O Ln O O O Ln O O O Ln m Ln Ln O w Il m 0 Il n Q N I, W O I, to � m m W to N N m O N c-I V n m N N Ln LV to to to Il n n W W W W m O O 'N 'N 'N > Q c-I W K fn 'n w H O n Q z = � J D 0 Z c-I � � O w C14 O z Q Q E J = ° v ° p w Q u 0 a E v ° w H �_ v > Q C 7 p m Q z V LL N N O p z w _° O N O J J 0 0 0 to O O L C N m w w w - m o_ m O in f0 H H LL K K K (7 a- 7 N c H� 0 E 0 F- CO Lu 0 CO— z co X 0 Lj m m LY F- 04 LLI z CL-i LO Lu -6 0 z L) Z L) N Ld< 0 qg4 0) CL 0 Se 9101.1 D 0 0 5(De(DS 15� -- - ------- - A rAf 6zr7d 11 0 R D- n VII ------------------ —'JA I'u 9 J,t vAIY'd --- ———————————————— —- ——-- —-- 1—d-SNO111-03 10-\-11 LO-\-b--P—"'I z E 0— 0 z LU Zoo LU 0 Mz CO P F- :D< COO z at m xw LU E6 OR 6 a. (0 z N 'IT Z< a LU .asLd <u lu u u �o o' o' IQ < -'o Qu Qu 0 10 1 1 u Q. u 'o 2 'o o , Q I o 0.1 < o I o 1 10 ol <1 1110 'o �o < x 0 I.Io U) 1 IQ U) -o < o 0 C) o' LU Yo o < Z m 0 LU < < 0 LU a- lo loQ N x. to El El ,z z LU LU xxo9 o C) �0 lo, o l< I to —————————— ————— — ———————————— ————— ——— ——— --- -————————— ———— —————————————— 3AIa4 3iVAIad xz o 'Db &—1—d—ld 10-\-11 10-\-61-1-P— I 0 E 0 z Co LU 0 M LU E6 z—i OR LU 6 a.z z� Ld 0) CL u o o u I o o o 2 lo ul lo Lo o ouo l< I ' ll< u lu .10 oo o o 0 o 0 Q u 'o 3: 'o lo I x 1 0, 1 10 2 ol o� ,Q LU 0 LU loollo "o lo "lo o�u oll zo�u o o o, u o o u o x x <ou )\Vmfv vttnos u -o 000 lo ol o o�o. !TT 'o'-+ o. u o gt, ol u i It J u o I .. .......... ­p- E F- AH z z Lu 0 CO Lj LLI z O LU 00 in as Z� CA H n, ZZ a o o < o o' o o 2 2 LU (D LU • oo. El El El o' o o o x x x o �o -x-xII u o Q, 'o Avm vz Q �d Hinos <o') o L 141 1 C) o EF loo. z4o— oll u o o oo�-- 'o. x��n Hxf Off) o< LU > Qa -o < -o o -—————————— co I ti VAI�jd o olo->< lo o u x -o" >u lo I o, 'o u u oo< 'o" o u 6�P -\-i,Pow­v— ­p— o9v page 249 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-hei ghts.com CITY OF MENDCJTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 24, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-12 (ref. Phase II of The Reserve Parcel 2/Lot 1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT & WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: At Home Apartments/Mendota Mall Associates, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: Highway 62 & South Plaza Way Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 (Extended Statutory Review Period) INTRODUCTION At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development(PUD)and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12- 1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as Phase II of The Reserve of Mendota Village,and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment complex(720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item. BACKGROUND The Plaza mall site encompasses approximately 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009,Mendota Mall Associates (Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, which included a new overall land use and zoning category of Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential development area,which would include the large retail (strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf. high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant pad sites,various sized offices,childcare center and a pharmacy(refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD Master/Final Development Plan 2009). page 250 Since 2009,the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments, with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment No. 6 in 2016,and the latest No. 7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. The Reserve apartment development under Amendment No. 6 was approved as the 4-story, 139-unit apartment building seen today,and redefined the area of the vacant,triangular shaped parcel to the west,with"Restaurant"and "Retail/Restaurant"for future developments (see 2016 Plan image below). $TATF TRU NY HIGHWAY NO-110 ' o . 4, .l PUD Amendment Plan No.6(The Reserve,etal) As noted in the applicant's narrative,Paster Properties has made numerous attempts to sell and develop the subject site with new restaurants or a retail center as shown on the 2016 plan;however,due to recent market conditions and COVID-19 pandemic,these efforts have not panned out. Paster is now permitting At Home Apts.to request this PUD Amendment in order to revise the final development plan and possibly allow the site to be developed with a new apartment development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/ SITE IMPROVEMENTS The subject parcel is triangular in shape,and consists of 89,158 sq. ft.or 2.05 acres. The parcel is currently vacant with an unpaved,graveled surface. The site contains an existing stormwater pond near the northwest corner, and some existing storm water improvements, such as catch basins, storm pipes and a large underground rate control basin near the south corner. A large steel sheet pile wall is situated along the south edge of the parcel along the creek edge. The proposed development for Phase II (Parcel 2 on the plans) is a three story, 74,400-sq. ft. apartment building, with 58-living units consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727-sf.; 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822-sf;and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428-sf. The apartment will have luxury,high-end finishes harmonious with The Reserve. A"partial"fourth floor of 3,250-sq. ft.to contain an indoor pickle-ball and bocce ball courts;wine bar and outdoor patio with fire pit, and will contain its own fitness area and common lounge space. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 2 of 20 page 251 The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit. The proposed apartment building is shown with setbacks of 15-feet along the north lot line (parallel with Hwy 62); 15-ft. along the south line (along the creek); and approx. 22-ft. from the easterly line along the main entrance driveway off Hwy 62. Because this development will take place within 100-feet of the adjacent Interstate Valley Creek, a wetlands permit is also needed for this site approval. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the following applicable policies/standards for facade design,building materials, and doors/windows: • Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. • Undulating fagade shall be encouraged. • Exterior fagade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian. • Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into fagade design. • Materials shall be selectedfor suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings. • Materials shall be durable quality. • Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable. • All wood treatment shall be painted and weatherproofed. • A minimum of 25%of the fagade shall be treated with finished masonry building material. • Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be encouraged. • Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25%of decorative masonry variation in color, texture or surface. 2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. The proposed buildings' exterior are a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with The Reserves development, City Code and the original PUD Design Standards: • Face brick • Stone veneer • Cement Board Lap Siding • Metal panel siding • Decorative masonry block • Composite windows • Prefinished metal flashing and trim • Prefinished balconies and railings Since this existing site is relatively flat and graded out,there does not appear to be much new or significant grading work with his new development. There is an existing underground storm chamber system near the south edge of the site, which is not planned to be impacted by any new construction. There are however, some pre-constructed storm pipes, manholes and catch basins scattered throughout the site, that will have to be removed/re-installed around the planned development/building location on this site. The plans also note a very large "Private Water Main Agreement" easement and other miscellaneous drainage and utility Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 3 of 20 page 252 easements that will also have to be vacated and rededicated to the city. All new stormwater, sanitary and water systems will be reviewed by the city's Public Works Director and St. Paul Regional Water Services. The building's architectural elevations and renderings,interior floor plans,civil plans for grading and utility improvements, along with the new landscaping/plantings plans are all included with this report's attachments. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (2030 vs. 2040) The entire Mendota Plaza mall site and subject parcel were all guided Mixed-Use PUD under the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was noted with: The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated,planned development project. Areas of the community with this land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110 is the City's only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use commercial/residential center known as "The Village at Mendota Heights". Located in the southeast corner of the Dodd and Highway 110 intersection is a related commercial area. This older shopping center is being considered for redevelopment,including a mixed-use land use pattern reflecting the Village development concept. It is an objective of the City to encourage redevelopment of this area reflecting a small-town village layout, avoiding the suburban shopping center environment that dominates the current development pattern. As noted previously,the entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD in 2009. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses that are seen today remain consistent with the future land use designations established under the previous 2030 Plan. . Under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the following is noted for MU-PUD areas: MU—Mixed-Use(21.0-30.0 DU/Acre for Residential Uses) Undeveloped land guided mixed-use is planned to develop approximately 75% of its acres with residential uses at the densities identified, which is consistent with existing mixed-use projects in the city. The northeast quadrant of the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection has been developed into a mixed-use center known as The Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen's pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project developed by At Home Apartments. The current residential development has developed at densities between 21 and 30 dwelling units per acre, and adjacent undeveloped outlots are guided to develop at similar densities Under the 2016 PUD Amendment report, city staff reported the following on population and housing projections (part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan): Po ulation 1 11,071 1 11,124 1 11,300 11,300 11,400 Households 1 4,378 1 4,450 4,600 4,710 4,800 Source:Metropolitan Council(dated 911712015) According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement,the City's population and household forecasts are as follows: Population 11,071 11,3040 12,000 12,000 12,000 2.4/0 0/o (0/o) (0/o) Households 4,378 N/A 4,900 5,000 5,110 (125/.) (2%) (2.251.) Source:Metropolitan Council, US Census,City of Mendota Heights,SHC Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 4 of 20 page 253 As noted,the Met Council agreed to accept the city's increase of our projected populations from 11,400 to a 12,000 —which we requested to hold steady from the 2020 through 2040 planning periods. Meanwhile, the households are projected to increase slightly over these same periods, from 4,900 (2020)up to 5,110 in 2040. As per the 2040 Plan: "Most of the household growth is anticipated to occur in areas designated for mixed-use, which is likely to be primarily multi family development." This site and the proposed apartment development would meet this statement. Construction of the proposed 58-unit residential development (coupled with the proposed 89-units in the Phase III development) could account significantly or contribute greatly to the projected amount of households planned for in the 2040 Plan. According to the applicant,the proposed prcj ect includes"market- rate" units and plans do not include any "affordable units", which could satisfy additional Metropolitan Council requirements on affordable housing. Nevertheless, the Met Council typically supports efforts to increase new housing opportunities wherever or whenever they present themselves in metro communities. The 2040 Plan also provides the following goals and policy statements to consider in this PUD request: LAND USE GOAL 1: The Future Land Use Plan will provide the foundation for all land use decisions in Mendota Heights. Policies 1. Development and redevelopment of housing, businesses, transportation systems, parks and community facilities shall be done in accordance with this Plan. 5. The city will strive to create a balanced land use pattern that provides appropriate designations that meet projected growth and market demand. LAND USE GOAL 2: Preserve,protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. Policies 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. 3. Development and planning of land will be encouraged to provide reasonable access to the surrounding communities. HOUSING GOAL 2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Policies 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: 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. 2. Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices. The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for rental units in the community, which appears to be a continual and growing trend among many metropolitan and suburban communities these days. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed or added residential project fits many of the land use and housing goals and policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 5 of 20 page 254 Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment The original 2009 PUD Plan,which included a new plat,called for the development of the project area with the following: a 14,820-sf. Walgreens store (Lot 1); a 47,200 sf retail mall (Lot 2); two future 3,600- sf./4,000-sf. restaurants (Lot 3); a 12,000-sf multi-tenant/strip mall (Lot 4); a 10,800-sf future office (Lot 5); a future 4-story, 100,000-sf high density residential apartment (Lot 6); a 10,130-sf future child care center(Lot 7); and athree-story, 36,000-sf.future office building (Lot 8). Soon after the 2009 approvals,the Walgreens and Mendota Plaza mall were completed. In 2012 the PUD was amended to change the proposed 100,000 square-foot high-density residential building on Lot 6 to the 46-unit White Pines Senior Living facility. In 2016 the PUD was amended to change the future 12,000-sf. Retail Center and 10,800-sf Office building (Lots 4 &5) over to the 139-unit Reserve Apartments,which included changing the two future 3,600-sf./4,000-sf restaurants on Lot 3 into two 3,500-sf. and 4,000-sf restaurant pad sites with drive through lanes. In 2017 the PUD was amended to revise the future office building on Lot 8 to the 17,700-sf. Gemini Medical offices. For this particular site, the developer is requesting to modify the original 2009 Final Plan's"10,300-sf Future Child Care Center"with the proposed four story, 139,126-sf,, 89-unit apartment building. According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land;and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit modification and variance ofzoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. One of the key provisions of this statement is "...to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land... " which is why many cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and cohesive developments within a community. The PUD also can grant some discretionary allowances (instead of or in place of a variance)with certain site design standards, such as reduced setbacks, increased building heights,higher densities (units/acre),reduced parking and others. Amending an existing PUD Final Development Plan is noted under Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code: Amendments To Final Development Plan:No changes may be made in the approved final development plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures provided below: 1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved. 2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the community. The proposed amendment qualifies under No. 2 above, and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 6 of 20 page 255 The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code: MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit. Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD: Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the following standards: 1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas. 2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with adjacent projects or proposals. 3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council. 4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community. 5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. Density/Hi2h-Density Residential Development This proposed high-density residential development would provide 58-units on 2.05 acres. The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible,and can be reviewed against the standards for similarly- zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed apartment plan can be reviewed utilizing R-3 High Density Residential District standards as a guide,but not as an absolute, since an R-3 use is a "...potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district." A high-density residential apartment building under this proposal would be considered an allowable use in this MU-PUD district. However, the new use or development does not need to meet all (or any) of the R-3 District development standards to be approved, as the City Council has considerable "flexibility" and discretion in this PUD review process, and can provide appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions on new developments as deemed necessary. According to Title 12-1K-5-B: Number of Dwelling Units: 1. In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning district(s)in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3 zoning district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide. If the residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of allowable dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit development that is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 7 of 20 page 256 Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council. 3. The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density. Since this site is located in an established MU-PUD zone,the density applied to a typical R-3 or high density multi-family use such as this may be used [emphasis added],but is not required. Again, City Code grants the planning commission the discretionary right or ability to determine [by its recommendation]the number of dwelling units,thus setting or approving the allowable density of the site. City Council will have final authority or decision-making on any density request. The Reserve apartments consisted of 139 units on a 2.2 acre site,which equates to density of 63 units/acre on its own parcel. However, what staff presented to the planning commission and council in 2016 was a statement "...the Code provision above[12-]K 5-BJ does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends a more appropriate analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD future land use designation, which has an allowable density range of 6-10 housing units/acre." When staff calculated the density based on the entire PUD project site,and added both White Pines 46-units plus The Reserves' 139 units (185 total units),this worked out to an overall density calculation of 10.2 units/acre,which was found to be acceptable and later approved by the city. The density calculation on this individual parcel is calculated as follows: 58-units/2.05 ac. =28.3 units/ac. As indicated in the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the city revised the MU-Mixed Use land category to include a provision to allow up to 21.0—30.0 units/acre. As a stand-alone parcel,this new apartment on the 2.05 acre site meets the density range allowed under the MU-PUD. Utilizing this same rationale for determining density as the city allowed in the 2016 PUD Amendment(The Reserve),the overall project area density can be calculated as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Walg reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.) 2.05 58 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7-Undeveloped 2.04 0 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres" Total Units(existing&proposed) 243 units Total Density 17.5 units/acre 'Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 8 of 20 page 257 Factoring in the separate 89-unit apartment development(Lot 7),the density total on the entire Plaza PUD site re-calculates as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.)) 2.05 58 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7—(proposed Phase III apts.) 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres Total Units(existing&proposed) 332 units Total Density 23.9 units/acre *Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the allowed density for the proposed PUD amendment; and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Site and Structure Requirements The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as per Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code: Standard Requirement Proposed 3-story or more: 2.05 ac. (89,300-sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet 28 one-bedroom units Unit' 2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet 30 two-bedroom units 3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet Efficiency units: Not permitted Minimum Floor Area 1-bedroom units: 750 square feet 1-bedroom: 663—822 sq. ft. 2-bedroom units: 800 square feet 2-bedroom: 1210—1773 sq. ft. 3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet Front Yard Setback 50 feet+ 1 foot/each 1 foot of building height 22-ft. (from South Plaza Way); over 60 feet 15-ft. from Hwy 62-ROW Side/Rear Yard Setback 40 feet+ 0.5 feet/1 foot of building height 15-ft. (from Hwy 62 ROW) over 75 feet 15-ft. from creek boundary) Buildinq Height No limit 45-ft. feet/48-ft. (highestpoint) Parking Lot Setback 40 feet(ROW) 10-ft. 10 feet(principal building) 'may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground • Land Area Based on the proposed unit-mix and underground parking provided,the current lot area is significantly less than what would be required under normal R-3 District standards. A standard R-3 Zoned parcel would require almost 303,600-sf. or 6.97 acres of land to support the number of one/two bedroom units proposed in this plan. [CALC: (28 x 5100=142,800) +(30 x 6,050=181,500)—(69 stalls @ 300-sf.=20,700) =303,600-sf.] Once again however,the PUD Amendment allows for the city to accept this reduction of land space if demonstrated by the developer that this site still works, even with the proposed number of units on the smaller land site. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 9 of 20 page 258 • Unit Sizes Most of the smaller one-bedroom units (16 of the 28 units proposed) are less than 750-sf. minimums for the R-3 Zone; while most of the remaining and larger 1-Bed + Den units and 2-Bed units exceed the 800-sf. standards. No three-bedroom units are proposed in the building. • Buildinz/Parkinz Lot Setbacks Front Yard setbacks are normally 50-feet from lot/ROW lines. South Plaza Way is a private access drive into this development,and serves as this Phase II development's frontage. City Code defines any front lot line as "the boundary of a lot which abuts a dedicated public street."—which can be the case with Highway 62 to the north and South Plaza Way to the east. Although not marked or shown on the plans, it appears this front yard setback (closest point of building) along South Plaza measures out to approximately 22-feet, while the setback from Hwy. 62 is only 15-feet from the ROW line. Both of these setbacks are significantly reduced under this PUD Plan. Side/Rear Yard setbacks are normally 40-feet. The proposed building's Side Yard (south) setback is shown with only 15-feet; and the rear corner lot(measured)is approx. 175-feet. The outdoor parking is shown with 10 to 15-ft. setbacks at some of their closest points off South Plaza Way. The parking appears to meet the required 10-ft. spacing between parking lot and buildings,which is intended to provide adequate separation,access and landscaping space up to and around the building. Although these reduced setbacks are considerable,the planning commission and city council have the discretion to accept or approve the proposed building and parking layouts, even with the reduced setbacks as shown or noted herein, as part of this PUD Amendment review process. The commission may make any recommendations accordingly. • Buildinm Coverage The R-3 District does not include a floor area ratio standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed apartment development covers 27.7%of the lot(24,800-sf./89,300-sf.lot area),which can be considered compliant with these original Mendota Plaza Design Standards. • Landscapinz The landscape plans submitted for the site is somewhat limited, and only shows a generalized location for new trees and shrubs, and areas to be replanted or vegetated. The plans are absent of important details or plantings list;however the applicants did state in their narrative and plan notes: "The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. " The developer was requested (by city staff)to meet with our resident Master Gardeners to review and comment on their proposed Landscape Plan. It appears the developer's architect did speak to one of the MG, and later reported back to city staff with the following message: "The plan you[city staff]sent to me had no species listed, so he[developer's architect]and I just talked about what we are looking for in terms of pollinator friendly, resilient landscape. He was going to incorporate the things we discussed into a plan and then send me the plan Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 10 of 20 page 259 and discuss further."—and— "One thing that jumped out to me is that the buildings are very near the lot lines or MNDOT ROW in the case of the building facing Hwy 62,so there isn't a lot of space to design a meaningful pollinator friendly, resilient plan. But, it is hard to visualize without seeing the plan." As of the preparation of this report,no updated/revised plan was available for this packet,other than the original landscape plan submitted with the original CUP application materials. A new plan with comments from the Master Gardener may be available or presented to the commission prior to or the night of the hearing. • Lighting According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code,concerning lighting performance standards: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting policies/standards: • Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area. • Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. • Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site. • Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided. The PUD Site Plans are absent of any Lighting or Photometric Plans with this development, nor any indications of lights on the buildings. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements may not apply between the shared/mixed uses in the overall PUD project area. However, it will be important the developer can show or demonstrate that any new lighting for parking and outside the buildings meet City Code and Mendota Plaza standards. Proposed light fixtures should be downcast/cut-off types of lights and kept to a minimum (number/amount). Staff has included a recommendation to have the developer provide and submit a complete and detailed Lighting-Photometric Plan of the site for approvals. • Parkin,-Analysis The proposed residential development includes 49 surface parking spaces and 69 underground spaces, for a total of 118 spaces. This equates to a ratio of 2.03 spaces/unit. According to Title 12-1E-E of the City Code,the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows: Number And Design Of Parking Spaces:A minimum of two and one-half(21/2)parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards. Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 58-units, strict application of the Code standard would require a minimum of 145 off-street parking spaces. It is Staff s opinion that this 2.5 space per unit appears to be too high and extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and nation. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 11 of 20 page 260 When At Homes presented their apartment proposal in 2016,the issue of 2.5 spaces/unit was discussed and analyzed,and the city planning consultants(Stantec)were authorized to conduct a parking analysis and study for this site,which are excerpted and highlighted below: ■ Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched(except Apple Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit,but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit. ■ Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high. ■ The average for nine projects(not in transit friendly areas)is 1.59/unit. ■ Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since, according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics(see table on the following page),so even without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going down and that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi family projects. ■ The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)publishes a manual on parking demand, citing studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual(2010)shows a range of 1.10-1.37spaces per unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large,some studies in the mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied,so we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide. Apartment Parking—Conclusion & Recommendation Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the 20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement. Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by the City in 2016 for The Reserves)the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows: ■ Parking at 1.6/Unit: 58-units x 1.6=92.8 or 93 spaces or ■ Parking at 1.2/bedroom: (28 -1 bed units @ 1.2=34) +(30 -2-bed @ 2.4= 72) =106 spaces Due to the strong desire to preserve or encourage more open space on this site, it remains the professional opinion of staff that the 118 spaces proposed under this single development plan should be adequate to serve the residents of this site;and is based on the previous study/analysis performed on The Reserves, The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years. Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following: Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet(9) wide and twenty feet(20) in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24) in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway. The proposed parking plans shows the 49 outdoor/surface spaces as 9' x 18' dimensions with a"nose- in" or curb overhanging design, and 24-ft. wide drive aisles. The underground spaces are also shown or measure 9' x 18', with a 24-ft. wide drive aisle. Typically,these stalls may be reduced in length to Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 12 of 20 page 261 compensate for the front bumper hanging over the curb and are similar to existing commercial developments in the city and an accepted industry standard. The planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on whether or not you support or recommend favorably this request to reduce the number of spaces per the plan submittal; and if the reduced setbacks and stall sizes are acceptable. • Park Dedication If the new apartment development is approved,the applicant is required to either contribute 10%of final plat gross area to be dedicated for public use -or contribute a cash payment in-lieu-of land dedication in an amount established by the city. Since no platting is taking place, and due to an expected number of new residents coming in with the new high-density residential development,the cash/in-lieu of payment of$4,000/unit will be requested($4,000 x 58-units=$232,000). Payment of the required park dedication fees is included as a condition of approval. Traffic Impacts With any new developments in and around this centralized commercial/retail/mixed-use hub on Highway 62 and Dodd Road(State Hwy. 149),traffic safety,vehicle movements,access(both in and out of the area) and adequate parking seem to be a major concern to many residents and business owners for this area. This development would retain the right-in only access off of Hwy 62 (to the north); and all other access via North Plaza Drive or South Plaza Drive, which are the only two roadway connections directly on or back out to Dodd Road. In 2017 the city consulted with KLJ Engineering to provide a traffic study of this and other areas in the city,which was referred to as the Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study and completed in February 2018. The study was commissioned to examine existing conditions, traffic and vehicle crash data;traffic operations, and predict future traffic forecasts and operations, and provide alternatives. The study showed that the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62, in its 2017 Existing Conditions, 2040 Base and Build Scenarios that this intersection provides a Level of Service F, which is the lowest score given, and essentially means there are issues that need to be corrected or addressed. Unfortunately, since both of these roadway systems are MnDOT controlled,there is not much the city can require or recommend to fix some of these issues without an expensive alternative or solution. The report did summarize or suggested an alternative to providing a future right-in/right-out intersection at North Plaza Drive off Dodd Road; but there are currently no plans by MnDOT(or the city)to installing or changing this intersection at this time. During the planning and presentation of The Reserves in 2016,traffic was expressed as a concern,especially by the anticipated amount of units and new residents to this area, and the fear these resident's vehicles entering/exiting the site every day, especially during peak AM/Noon/PM hours, would cause some serious traffic issues. The PUD Amendment (47) approving the Gemini Medical facility in 2017, was also determined not to be a factor or serious contributor to increased traffic from the site, due in part to the expected lower number of employees and smaller office/warehouse use (1-story/I7,000-sf. vs. a 3- story/36,000-sf. office building). Casual observations of this site since The Reserve apartments and Gemini Medical opened,has shown there appears to be no serious issues or problems of traffic or congestion attributed to this high-density residential or office development in this PUD project area, and the concerns of serious congestion or crashes in and around this development have not materialized. As part of this new development,the developer has submitted an updated Technical Memorandum—Trip Generation Analysis from Biko Associates (dated 08/09/2021). The memo provides five (5) separate Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 13 of 20 page 262 scenarios and comparisons,based on current development and projected developments on the Phase II site and the separate,but related Phase III site (Lot 7). A summary of findings are noted as follows: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments'Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments'Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 200812009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates(daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips)for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 200812009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. The Reserve Apartment plus the Specialty Retail and Restaurant uses planned in 2016 was projected to generated approx. 1,072 daily trips; while only 530 trips on the apartment complex only. The Biko report indicates that with The Reserve and Phase II apartments, the projected trips is estimated at 844 d/t's; concluding that: • All pass-by trips are gone, • 21 percent of daily trips(228 daily tips)are gone; • 10 percent of AM peak hour trips(7 AM peak hour trips)are gone,and • 20 percent of PM peak hour trips(19 PM peak hour trips)are gone. The traffic memo goes on to conclude with a comparison estimated trip generation with The Reserve,Phase II(58 unit apts.) and child-care (Lot 7) estimated at 1,326 d/t's,versus The Reserve/Phase II and Phase III apartments slightly more at 1,328 d/t's. In the end, the report includes a comparison table that shows what The Reserves + Retail Center + Restaurant+ Child-Care uses would have produced approx. 1,554 daily trips; while the proposed Phase II +Phase III apartments,and The Reserve apartments is projected to produce 1,328 d/t's,or a 17%reduction. A copy of this Technical Memo report,which includes data tables and comparison analysis is appended to this report. In order to ensure a fair and impartial review of this Technical (Traffic)Memo from the developer,the city forwarded this report to our engineering consultants to review and provide comments (Bolton & Menk Traffic Review Memo dated 08/16/2021 — appended to this report). This memo makes the following conclusions and statement: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 14 of 20 page 263 Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic movements and improve safety. The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation was also asked to review the proposed apartment plans with this project,and submitted a review memo with information relating only to drainage,noise,pedestrian/bicycle, and general permitting information. MnDOT apparently chose to either defer to the city [or neglected to provide] any comments related to any potential traffic impacts on to the adjacent state highway roadway systems. MnDOT Review Memo 4S21-049 (dated 08/11/2021)is appended to this report. Finally,as part of The Reserve development approvals,the city prepared and entered into an amended(No. 6)PUD Agreement in 2016. Under this agreement with Mendota Plaza Apartments,LLC(At Home Apts.), Mendota Mall Associates-Outlots, LLC (Howard Paster) and the City of Mendota Heights, the following Section No. 14 was noted: 14. Section 4. 11 Traffic Improvements, including South and North Plaza Drive/Dodd Road (TH 1491 Intersection. Section 4. 11 of the 2009 Development Agreement is hereby amended to delete any obligations of the Developer to complete any improvements to TH 110 and Dodd Road included in the Traffic Study. The Developerhas provided the City with a Traffic Impact Study dated August 8,2016,prepared by Spack Consulting ("2016 Traffic Study'). The Developer acknowledges that the City has expressed concerns over the impact of the Second Addition Improvements on the intersection of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road as well as the intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. If, as a direct result of the Commercial Improvements and Apartment Improvements, the Level of Service falls to an overall below Level of Service F at either of these intersections as set forth in the 2016 Traffic Study without the installation of infrastructure improvements or the adoption of traffic mitigation procedures or improvements, as determined by a qualified traffic engineer reasonably acceptable to the Developer and the City;the Developerand Mendota Plaza Apartments will together be responsible for the City's share of the cost to bring the intersections performances to a Level of Service D or better. The city does not have any alternatives or suggested improvements to offer at this time. Staff would however, suggest the planning commission discuss with the staff and the developer at the hearing/meeting to determine if more study or analysis is required. Should this CUP (PUD Amendment)be approved,this same section/language will be added and made part of the future 8t' Amendment to the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Agreement. Fire Department Review The Fire Department personnel was asked to review these plans and provided the following comments: 1. amount of traffic that is coming out of South Plaza Drive is making difficult for us to get out of the station and get rolling, especially to the north. If this is going to increase that traffic I think we need to look at some sort of traffic preemption system associated with the project. 2. FD is unable to determine where the building's FDC's(fire hose connections) are located in relation to any proposed hydrant locations? 3. FD is unable to tell if there is afire access road around the property? In a follow-up discussion with the Fire Chief, he was simply relaying his "concerns"with increased traffic along Dodd Road,and the continued issues they have with periodic vehicle back-ups and difficulty turning fire trucks north onto Dodd Road. In his opinion, a pre-emption device, similar to an Opticon system normally seen on overhead traffic signals, would be an option to have inside the fire station, so they could trigger the light for northbound traffic at the Hwy 62 and Dodd Road intersection, which in theory would allow vehicles to start moving along Dodd Road—just prior to the trucks leaving the station. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 15 of 20 page 264 Nevertheless,the Fire Chief admits this is not the sole responsibility of the developer to fix,but wanted to make sure the commission is aware of his concerns, and is open to other ideas, suggestions or alternatives to reduce or combat this fire truck exiting issues. There are no dedicated fire access road around the Phase II property,but access from the adjacent highway is possible, and South Plaza Drive along the front will be available. Phase III has roadway or internal driveway systems all around this site. In both cases, the Fire Chief agreed that he (along with the Fire Marshal) would like to work with developer's architects and civil design team, should these plans be approved, and recommend appropriate fire safety measures inside and outside the buildings, which may include identifying (or requiring) the correct number and placement of FDC's, stack pipes and hydrant locations—similar to what they did with The Reserve apartments in 2016. Wetlands Permit According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code,the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: • Provide for protection,preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may resultfrom alteration by earthwork, loss ofvegetation, loss ofwildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection ofpotable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. The proposed project includes new grading and construction activities within 100-feet of a wetland/water resource-related area-Interstate Valley Creek. The northerly area or creek edge was stabilized and improved with a very large and considerable steel sheet pile wall along this north embankment(see image—below). WEP a. .. -r 47- Jiff1A. OL *y = �- The areas near the bottom of the wall and along the flattened or sloped creek banks are heavily vegetated, and will remain so during and after construction. Developer has no plans to impact or affect this waterway or wall during the construction of this project. Normally, the city requires all developments to maintain a 25-foot setback in order to provide a"no-disturbance"or no impact zone from said wetland edge; however, in this case,the wall provides a suitable alternative and reduces or eliminates any negative impacts caused by construction. The stormwater pollution prevention plans(SWPPP)indicate extraordinary measures will be used to protect and safeguard this area during and after construction is completed,and all disturbed areas have been restored. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 16 of 20 page 265 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the attached finding-of-fact,with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to one of the alternatives noted above, and make your recommendation on the reduced standards the Developer is seeking with this new apartment development and accept or revise the attached conditions accordingly. Please note that any new or modified conditions should be reasonable and in fair proportion to the requested development being considered under this PUD Amendment and Wetland Permit review process. The following are the suggested conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council; and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G— Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re- established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. 5. A park dedication fee of$4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 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(V/2)times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 17 of 20 page 266 9. The owner, tenant and 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. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. 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. 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction. 14. All applicable fire and building codes,as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the city's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Letter of Intent/Project Narrative 2. Technical Memorandum-Traffic Analysis by Biko Assoc. (dated 08/09/2021) 3. Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Memo by Bolton&Menk(dated 08/16/2021) 4. MnDOT Review Memorandum(dated 08/11/2021) 5. 2009 Mendota Heights Plaza Master Development Plan 6. Mendota Heights Apartments—Phase II Plans(2021) Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 18 of 20 page 267 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit For PHASE II— The Reserve of Mendota Village The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 58-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza, is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community; provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area, and overall density of this development 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. 8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 19 of 20 page 268 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit For PHASE II— The Reserve of Mendota Village The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 1. The 58-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses, natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. Planning Report:Case#2021-12(At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 20 of 20 page 269 a6home A P A R T M E N T S Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application: Narrative (UPDATED 08.09.2021) This updated narrative is being provided to highlight recent changes in the total unit counts for the two projects that At Home Apartments, L.L.C. (the "Applicant") proposed with its submission of Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. This application outlines the Applicant's plans for the development of the following parcels: 27-48401-01-070 ("Parcel 1"/Lot 7) and 27-48402- 01-010 ("Parcel 2"/Phase II of Reserve). As stated in the initial application, these parcels are currently owned by Mendota Mall Associations- Outlots, LLC. The Applicant is currently under contract to purchase Parcels 1 and 2 for the purpose of redeveloping both parcels with multi-family rental communities. The Applicant's initial plans called for developing a 61-unit "sister" building to the neighboring complex known as The Reserve at Mendota Village and a 113-unit market rate apartment building on Parcel 1/Lot 7 that will complement the nearby apartment complexes but will provide a different product type not available in the nearby vicinity. As is often the case, the Applicant continued to review and modify the interior floor plans for both proposed projects. These modifications and adjustments resulted in larger, but fewer units for both proposed buildings. The proposed unit total for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve is now 58 units and the proposed unit total for Parcel 1/Lot 7 is 89 units. This updated narrative is also being provided to correct a technical oversight in the traffic memorandum that was submitted with the Applicant's application. The original memo omitted a section that highlighted the comparison between the Applicant's proposed development for Parcel 1/Lot 7 and what is the current approved use for that parcel. This oversight resulted in skewed data for the traffic impact the proposed projects will have. An updated memorandum which corrects that oversight and takes into consideration the revised unit totals has been provided for review and reference. Parcel 2/Phase II of Reserve at Mendota Village - Project Description In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the current PUD and corresponding development agreement that allowed for the development of 139 market rate rental housing units and a commercial area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The 139 market rate apartment building, now known as The Reserve at Mendota Village, opened in the summer of 2018 and reached occupancy stabilization within the first 6 months. It has continued to maintain full occupancy to this day. Due to many factors impacting the retail and restaurant real estate markets, followed by the unprecedented obstacles of COVID-19, the goal to develop Parcel 1 consistent with the 2016 approved plans became increasingly challenging. However, the strong and continuous demand for housing opportunities at the Reserve at Mendota Village demonstrated there was a stronger need to expand and develop a second phase for that particular community. page 270 The proposed development for Parcel 2 is a 58-unit apartment building consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727 SQFT, 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822 SQFT, and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428 SQFT. The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit. The units will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with the Reserve at Mendota Village. In addition, the amenity package offered in this second phase will expand and complement the existing amenities available at the Reserve. These amenity spaces will be located on the top —partial fourth floor of the three story apartment building and will include indoor pickleball courts, wine bar, outdoor fire pit, and indoor bocce ball court. The building will also have its own fitness area and common lounge spaces similar to the Reserve. By developing this second phase and allowing the residents of both buildings to enjoy the luxury amenity spaces found within the two buildings, the Applicant will create a resort style housing complex completing the vision of making the Reserve at Mendota Village a destination housing community. Parcel 1/Lot 7 - Project Description The Applicant also intends to develop Parcel 2 by building a four-story apartment building with one and a half levels of underground parking with 110 stalls and 47 surface parking stalls resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. Given the unit matrix of this proposed project and the perceived demographic, we believe this parking ratio is more than sufficient to serve the population. This project, which would open in 2023 is designed to complement the Reserve at Mendota Village but provide an alternative housing option that is not currently available within the city limits. This proposed project is an upscale, modern design apartment building that will provide 89 market rate apartment homes made up of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674 SQFT, 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772 SQFT, 18 large one-bedroom units with an average size of 864 SQFT, 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906 SQFT and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119 SQFT. This project is designed with the younger professional in mind. Mendota Heights is a vibrant community that is centrally located making it very attractive to younger professionals, especially to those that grew up in the area. However, one of the drawbacks is that most of the current housing stock is not attractive to or affordable for this age group. These units will be market rate units, but at a more affordable rental rate than that of the Reserve at Mendota Village. The amenity spaces located at this property will include an on-site leasing office, mail and package delivery room, state of the art fitness and yoga studio, and a separate clubhouse building with exterior connections creating a unique outdoor living space. This proposed project will have an excellent walkability score due to its proximity to local restaurants, shops, and other retail. This factor combined with easy access to public parks and walking trail systems, and several major highway connections, makes this project a desirable housing option for younger professionals or young adults starting out on their own while helping the City stay competitive with the surrounding communities. Community Impact Though the Applicant is applying for this conditional use to amend the guided uses for the subject parcels, the proposed use (multifamily housing) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare to the community, the proposed uses will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards as summarized in the attached traffic memo, the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding page 271 property value and the proposed use is in harmony with general purpose and intent of the City Code and its comprehensive plan. Overall, these two projects provide a benefit to the community because they allow for the redevelopment of two sites in a manner that is consistent with the City's housing and density goals while balancing the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic Understanding that impact on traffic is a genuine and obvious concern when new projects are being proposed, the Applicant contracted Biko Associates to prepare a technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for the two proposed development projects. This analysis not only provided the trip generation estimates of the proposed apartment projects but also compared these data against the trip generation estimates for the current allowed uses, a restaurant and retail building on Parcel 2/Phase 11 of Reserve and a 10,130 SQFT day care/child education center on Parcel 1/Lot 7. The traffic memorandum, which has been submitted with the Applicant's application, documents the analysis for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve and shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. Similarly, the analysis for Parcel 1/Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to note that the peak hour trips, which are of greater concern, are significantly lower. The combined analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 PUD amendment plus the original 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by Applicant. Development Schedule Assuming that the approval process follows the published schedule, the Applicant would like to commence construction on the Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve in the fall of 2021. Due to the smaller scale of the proposed building for this phase the anticipated construction timeline is approximately nine (9) months. The Applicant would then plan on breaking ground on Parcel 1/Lot 7 in the spring of 2022 with the goal of a spring 2023 delivery. Parcel 1/Lot 7 — Architectural Design The Parcel 1/Lot 7 development consists of 89 units and 157 parking stalls. The site area is 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 44 units/acre. The building is designed with a full level of underground parking and a partial level of above grade parking. The site has significant grade changes up to ten feet with the north and east being lower than the southwest corner. The grade change allows the lower level of parking to have direct access from the north, and the upper level has direct access from the west. The front entry is located on the eastern end of the building. We believe this is the best residential entry point as it connects with the residential use to the east and provides the best pedestrian access to the commercial area, the trails, and the other residential development of the Reserve. Due to the grade change, the entry is at the lower level of parking. This entry will have a grand two-story space that connects residents and visitors to the main / page 272 first level. The main level has direct access to a south facing courtyard. The courtyard will contain a clubhouse with residential amenity spaces, patio and seating areas, grilling stations, and an area for fire pits and lounging. A decorative trellis at the south end of the courtyard will provide shade and some privacy to the residents, and visual interest to the street. The community courtyard will have additional common area amenities surrounding the courtyard and some individual residential units with patios and balconies overlooking the space. Gardens will surround this courtyard area for resident enjoyment. The southwest corner of the building being at higher grade allows for three `walk-up' style units. Parking is conveniently located under the building for nearly every unit, with additional parking for every second bedroom, and visitors. The building will be constructed of one and a half levels of concrete, and 3 and a half level of wood frame construction. The first level with parking will be half concrete and half wood-frame. This site will be predominantly one-bedroom apartments with a range of generous sizes. The units will have a high level of finishes providing an upscale feel. The design is intended to attract a wide variety of people but we believe it will be mostly young professionals, younger renters from the community not quite ready to purchase homes, and community residents looking for housing and price options that don't exist in the area. The design is a mix of brick and siding. The siding picking up some wood tones to give it a residential feel, and to blend with some of the details and design of the Reserve, while still providing a distinct look and feel for this parcel. The design also features balconies for the vast majority of the units and large window openings to provide strong connections to the outdoors. Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve —Architectural Design The Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve consists of 58 units and 118 parking stalls. The site area is approximately 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 28 units/acre. The building is designed to be similar to the Reserve with the same brick, with stone, and with the same detailing as the first phase. The layout of the building also mirrors the first phase of the development picking up on the forty-five-degree angle and matching the stone at the ends of the building to provide a harmonious entry. This phase will be predominately three stories. There will be a partial fourth floor providing amenities that are not seen in the first phase of the Reserve and are very unique to the market. This fourth floor is envisioned to be a roof-top clubhouse with indoor bocce-ball, indoor pickle ball, and community gathering spaces along with a roof-top deck. The amenities in this building are designed to complement the first building with residents able to use either facility creating not just the look of a community with the similar buildings, but also interaction between residents that will help create community. The building design will be cohesive with the existing building with the brick and stone, wood tone siding, some large overhangs and an entry that will be similar to phase one. The window types, colors and patterns will also be the same as the phase one project providing for consistency. Some of the elements have been scaled down as this is only a three story building whereas the first Reserve building is four to five stories. The lower level will be concrete construction and contains seventy-one underground parking stalls. The grade change allows this to be easily accessed from the southern end of the site. The main level is accessed from the south side as well, with easy access to visitor parking. Due to the grade change, there is an upper and lower level parking area that works with the grade and will help the building fit into the site providing some unique character as well. The central area contains an existing underground storm water treatment system and will be developed with some green space and gardens at this central area. The upper levels are wood frame apartments with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Approximately half of these units also contain dens or secondary home office areas. This will have upscale amenities, page 273 finishes and features comparable to the Reserve. The sizing of the units is meant to compliment the phase one building and by doing so has added some larger units from 1400-1650 SQFT. Being a second phase, we believe the residential profile will be similar to the Reserve, but we have also identified a need for larger units to meet the needs of existing community residents looking for apartment by choice style living. Parcel 2/Phase 2 of the Reserve — Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 58-unit apartment adjacent to The Reserve at Mendota Village. Stormwater Design When The Reserve was constructed on the adjacent lot, the project included a two-cell underground stormwater chamber system to treat stormwater both from the Reserve apartment development and from the two retail buildings that were proposed on Parcel 2. The primary function of the first cell, southeast of South Plaza Way, is to infiltrate stormwater. The primary purpose of the second cell is to control the rate of discharge of stormwater into the existing wetland southwest of the site. The system was designed to treat 137,410 SF of total impervious surface spanning both lots and a portion of South Plaza Way that passes between them. This included 62,747 SF of impervious surface on Parcel 2. This proposed project to construct an apartment building on Parcel 2 reduces the proposed surface on Parcel 2 from 62,747 SF to 60,610 SF and the total from 13 7,4 10 SF to 135,273 SF. The proposed project will construct a stormwater collection system that will capture and convey runoff from the eastern developed portion of the site to the infiltration chamber southeast of South Plaza Way. Since the proposed development has less impervious coverage than the original design, it can be concluded that the existing system will support the proposed development. Overflow from the infiltration chamber will continue to be routed through the second cell of the system before ultimate discharge to the existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. Runoff from the western portion of the site will continue to pass through the existing pond at the west end of the property and be discharged into the same existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. This application includes a Stormwater Management Report for Parcel 1 that describes how the project meets all stormwater requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, including infiltration, rate control, water quality, and temporary best management practices to be implemented during construction. Sanitary Sewer Similar to the shared stormwater infrastructure, The Reserve at Mendota Village also included construction of a sanitary sewer lift station that is intended to be shared between Parcel 2 and the existing apartment building. This system is in place and actively serving the adjacent apartments with a stub that was extended to serve future development on Parcel 2. The system was originally designed to convey sanitary flows from two retail buildings on Parcel 2. The applicant has reviewed calculations to verify that the existing lift station has adequate capacity to serve the proposed change in land use from retail to residential. According to information received from Electric Pump, Inc., the contractor who constructed the lift station, the system has a capacity of 145 gal/min. A typical flow rate for residential populations of less than 5,000 is 60 to 70 gallons per day. page 274 Therefore, the existing lift station has a capacity to serve 2,980 to 3,480 people. When applying a conservative peaking factor of 4.0, which is appropriate for systems with pipe sizes less than 10-inches diameter or for 250 people, the lift station can still serve a population of up to 745 to 870 people. Water Main The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion developments constructed a ductile iron pipe network within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system. The pipe network serving this development is constructed within public utility easements and provides both water supply and fire protection. There is a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 2 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and design to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The Applicant is uncertain if an existing agreement maintenance agreement has been executed with the City of Mendota Heights documenting their responsibility of the maintenance of the underground stormwater chamber system or sanitary sewer lift station. If these agreements are not already in place, the Applicant will work with the City to execute an agreement to maintain these systems. Parcel 1/Lot 7— Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 89-unit apartment on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Mendota Plaza Expansion development. Stormwater When the Mendota Plaza Expansion development was originally constructed, the developer constructed a stormwater pond in the north central portion of the site, along the south side of the existing wetland that passes through the site. The developer also constructed a stormwater collection system to convey water to the stormwater pond. The stormwater infrastructure was originally permitted in 2009, based on the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RLK Inc. dated December 22, 2008. The infrastructure was designed to meet the stormwater regulations that were in place at the time. However, stormwater regulations have changed since the original approvals. The City of Mendota Heights now requires Atlas 14, MSE-3 24-hr rainfall distributions to be used for stormwater design. The City also has implemented requirements for stormwater infiltration and phosphorus removal. page 275 This application includes a stormwater management plan with calculations demonstrating the compliance of the site with the new regulations. The existing infrastructure supports the updated rate control requirements. However, the original system did not provide any infiltration, and did not fully meet the updated phosphorus removal requirements. This project proposes construction of an underground stormwater chamber beneath the proposed eastern parking lot. This proposed chamber will be designed to meet the infiltration requirements. By doing so, the volume reduction achieved by the proposed underground chamber will also exceed the phosphorus removal requirements. Sanitary Sewer The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion development constructed PVC sanitary sewer main collection system to serve the development. This collection system is routed to the City of Mendota Heights public sanitary sewer system. The lateral main serving this development is an 8" PVC main with a 6" PVC stub that is deep enough to provides gravity service to the proposed development. Water Main Similar to Parcel 2, the ductile iron pipe network constructed within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system also provides a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 1 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The proposed project on Parcel 1 will connect to existing public storm water, sanitary, and water main infrastructure. The Applicant will maintain the private stormwater infiltration chamber proposed under the east parking lot, and the segments of private service connections that are within the proposed Parcel 1 boundary but not included within the public drainage and utility easements. BIKO ASSOCIATES page276 I N C 0 R P 0 R A I F D Technical Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2021 TO: Leanna Stefaniak, President Real Estate& Development, At Home Apartments FROM: William Smith,AICP Daniel Lubben RE: Trip Generation Analysis Introduction Biko Associates prepared this technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments in Mendota Heights, Minnesota.The first is a 58-unit apartment building designed to be the second phase of the Reserve at Mendota Village and referred to herein as Mendota 2. The second is an 89-unit apartment building to be built on Lot 7 within the Mendota Plaza PUD and referred to herein as the Mendota Lot 7 development. Summary of Findings: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. (See comparison between Scenarios 1 and 3 in Table 6 on page 12.) 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. (See comparison between Scenarios 4 and 5 in Table 6 on page 12.) 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. (See Table 7 on page 14.) As the volume of generated trips is a major factor in the operational performance of traffic and the Levels of Service (LOS) traffic will exhibit at key intersections, it is reasonable to assume, where other factors remain constant, that lower traffic volumes will result in better traffic operations and higher LOS at intersections. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND Di SIGN LAND ITSE, Atilt FRANSPORTATION POLICY RESE tR( H AND ANALYSIS GRAIN BELT BRENN ERY BOTTLnG HOUSE 79 13th AVENUE, N.E. STUDIO 107 ..1iINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413-I073 P110NE-612-623-4000 FAX:612-623-0200 w►V w. h 1 k o a s,.o c l a l e s . c o in page 277 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 2 Background Mendota 2 Background: Five years ago in 2016, Paster Properties proposed an expansion of Mendota 2, a parcel located in the northeast corner of Mendota Plaza. The proposed Mendota 2 expansion was to include three uses: 1) an apartment building with149 dwelling units, 2) retail space at 4,826 square feet, and 3) a 6,000 square foot restaurant. Spack Consulting was contracted by Paster Properties to prepare a traffic study to determine how traffic generated by the proposed expansion project would impact traffic operations at surrounding intersections and, in particular, how a proposed right-in/right-out driveway would affect operations on TH 62 and impact safety. Figures 1 and 2, which are taken from the Spack Consulting traffic study, are provided to show the location of the Mendota 2 expansion proposed in 2016 and the site plan for the expansion project. Of the three uses proposed in 2016, only the apartment building (The Reserve at Mendota Village)was actually constructed with 139 units instead of 149 units. With the remaining site lying vacant, At Home Apartments is now under contract to purchase the property and is proposing to develop a 58-unit,three story mid-rise apartment building with both underground and surface level parking. The 58-unit apartment is referred to as Mendota 2, and construction is proposed to begin in fall of 2021. lo' Study Area ^ �-....a �E i kk i Nov b � . r a wIT, 4. Proposed Site 4 R's ry Figure 1: Development Site Regional Location Source: Traffic Impact Study: Mendota Plaza Expansion, Spack Consulting, August 8, 2016. page 278 Id tE ti cu u 41 Ca u Ca cu ci cu �3 06' :t to CF) uO -E ub 0 j5 u M 4J 0) CL c co Ln CU E o co 0 C) LU (a cz fC ro (a 0 cu ui J cu 4� 4� L/) 1 0 4 C) 2 u . cz CV (a � c c O a (a (D m cz cu u (D CZ 41 cz O cz cz 41 0 cz _j = U as(D CY) tA LL Uo Ln page 279 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 4 Mendota Lot 7 Development Background: In a PUD application from 2008/2009, a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7,which is located at the southern end of Mendota Plaza and on the north side of South Plaza Drive. The childcare/education facility was never built, and At Home Apartments is proposing to develop an 89-unit,five/six story mid-rise apartment in this location. It is hoped that construction on the 89-unit apartment would begin in the spring/summer of 2022 with a 2023 delivery date. Schematic elevations for the childcare/education facility, prepared by KKE Architects in January 2009, are shown below on Figure 3. _ T, R PROW c SOLIT'H ELEVATI❑ �r dd0"r JO' PROP_4_S.EDDAYCARECENTER _— — Md 1lOL9Y.E9 Figure 3: Schematic Elevations for Childcare/Education Facility Proposed in 2008/2009 The locations of both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota-Lot 7 developments are shown on Figure 4 on the following page. page 280 ., • • • .• • • . • s Q �• �h *[ •' tro • �." A � L • • • • • • G1 TLL ig r fC 41 41 ro r �. t � ' „ r a x 01 * 1 • . Q ++ H v -u,F .. a n c o � O aJ m w LL J 3 GJ bb vi M � Q a page 281 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 6 Trip Generation Analysis This section of the technical memorandum addresses trip generation and presents results of trip generation analyses in tables that support the Summary of Findings on page 1 and the Comparisons and Conclusions on page 12. Trip generation analyses are conducted as an element of Traffic Impact Studies to estimate the volume of trips that will be attracted to and depart from specific uses located on the Mendota Plaza site. Five development scenarios will be discussed in this section of the memorandum. Scenario 1: Trip Generation Estimate for the 2016 Mendota 2 Expansion Program A trip generation analysis for uses included in the 2016 expansion program was prepared by Spack Consulting. As shown in Table 1, on page 8, the expansion program was estimated to generate a low to moderate volume of trips over the course of an average week day. At the same time, the respective volumes of AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips were estimated to be almost "unremarkable." As presented in Table 1, Spack Consulting identified some of the trips as pass-by trips. These trips are "intermediate stops on the way" between a trip origin and an intended trip destination. One way to think about pass-by trips is that some of them can be "spur of the moment" trips where, for example, a driver is passing by a McDonalds restaurant, sees the Golden Arches, suddenly craves a Big Mac, then turns into the McDonalds' parking lot, purchases a Big Mac, and exits the parking lot to continue the original trip. Pass-by trips do not comprise new trips on roadway links adjacent to trip attractions but they do impact the driveways that serve them. Non-pass-by trips, by comparison, are new trips---trips that would not be on adjacent roadway links were it not for the attraction. In Table 1, for example, it is shown that the 2016 expansion program was estimated to generate 536 daily inbound trips and 536 daily outbound trips, and 35 percent of these (381 trips) are pass- by trips that would impact traffic operations at South Plaza Drive, North Plaza Access, and the right-in/right-out driveway on TH 62. These trips, however, would not have an impact on the intersection of TH 62/TH 149 because they are not new trips being added to the system. In essence, they are already included in the volume of trips that are already on the road. As Table 1 correctly indicates, the apartment building (a residential use) does not generate pass-by trips. As shown in Table 1, if the Mendota 2 Expansion Program had been implemented as originally planned, there would have been: E 1,072 daily trips, of which 381 would have been pass-by trips 0 73 AM peak hour trips, of which 17 would have been pass-by trips E 97 PM peak hour trips, of which 32 would have been pass-by trips page 282 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 7 Scenario 2: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 The impact of not building the proposed retail shops and restaurant in 2016 is one where trips estimated to be generated by those uses never materialized. Thus, they should be subtracted from the totals shown in Table 1. See Table 2 on page 8, which describes trip generation for what was actually built, i.e., the existing condition. As shown in Table 2, the volume of trips actually generated today is: 0 530 daily trips 0 46 AM peak hour trips E 52 PM peak hour trips Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the following reductions in trips have been realized by not building the originally proposed retail and restaurant uses. * Pass-by trips never materialized * 51 percent of daily trips (542 daily trips) never materialized ul 37 percent of AM peak hour trips (27 AM peak hour trips) never materialized E 46 percent of PM peak hour trips (45 PM peak hour trips) never materialized o \ q o 0 0 0 .. . \ .. .. \ .Y $ $ / _ 2 / » m � g \ 2 / o o � \ u to to } ƒ ƒ , 4-1 q \ $ § / . , q o o q / -0 \ \ � � 7 m \ � \ § 7 0 0 en § / / / / _ \ / / z m Ln ® - _ . z � 00 \ k • \ _ ( 2 . (a e e ucu f ■ ' / 0 o m — E o o E , I w m � \ m 3 (a = m to z 0) q -Fa\ f z o o t f . / 0 / C $ $ q $ % J o 0 0 o e ' � 2 2 ( \ 7 t 7 \ q q q <CU to 7 \ o o en7 q w = e q \ o . Lu a t 0 e / f i q $ \ / � f o o $ / , \ 0 E E LU E 2 2 _m Ln g w tD § / G _m q Ln G \ q e Ln - \ k 0 C / k a) 2 u / E \ ( \ N \ 7 L t q o 2 / o / , / / { , { - a fu = - 7 = ! ° : a ! ° � _ k ' \ _ ± { = E u k ' \ _ ± m 0 ± a ° a ? k \ E e > / ) R ' ? k \ E / : j \ t \ t g - k / k t \ a- u t g f f ■ ° � 2 7 m = 0 ■ ° � � 2 7 3 0 { o § » ( ° 0 9 ( ° 2 ■ N 2 u ■ � 2 u » \ % E $ \ � e � E & - < � ƒ E E @ 3 : < � ƒ \ @ 2 M 2 / / \ Ln G a Ln G § f 2 — — / \ . -J = ? ° E u z u d ° E u z / } m to m — - 0 � 0 0 = — - 0 � 0 0 = k J a � I e 0 | � I e 0 , , page 284 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 9 Scenario 3: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 and the Proposed Mendota 2 At Home Apartments proposes to build a 58-unit apartment (Mendota 2) on the parcel where the retail and restaurant uses were proposed in 2016. Presented in Table 3, below, are results from a trip generation analysis conducted to estimate the total number of trips that would be generated by the 149-unit apartment (The Reserve at Mendota Village), which was constructed in 2016, and the currently proposed Mendota 2 apartment. Table 3 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota 2, Combined Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Total 207 dus 422 1 422 1 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 Source: ++ Local date collected by Spack Consulting. +++ Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 3 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Comparing Table 1 to Table 3, it is shown that by implementing the proposed Mendota 2 residential development, fewer trips will be generated than those estimated for the original 2016 expansion program. Implementing the proposed Mendota 2 project, instead of the 4,826 square foot retail and 6,000 square foot restaurant uses, will yield the following: * All pass-by trips are gone * 21 percent of daily trips (228 daily tips) are gone * 10 percent of AM peak hour trips (7 AM peak hour trips) are gone * 20 percent of PM peak hour trips (19 PM peak hour trips) are gone Scenario 4: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve at Mendota Village, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Education Facility As mentioned, a 10,130 square foot daycare/educational facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7. It was never constructed, and At Home Apartments is proposing an 89- unit apartment for this location. Table 4 shows the volume of trips that would have been generated if the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility were constructed on Lot 7, along page 285 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 10 with The Reserve (which is already constructed), and assuming Mendota 2 is approved for implementation. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Educational Facility Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility on Mendota- Lot 7 ITE Code 565+++ Total 207 dus 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 and childcare facility Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 4 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 As shown in Table 4, this development scenario is estimated to result in: E 1,326 daily trips E 177 AM peak hour trips 0 191 PM peak hour trips Scenario 5: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development This analysis considers trip generation for the combination of three At Home Apartments residential developments; where the Mendota Lot 7 development is implemented instead of the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility. As shown in Table 5, below, the volume of trips that will be generated by the Mendota-Lot 7 development is low. Likewise, the addition of this proposed development will result in a total volume of trips that is low over the course of an entire day and, more importantly, is also low to low/moderate during the peak hours. page 286 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 11 Table 5 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Mendota Lot 7 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 ITE Code 221+++ Total 296 dus 664 1 664 1 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 286, not 296, and the estimated trips generated by the Reserve in Table 5 are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Table 5 shows that by implementing the Mendota Lot 7 development, instead of the childcare/education facility, along with The Reserve and Mendota 2, the volume of trips is estimated to be: E 1,328 daily trips E 97 AM peak hour trips 0 118 PM peak hour trips Comparisons and Conclusions Comparisons: Table 6 presents side-by-side comparisons of estimated trip generation for each of five development scenarios. As shown, Scenario 4, which includes the 2008/2009 childcare/education facility,is estimated to generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when compared to the other scenarios. page 287 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 12 Table 6 Comparison of Estimated Trip Generation Scenario Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 1)The • 149-du 536 536 1072 20 53 73 62 35 97 original2016 Apartment** Expansion • 4,826 SF Retail Program • 6,000 SF Restaurant 2) 2016 • 149-du 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 What was Apartment** actually built 3) Post 2016 • 149-du 422 422 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 What was Apartment ** actually built • 58 du combined Apartment with Mendota 2 4) What was • 149 du 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58 du Mendota 2, Apartment plus a • 10,130 SF Childcare/ Childcare/ Education Education Facility Facility 5) What was • 149-du 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58-du Mendota 2, Apartment plus • 89-du Mendota Lot Apartment 7 Development ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. page 288 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 13 Conclusions: Four important conclusions are outlined below. 1. Compare Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. The addition of At Home Apartments' proposed, 58- unit apartment(the Mendota 2 development) will result in lower trip generation than would have occurred if the 2016 expansion program had been implemented. 2. Compare Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment (the Mendota Lot 7 development) will result in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility; 1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference, however, in the volume of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcare/educational facility, would generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89- unit apartment; 177 AM peak hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5 will generate 118. 3. Compare Trip Generation for what was Proposed in 2016 and 2008/2009 against what is Proposed Today. As Table 7 shows, the planned uses for the subject parcels from the original 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD would have yield 1,554 daily trips. This is to be compared to the volume of daily trips (1,328) that will be generated by the Reserve and currently proposed uses (58 units on Mendota 2 and 89 units on Mendota 7). Table 7 also shows that the volume of peak hour trips, which is critically more important than the volume of daily trips, will be lower with the newly proposed uses, compared to the originally proposed uses from the 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD. As shown, the differences are stark: • Compare 184 AM peak hour trips to 97, a difference of 87 vehicles per hour • Compare 210 PM peak hour trips to 118, a difference of 92 vehicles per hour. Peak hour traffic volumes are more critical than those that occur over the course of a 24-hour day, because the peak hours are time periods where traffic volumes are at their highest within a short period of time. page 289 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 14 Table 7 Trip Generation for 2016 PUD Amendment and 2008/2009 PUD Compared to Trip Generation for Currently Proposed Uses [use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out Total In I Out I Total In Out Total Trip Generation for Fully Implemented 2016 PUD Amendment and 00: 00• PUD Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Specialty Retail 4,826 SF 60 60 120 9 10 19 3 4 7 Restaurant 6,000 SF 211 211 422 5 3 8 25 13 38 Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility Total 1 777 777 1554 79 105 184 122 88 210 ProposedTrip Generation for Currently Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Mid-Rise Apartment 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Mid-Rise Apartment 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Total 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 4. Compare Scenario 2 and Scenario 5. The differences between these two scenarios describe the increases that can be expected between the existing condition and a future condition where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both constructed. This comparison shows that by implementing the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments, as currently proposed, the following increases over the existing condition can be expected. • Daily + 798 trips • AM Peak + 51 trips • PM Peak + 66 trips These increases between the current condition and a future condition (where the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both implemented)are not significant and are typically thought to be too low to have a profound effect on traffic operations. Their relative insignificance becomes obvious when compared to the increases in trips that would have occurred if the original 2016 PUD Amendment (the 149- page 290 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 15 unit Reserve, the 4,826 square foot retail space, and the 6,000 square foot restaurant) and the 2008/2009 PUD had been implemented as planned. ■ Daily + 1,024 trips ■ AM Peak + 138 trips ■ PM Peak + 158 trips By comparison,these increases over the existing condition are greater and are more likely to have an impact on peak hour traffic operations than the increases that are estimated under Scenario 5, where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are implemented. page 291 B O LTA N 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337-1649 i & M ENK Ph: 1952) 890-0509 Real People. Real Solutions. Fax: (9521 890-6065 Bolton-Menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2021 To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director, City of Mendota Heights From: Bryan Nemeth, P.E. Subject: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review City of Mendota Heights Project No.: ORI.125201 This memorandum provides a review of the proposed development and the associated traffic analysis dated August 9, 2021 (Trip Generation Analysis). The August 9,2021 study references a previous traffic impact study completed for the project area that included the some of the area under consideration for development. As this is the basis for the traffic analysis, the study results were reviewed. 2016 Analysis Study Review The 2016 study proposed maintaining two full access points on the west to TH 149/Dodd Road and proposed adding one right-in/right-out or just a right-in access on the north to TH 62 (previously TH 110). Ultimately,the access to TH 62 was constructed with right-in access only. The 2016 study indicates that there will be resulting poor levels of service for all of the intersections by 2040 with the development but also indicates that improvements are beyond the scope of the study. Review of the queues resulting from the 2016 study indicates that the AM northbound queues at TH 62/TH 149 increase by 100 to 150 feet with the development in 2040 compared to the existing scenario in 2016. The AM queue can be accommodated with the existing access spacing on TH 149 and does not appear to be a concern. The PM queue in 2016 already extended past the North Plaza Access and would be longer by around 75 feet in 2018 and 1,200 feet in 2040 with the right-in access. Additionally, any queuing on the Plaza accesses to TH 149/Dodd Road are shown to be acceptable but would operate at LOS F in the 2040 scenarios. Overall, the study indicated that an access to TH 62 would provide some, if minimal, improvement to operations. The biggest improvement is likely a safety improvement to TH 149/Dodd Road, south of TH 62,by not having as much traffic make the southbound left turn movement into the accesses off TH 149/Dodd Road. Trip Generation The traffic study Technical Memorandum documented the trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments. This includes: • Mendota 2: 58-unit apartment • Lot 7: 89-unit apartment It is proposed that the increase in trips from the new development for Mendota 2 would be less than what was previously proposed in 2016, so no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, Lot 7 was previously proposed as a daycare/childhood center in a 2008/2009 PUD application but it is unknown whether a traffic analysis was completed with it. Review of historical aerial images indicates that Lots 6 H:\MHGT\OR1125201\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\2021-08-16_Plaza Expansion Development Traffic Review.docx Bolton&Mark is an equal opportunity employer. page 292 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 2 and 7 of the area were not developed by the time of the 2016 study. Consequently, the 2016 traffic impact study does not appear to take the Lot 6 or Lot 7 development into account. The ITE Trip Generation analysis uses the correct rates resulting in the following for Mendota Plaza. This also displays the previous trip projections for the two sites. Site Mendota Plaza Trip Projections 2009/2016 Trip Projections(new trips) Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak Mendota 2 314 20 26 542 27 45 Lot 7 484 31 40 482 111 113 Total 798 51 66 1,024 138 158 This results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily for"Mendota 2"than the previous development proposed in those areas for the 2016 study. This also results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and essentially the same for daily trips for Lot 7 than the previous development proposed in the area from the 2008/2009 PUD Application. This indicates that the new development would likely result in fewer trips than previously proposed, especially during the critical AM and PM peak hours. By itself, this does not indicate that the operations are acceptable or that the proposed development does not need to provide transportation network improvements. This new additional traffic will be added to the traffic that is there today. The most noticeable change is likely to be on South Plaza Drive, since much of the Lot 7 traffic would likely use South Plaza Drive to access TH 149/Dodd Road,due to proximity and due to queues on TH 149. Traffic Operations The 2016 study indicated substantial operational concerns with or without any new development in the area.This is a result of existing traffic volumes on the roadway, increased background traffic growth due to new development locally and region-wide, and the new proposed development. The poor operations are likely a concern for MnDOT(jurisdiction over TH 149 and TH 110) and the city of Mendota Heights, especially when it impacts the safety of the traveling public. As indicated previously, the new development by itself does not appear to be the biggest driver for the operational concerns, as the 2018 operations appear to be minimally different than the 2016 operations prior to the expanded development. But the new development will add trips to the network,resulting in slightly longer queue lengths. Additional review of options for improved operations and safety, such as different access configurations at both North Plaza and South Plaza Drive may need to be considered. Traffic Safety Review A review of the recent crashes in the area was completed to understand how the most recent development since 2016 impacted traffic safety and if improvements are needed in the area, especially as traffic increases due to additional development. Location 2014-2016 Crashes 2018-2020 Crashes Notes Angle Rear-end Other Angle Rear-end Other Dodd/South Plaza - 1* - 1* - - Dodd/North Plaza 2* 1* - 1** 2* 1 TH 62/Ri ht-in - - - I - - - *Crash involved a northbound queue backup through the intersection **Crash involved a motorized scooter using the pedestrian crossing ***No crashes appear to involve the right turn off of TH 62 S ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 293 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 3 Overall,it appears that the development increase did not result in an increase in crashes or a reduction in safety. The crash data does indicate that there is a consistent crash type occurring on TH 149, especially when there is a long queue evident that extends south from TH 62. The number of crashes are low though, and would not appear to be a substantial concern. With the increased traffic at South Plaza Drive, constructing a southbound left turn lane at South Plaza Drive would be anticipated to provide a safety improvement by allowing southbound traffic to bypass southbound left turning vehicles, especially since the access appears to be blocked by vehicles on a frequent basis. The proposed development on Lot 7 would likely increase the number of southbound left turning vehicles in the PM peak hour, when the queues appear to be the most prevalent. Mendota 2 development does have some safety concerns that should be rectified prior to development. The current north access occurs right after the right turn off of TH 62 and is directly after the entrance sign structure. These are significant safety concerns for sight lines. The north access should be moved south to provide more distance from TH 62 and the sign structure. Additionally,the signing and striping of the internal roadway that connects to the right-in off of TH 62 should be revised to make it easier for motorists to understand the traffic movements allowed in the area as the Mendota 2 site is developed. Pedestrian Considerations The network for pedestrians appears to provide access to all of the currently developed parcels except for Lot 6.With the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 the pedestrian network should be expanded to serve those parcels. Of special consideration, the transit stop on South Plaza Drive is not connected to the overall pedestrian network,nor is the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive. A sidewalk or trail should be extended from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. Additionally, the sidewalk/trail should extend from the access points for the building on Lot 7 to this sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive. This would provide access to the overall transportation network and the transit stop from Lot 7. Pedestrian network access to and from Mendota 2 can expand on what has already been completed in the area during Phase 1. Mendota 2 should connect to this network of sidewalk and trail to the east. In conjunction with the above improvements, the current pedestrian activated RRFB located on the southeast corner of TH 149/S Plaza Dr should be considered for relocation to the north side of the intersection since that is where the pedestrian crossing is located, to get it in compliance with the MnMUTCD. Conclusions The following improvements are recommended to be made to the surrounding transportation network to improve pedestrian connections and improve potential safety concerns with the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 into apartments: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Ba{ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 294 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 4 Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic movements and improve safety. O ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. DEPARTMENT OF Metropq) Ai3trict MI TRANSPORTATION 1500 County Road West Roseville, MN 55113 August 11, 2021 Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 SUBJECT: At Home Apartments - MH MnDOT Review#S21-049 SE quadrant of MN 149 and MN 62 Control Section: 1917 Mendota Heights, Dakota County Dear Tim Benetti, Thank you for submitting the plans for At Home Apartments—MH. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, received 7/19/21, and has the following comments: Drainage A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed, and additional information may be requested. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234- 7539 or jason.swenson(cstate.mn.us with any questions. 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 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, An equal opportunity employer page 296 Page 2 of 3 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 deemed 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, Metro District Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Riesg state.mn.us. Pedestrian and Bicycle Consider including indoor bicycle parking and making sidewalk connections to South Plaza Way ADA accessible so all road users can easily access the Parcel 2 building. Please contact Jesse Thomsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or jesse.thornsen(a�state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT's Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.crai gg state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT's goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s)to MnDOT's web transfer client site at: https:Hmft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Please do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. page 297 Page 3 of 3 You are welcome to contact me at(651) 234-7792 or david.kratz(c�state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Ryan Wilson, Area Manager Buck Craig, Permits Mackenzie Turner Barger, PedBike Ben Klismith, Right of Way Jesse Thomsen, PedBike Almin Ramic, Traffic Lance Schowalter, Design Jason Junge, Transit Cameron Muhic, Planning Natalie Ries, Noise Tod Sherman, Planning Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Casey Crisp, Surveying Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council page 298 page 299 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com * CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 24, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-13 (ref. Lot 7) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT APPLICANT: At Home Apartments/Mendota Mall Associates, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: South Plaza Drive & South Plaza Way-Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 (Extended Statutory Review Period) INTRODUCTION At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development(PUD)and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12- 1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7),and is generally located to the south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building,or the vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is an 89-unit apartment building. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item. BACKGROUND The Plaza mall site encompasses approximately 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009,Mendota Mall Associates (Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, which included a new overall land use and zoning category of Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential development area,which would include the large retail (strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant pad sites,various sized offices,childcare center and a pharmacy(refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD Master/Final Development Plan 2009). page 300 Under the original 2009 Plan,the mall owners identified this Lot 7 as"Future Child Care— 10,300-sf. (see highlighted image below). ff J ti UL �� � w.wr sari r :•.�, .ors o : •� ��,• ,f L I ihi •------ rmwlt1 Mendota Plaza PUD Master Plan -2009 Since 2009,the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments, with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment No.6 in 2016,and the latest No.7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. This proposed development would become part of the eighth amendment(along with the Phase II— 58-unit development on the north)if approved. As noted in the applicant's narrative,Paster Properties has made numerous attempts to sell and develop the subject site as a child care center or other allowable use, but have not been able to secure any new development on this back and somewhat secluded site. Paster is now permitting At Home Apts.to officially request this PUD Amendment in order to revise the final development plan and possibly allow the site to be developed with a new 89-unit apartment development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT/ SITE IMPROVEMENTS The subject parcel is mostly triangular in shape, and consists of 88,676-sq. ft. or 2.04 acres. The parcel is currently vacant;and has a multi-tenant monument sign located at the southwest corner(see image below). The proposed development for Phase III— Lot 7 is a four story, 89-unit apartment building, with 139,126 gross square feet of parking and living area. The new apartment will consist of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674-sf.; 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772-sf.; 18 large page 301 one-bedroom units with an average size of 864-sf; 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906-sf; and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119-sf. These market rate units range in size from a low of 625 to 676 sf. and a high of 775 — 960 sf. for the one-bedroom units, and a low of 1,193-sf. and up to 1,225-sf. for the 2-bed units. The building will consist of one and one-half levels of underground parking,with 110 stalls and 47 surface (outdoor)parking stalls, resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. The developers are requesting to have the proposed apartment building with setbacks of 25-feet along the west and south property lines; and 10-ft. setbacks for the outdoor parking lot along South Plaza Drive. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the following applicable policies/standards for facade design,building materials, and doors/windows: • Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. • Undulating fagade shall be encouraged. • Exterior fagade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian. • Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into fagade design. • Materials shall be selectedfor suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings. • Materials shall be durable quality. • Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable. • All wood treatment shall be painted and weatherproofed. • A minimum of 25%of the fagade shall be treated with finished masonry building material. • Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be encouraged. • Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25%of decorative masonry variation in color, texture or surface. 2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. The proposed buildings' exterior are a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with The Reserves development, City Code and the original PUD Design Standards: • Face brick • Stone veneer • Cement Board Lap Siding • Metal panel siding • Decorative masonry block • Composite windows • Prefinished metal flashing and trim • Prefinished balconies and railings The building's architectural elevations and renderings,interior floor plans,civil plans for grading and utility improvements, along with the landscaping/plantings plans are all included with this report's attachments. page 302 ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan (2030 vs. 2040) The entire Mendota Plaza mall site and subject parcel were all guided Mixed-Use PUD under the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was noted with: The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated,planned development project. Areas of the community with this land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110 is the City's only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use commercial/residential center known as "The Village at Mendota Heights". Located in the southeast corner of the Dodd and Highway 110 intersection is a related commercial area. This older shopping center is being considered for redevelopment,including a mixed-use land use pattern reflecting the Village development concept. It is an objective of the City to encourage redevelopment of this area reflecting a small-town village layout, avoiding the suburban shopping center environment that dominates the current development pattern. As noted previously,the entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD in 2009. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses that are seen today remain consistent with the future land use designations established under the previous 2030 Plan. . Under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the following is noted for MU-PUD areas: MU—Mixed-Use(21.0-30.0 DU/Acre for Residential Uses) Undeveloped land guided mixed-use is planned to develop approximately 75% of its acres with residential uses at the densities identified, which is consistent with existing mixed-use projects in the city. The northeast quadrant of the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection has been developed into a mixed-use center known as The Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen's pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project developed by At Home Apartments. The current residential development has developed at densities between 21 and 30 dwelling units per acre,and adjacent undeveloped outlots are guided to develop at similar densities Under the 2016 PUD Amendment report, city staff reported the following on population and housing projections (part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan): Forecast 2010 2014 2020 2030 2040 Population 1 11,071 1 11,124 1 11,300 11,300 11,400 Households 1 4,378 1 4,450 4,600 4,710 4,800 Source:Metropolitan Council(dated 911712015) According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement,the City's population and household forecasts are as follows: Forecast 2010 2018 2020 2030 2040 Population 11,071 11,3040 12,000 12,000 12,000 2.4/0 0/o (0/o) (0/o) Households 4,378 N/A 4,900 5,000 5,110 (12%) (2%) (2.251.) Source:Metropolitan Council, US Census,City of Mendota Heights,SHC As noted,the Met Council agreed to accept the city's increase of our projected populations from 11,400 to a 12,000 —which we requested to hold steady from the 2020 through 2040 planning periods. Meanwhile, the households are projected to increase slightly over these same periods, from 4,900 (2020)up to 5,110 in 2040. As per the 2040 Plan: "Most of the household growth is anticipated to occur in areas designated for mixed-use, which is likely to be primarily multi family development." This site and the proposed apartment development would meet this statement. page 303 Construction of the proposed 89-unit residential development (coupled with the proposed 58-units in the Phase II development) could account significantly or contribute greatly to the projected amount of households planned for in the 2040 Plan. According to the applicant,the proposed prcj ect includes"market- rate" units and plans do not include any "affordable units", which could satisfy additional Metropolitan Council requirements on affordable housing. Nevertheless, the Met Council typically supports efforts to increase new housing opportunities wherever or whenever they present themselves in metro communities. The 2040 Plan also provides the following goals and policy statements to consider in this PUD request: LAND USE GOAL 1: The Future Land Use Plan will provide the foundation for all land use decisions in Mendota Heights. Policies 1. Development and redevelopment of housing, businesses, transportation systems, parks and community facilities shall be done in accordance with this Plan. 5. The city will strive to create a balanced land use pattern that provides appropriate designations that meet projected growth and market demand. LAND USE GOAL 2:Preserve,protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. Policies 2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings. 3. Development and planning of land will be encouraged to provide reasonable access to the surrounding communities. HOUSING GOAL 2:Meet future needs with a variety of housing products. Policies 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: 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. 2. Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices. The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for rental units in the community, which appears to be a continual and growing trend among many metropolitan and suburban communities these days. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed or added residential project may fit many of the land use and housing goals and policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and the planning commission should discuss these and provide a recommendation with findings that either support or advise against this new high-density development in the community. page 304 Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment The original 2009 PUD Plan,which included a new plat,called for the development of the project area with the following: a 14,820-sf. Walgreens store (Lot 1); a 47,200 sf. retail mall (Lot 2); two future 3,600- sf/4,000-sf. restaurants (Lot 3); a 12,000-sf multi-tenant/strip mall (Lot 4); a 10,800-s£ future office (Lot 5); a future 4-story, 100,000-sf high density residential apartment (Lot 6); a 10,130-sf future child care center(Lot 7); and athree-story, 36,000-sf.future office building (Lot 8). Soon after the 2009 approvals,the Walgreens and Mendota Plaza mall were completed. In 2012 the PUD was amended to change the proposed 100,000 square-foot high-density residential building on Lot 6 to the 46-unit White Pines Senior Living facility. In 2016 the PUD was amended to change the future 12,000-sf. Retail Center and 10,800-sf Office building (Lots 4 &5) over to the 139-unit Reserve Apartments, which included changing the two future 3,600-sf./4,000-sf restaurants on Lot 3 into two 3,500-sf. and 4,000-sf restaurant pad sites with drive through lanes. In 2017 the PUD was amended to revise the future office building on Lot 8 to the 17,700-sf. Gemini Medical offices. For this particular site, the developer is requesting to modify the original 2009 Final Plan's"10,300-sf Future Child Care Center"with the proposed four story, 139,126-sf,, 89-unit apartment building. According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land;and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit modification and variance ofzoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. One of the key provisions of this statement is "...to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land... " which is why many cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and cohesive developments within a community. The PUD also can grant some discretionary allowances (instead of or in place of a variance)with certain site design standards, such as reduced setbacks, increased building heights,higher densities (units/acre),reduced parking and others. Amending an existing PUD Final Development Plan is noted under Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code: Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures provided below: 1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved. 2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the developmentpolicy of the community. The proposed amendment qualifies under No. 2 above, and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit. page 305 The subject parcel is zoned and guided MU-PUD (Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development). According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code: MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district,provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit. Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD: Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the following standards: 1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas. 2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with adjacent projects or proposals. 3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council. 4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community. 5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. Density/Hi2h-Density Residential Development This proposed high-density residential development would provide 89-units on 2.04 acres. The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible,and can be reviewed against the standards for similarly- zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed apartment plan can be reviewed utilizing R-3 High Density Residential District standards as a guide,but not as an absolute, since an R-3 use is a "...potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district." A high-density residential apartment building under this proposal would be considered an allowable use in this MU-PUD district. However,the new use or development does not need to meet all (or any) of the R-3 District development standards to be approved, as the City Council has considerable "flexibility" and discretion in this PUD review process, and can provide appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions on new developments as deemed necessary. According to Title 12-1K-5-B: Number of Dwelling Units: 1. In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning district(s)in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3 zoning district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide. If the residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of allowable dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit development that is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development. page 306 Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council. 3. The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density. Since this site is located in an established MU-PUD zone,the density applied to a typical R-3 or high density multi-family use such as this may be used [emphasis added],but is not required. Again, City Code grants the planning commission the discretionary right or ability to determine [by its recommendation]the number of dwelling units,thus setting or approving the allowable density of the site. City Council will have final authority or decision-making on any density request. The Reserve apartments consisted of 139 units on a 2.2 acre site, which calculated out to a density of 63 units/acre - on its own parcel. However, in the 2016 PUD Amendment review, city staff presented to the planning commission and council the following statement on density calculation: "...the Code provision above[12-]K 5-BJ does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends a more appropriate analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD future land use designation, which has an allowable density range of 6-10 housing units/acre."When staff calculated the density based on the entire PUD project site at that time, and added both White Pines 46- units plus The Reserves' 139 units (185 total units), this worked out to an overall density calculation of 10.2 units/acre,which was found to be acceptable and approved by the city. The density calculation on this individual parcel is calculated as: 89-units / 2.04 acres = 43.6 units/acre. However, as noted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan,the city revised the MU-Mixed Use land category to include a provision to allow up to 21.0 — 30.0 units/acre. Utilizing this same rationale for determining density as the city allowed in the 2016 PUD Amendment,the density is calculated as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 2.05 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7—Proposed Phase I II 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres" Total Units(existing&proposed) 274 units Total Density 19.75 units/acre 'Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) page 307 Factoring in the other 58-unit apartment development (Phase II), the density total on the entire Plaza PUD site re-calculates as follows: Parcel Parcel Area Residential Description (Net Acres) Units Lot 1 —Wal reens 1.75 0 Lot 2—Mendota Plaza 6.15 0 Lot 6—White Pines 2.0 46 Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.) 2.05 58 Lot 1, Block 2 The Reserves 2.2 139 Lot 7—(proposed Phase II I apts.) 2.04 89 Lot 8—Gemini Medical 2.31 0 Total Net Area 18.5 ac.@ 75%= 13.875 acres Total Units(existing&proposed) 332 units Total Density 23.9 or approx. 24 units/acre *Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75%of Total Net Developable Areas(per 2040 Comprehensive Plan) The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the allowed density for the proposed PUD amendment; and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Site and Structure Requirements ♦ The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as per Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code: Standard Requirement Proposed 3-story or more: 2.04 ac. (88,863-sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling 1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet 62 one-bedroom units Unit' 2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet 27 two-bedroom units 3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet Efficiency units: Not permitted Minimum Floor Area 1-bedroom units: 750 square feet 1-bedroom: 640—775 sf. 2-bedroom units: 800 square feet 2-bedroom: 920— 1210 sf. 3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet Front Yard Setback 50 feet+ 1 foot/each 1 foot of building height 25 feet(from South Plaza Way)and the over 60 feet main access drive Side/Rear Yard Setback 40 feet+ 0.5 feet/1 foot of building height 15-ft. from Hwy 62 ROW; over 75 feet 15-ft. from creek boundary Buildinq Height No limit 55-ft. feet 59-ft. at highestpoint) Parking Lot Setback 40 feet(ROW) 10-ft. 10 feet(principal building) 'may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground • Land Area Based on the proposed unit-mix and underground parking provided,the current lot area is significantly less than what would be required under normal R-3 District standards. A standard R-3 Zoned parcel would require almost 446,560-sf. or 10.25 acres of land to support the number of one/two bedroom units proposed in this plan. [CALC: (62 x 5,100=316,200)+(27 x 6,050=163,350)—(110 stalls�300-sf.=33,000)=446,550-s£] Once again however,the PUD Amendment allows for the city to accept this reduction of land space if demonstrated by the developer that this site still works, even with the number of units proposed on the smaller land site. page 308 • Unit Sizes For this new apartment proposal, 15 of the 62 one-bed units are planned to be less than the minimum 750-sf size for a standard R-3 High Density Residential use; while all 27 of the 2-bed units plan to be over the 800-sf. minimum. No three-bedroom units are proposed in the building. • Buildinz/Parkinz Lot Setbacks The proposed building setbacks are significantly less than required under the R-3 District standards. Instead of a 50-foot setback the developer is requesting a reduction of at least one-half down to 25-feet from the adjacent roadways, and a slight reduction of the back/rear yard from 40-ft. down to 30-ft. at its closest point. The outdoor parking lot is requested with a reduced 10-ft. setback from South Plaza ROW, where normally 40-feet is expected. Parking lot setbacks of 10-ft. from the building is to allow for adequate access and landscaping, and this plan meets that standard. Although these reduced setbacks are considerable,the planning commission and city council have the discretion to accept or approve the proposed building and parking layouts, even with the reduced setbacks as shown or noted herein, as part of this PUD Amendment review process. The commission may make any recommendations accordingly. • Building Coverage The R-3 District does not include a floor area ratio standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed apartment development covers 32.4%of the lot(28,800-sf. /88,863-sf. lot area),which can be considered compliant with the original Mendota Plaza Design Standards. • Landscapin- The landscape plans submitted for the site is somewhat limited, and only shows a generalized location for new trees and shrubs, and areas to be replanted or vegetated. The plans are absent of important details or plantings list;however the applicants did state in their narrative and plan notes: "The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. " The developer was requested (by city staff)to meet with our resident Master Gardeners to review and comment on their proposed Landscape Plan. It appears the developer's architect did speak to one of the MG, and later reported back to city staff with the following message: "The plan you[city staff]sent to me had no species listed, so he[developer's architect]and I just talked about what we are looking for in terms of pollinator friendly, resilient landscape. He was going to incorporate the things we discussed into a plan and then send me the plan and discuss further."—and— "One thing that jumped out to me is that the buildings are very near the lot lines or MNDOT ROW in the case of the building facing Hwy 62,so there isn't a lot of space to design a meaningful pollinator friendly, resilient plan. But, it is hard to visualize without seeing the plan." page 309 As of the preparation of this report,no updated/revised plan was available for this packet,other than the original landscape plan submitted with the original CUP application materials. A new plan with comments from the Master Gardener may be available or presented to the commission prior to or the night of the hearing. • Lighting According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting policies/standards: • Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area. • Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. • Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site. • Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided. The PUD Site Plans are absent of any Lighting or Photometric Plans with this development, nor any indications of lights on the buildings. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements may not apply between the shared/mixed uses in the overall PUD project area. However, it will be important the developer can show or demonstrate that any new lighting for parking and outside the buildings meet City Code and Mendota Plaza standards. Proposed light fixtures should be downcast/cut-off types of lights and kept to a minimum(number/amount). Staff has included a recommendation to have the developer provide and submit a complete and detailed Lighting-Photometric Plan of the site for approvals. • Parking The proposed high-density residential development includes 47 surface parking spaces and 110 indoor spaces, for a total of 157 spaces. This equates to a ratio of 1.76 spaces/unit. According to Title 12-1E- E of the City Code,the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows: Number And Design Of Parking Spaces:A minimum of two and one-half(21/2)parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards. Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 89-units, strict application of the Code standard would require a minimum of 223 parking spaces. It is Planning Staff s professional opinion that this 2.5 space per unit is too high and extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and nation. When At Homes presented their apartment proposal in 2016,the issue of 2.5 spaces/unit was discussed and analyzed,and the city planning consultants(Stantec)were authorized to conduct a parking analysis and study for this site,which are excerpted and highlighted below: • Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched(except Apple Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit,but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit. page 310 • Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high. • The average for nine projects(not in transit friendly areas)is 1.59/unit. • Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since, according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics(see table on the following page),so even without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going down and that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi family projects. • The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)publishes a manual on parking demand, citing studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual(2010)shows a range of 1.10-1.37spaces per unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large,some studies in the mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied,so we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide. Apartment Parking—Conclusion & Recommendation Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the 20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement. Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by the City in 2016 for The Reserves)the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows: ■ Parking at 1.6/Unit: 89-units x 1.6= 142.4 or 143 spaces or ■ Parking at 1.2/bedroom: 62 one bedroom units @ 1.2 =74.4, or 75 spaces 27 two bedroom units @ 2.4= 64.8, or 65 spaces TOTAL: 140 spaces Due to the strong desire to preserve or encourage more open space on this site, it remains the professional opinion of staff that the 157 spaces (1.76 space/unit ratio) proposed under this single development plan should be adequate to serve the residents of this site; and is based on the previous study/analysis performed on The Reserves,The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years. Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following: Size Of Spaces:Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet(9)wide and twenty feet(20) in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24) in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway. The proposed parking plans shows the outdoor/surface spaces as 9' x 18' dimensions with a"nose-in" or curb overhanging design, and 24-ft. wide drive aisles. The underground spaces are also shown or measure 9' x 18',with a 24-ft. wide drive aisle. page 311 Again the planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on whether or not you support or recommend favorably this request to reduce the number of spaces per the plan submittal; and if the reduced setbacks and stall sizes are acceptable. • Park Dedication If the new apartment development is approved,the applicant is required to either contribute 10%of final plat gross area to be dedicated for public use -or contribute a cash payment in-lieu-of land dedication in an amount established by the city. Since no platting is taking place, and due to an expected number of new residents coming in with the new high-density residential development,the cash/in-lieu of payment of$4,000/unit will be requested($4,000 x 89-units=$356,000). Payment of the required park dedication fees is included as a condition of approval. Traffic Impacts With any new developments in and around this centralized commercial/retail/mixed-use hub on Highway 62 and Dodd Road(State Hwy. 149),traffic safety,vehicle movements,access(both in and out of the area) and adequate parking seem to be a major concern to many residents and business owners for this area. This development would retain the right-in only access off of Hwy 62 (to the north); and all other access via North Plaza Drive or South Plaza Drive, which are the only two roadway connections directly on or back out to Dodd Road. In 2017 the city consulted with KLJ Engineering to provide a traffic study of this and other areas in the city,which was referred to as the Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study and completed in February 2018. The study was commissioned to examine existing conditions,traffic and vehicle crash data;traffic operations,and predict future traffic forecasts and operations,and provide alternatives. The study showed that the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62, in its 2017 Existing Conditions, 2040 Base and Build Scenarios that this intersection provides a Level of Service F, which is the lowest score given, and essentially means there are issues that need to be corrected or addressed. Unfortunately, since both of these roadway systems are MnDOT controlled,there is not much the city can require or recommend to fix some of these issues without an expensive alternative or solution. The report did summarize or suggested an alternative to providing a future right-in/right-out intersection at North Plaza Drive off Dodd Road; but there are currently no plans by MnDOT(or the city)to installing or changing this intersection at this time. During the planning and presentation of The Reserves in 2016,traffic was expressed as a concern,especially by the anticipated amount of units and new residents to this area, and the fear these resident's vehicles entering/exiting the site every day, especially during peak AM/Noon/PM hours, would cause some serious traffic issues. Casual observations of this site (since the development opened) has shown there appears to be no serious issues or problems of traffic or congestion attributed to this high-density residential development, and the fear of serious congestion or crashes s in and around this development have not materialized. As part of this new development,the developer has submitted an updated Technical Memorandum—Trip Generation Analysis from Biko Associates (dated 08/09/2021). The memo provides five (5) separate scenarios and comparisons,based on current development and projected developments on the Phase II site and the separate,but related Phase III site (Lot 7). A summary of findings are noted as follows: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments'Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. page 312 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewerAM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 200812009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use(a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips)for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 200812009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. In this traffic review report, a Scenario 4 /Table 4 was used to identify the estimated traffic or daily trips when considering The 149 (139)units of The Reserves,the 58 units of Phase 11;and a proposed Child Care center on Lot 7 (proposed Phase III site). This report concluded the following: • 1,326 daily trips; 177 AM peak hour trips; 191 PM peak hour trips Scenario 5 /Table 5 was thereafter use to identify the estimated traffic or daily trips when considering The 149 (139) units of The Reserves, the 58 units of Phase 11; and a proposed 89-units on Lot 7 (Phase 111), which concluded the following: • 1,328 daily trips; 97 AM peak hour trips; 118 PM peak hour trips The report goes on to state: "...that under Scenario 4, which included the 200812009 childcar%ducation facility, is estimated to generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when compared to the other scenarios."; and "The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment(the Mendota Lot 7 development)will result in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcar%ducation facility,1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference,however,in the volume of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcar%ducational facility, would generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89-unit apartment,177AM peak hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5 will generate 118. In order to ensure a fair and impartial review of this Technical(Traffic)Memo from the developer,the city forwarded this report to our engineering consultants to review and provide comments (Bolton & Menk Traffic Review Memo dated 08/16/2021 — appended to this report). This memo makes the following conclusions and statement: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. page 313 • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to otherroadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to bettercontrol traffic movements and improve safety. The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation was also asked to review the proposed apartment plans with this project,and submitted a review memo with information relating only to drainage,noise,pedestrian/bicycle, and general permitting information. MnDOT apparently chose to either defer to the city [or neglected to provide] any comments related to any potential traffic impacts on to the adjacent state highway roadway systems. MnDOT Review Memo 4S21-049 (dated 08/11/2021)is appended to this report. Finally,as part of The Reserve development approvals,the city prepared and entered into an amended(No. 6)PUD Agreement in 2016. Under this agreement with Mendota Plaza Apartments,LLC(At Home Apts.), Mendota Mall Associates-Outlots, LLC (Howard Paster) and the City of Mendota Heights, the following Section No. 14 was noted: 14. Section 4. 11 Traffic Improvements, including South and North Plaza Drive/Dodd Road (TH 149) Intersection. Section 4. 11 of the 2009 Development Agreement is hereby amended to delete any obligations of the Developer to complete any improvements to TH 110 and Dodd Road included in the Traffic Study. The Developerhas provided the City with a Traffic Impact Study dated August 8,2016,prepared by Spack Consulting ("2016 Traffic Study'). The Developer acknowledges that the City has expressed concerns over the impact of the Second Addition Improvements on the intersection of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road as well as the intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. If, as a direct result of the Commercial Improvements and Apartment Improvements, the Level of Service falls to an overall below Level of Service F at either of these intersections as set forth in the 2016 Traffic Study without the installation of infrastructure improvements or the adoption of traffic mitigation procedures or improvements, as determined by a qualified traffic engineer reasonably acceptable to the Developer and the City;the Developerand Mendota Plaza Apartments will together be responsible for the City's share of the cost to bring the intersections performances to a Level of Service D or better. The city does not have any alternatives or suggested improvements to offer at this time. Staff would however, suggest the planning commission discuss with the staff and the developer at the hearing/meeting to determine if more study or analysis is required. Should this CUP (PUD Amendment)be approved,this same section/language will be added and made part of the future 8t' Amendment to the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development Agreement. Fire Department Review The Fire Department personnel was asked to review these plans and provided the following comments: 1. amount of traffic that is coming out of South Plaza Drive is making difficult for us to get out of the station and get rolling, especially to the north. If this is going to increase that traffic I think we need to look at some sort of traffic preemption system associated with the project. 2. FD is unable to determine where the building's FDC's(fire hose connections)are located in relation to any proposed hydrant locations? 3. FD is unable to tell if there is afire access road around the property? In a follow-up discussion with the Fire Chief, he was simply relaying his "concerns"with increased traffic along Dodd Road,and the continued issues they have with periodic vehicle back-ups and difficulty turning fire trucks north onto Dodd Road. In his opinion, a pre-emption device, similar to an Opticon system normally seen on overhead traffic signals, would be an option to have inside the fire station, so they could page 314 trigger the light for northbound traffic at the Hwy 62 and Dodd Road intersection, which in theory would allow vehicles to start moving along Dodd Road—just prior to the trucks leaving the station. Nevertheless,the Fire Chief admits this is not the sole responsibility of the developer to fix,but wanted to make sure the commission is aware of his concerns, and is open to other ideas, suggestions or alternatives to reduce or combat this fire truck exiting issues. There are no dedicated fire access road around the Phase II property,but access from the adjacent highway is possible, and South Plaza Drive along the front will be available. Phase III has roadway or internal driveway systems all around this site. In both cases, the Fire Chief agreed that he (along with the Fire Marshal) would like to work with developer's architects and civil design team, should these plans be approved, and recommend appropriate fire safety measures inside and outside the buildings, which may include identifying (or requiring) the correct number and placement of FDC's, stack pipes and hydrant locations—similar to what they did with The Reserve apartments in 2016. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development as requested herein,based on the attached finding-of-fact,with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development as requested herein,based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or 3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to one of the alternatives noted above, and make your recommendation on the reduced standards the Developer is seeking with this new high-density apartment development and accept or revise the attached conditions accordingly. Please note that any new or modified conditions should be reasonable and in fair proportion to the requested development being considered under this PUD Amendment review process. The following are the suggested conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project,to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. 2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council;and all approved building and site must be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F "Architectural Controls" and Subpart G— Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re- established/dedicated as necessary,per the direction of the Public Works Director. 4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement. page 315 5. A park dedication fee of$4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval. 6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city's pollinator friendly and native plantings policy;all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective screening element for building utility areas. 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(V/2)times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 9. The owner, tenant and 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. 10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process. 11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 12. 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. 13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any construction. 14. All applicable fire and building codes,as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or improvements as determined by the city's Fire Marshal and/or Building Official. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Letter of Intent/Project Narrative 2. Technical Memorandum-Traffic Analysis by Biko Assoc. (dated 08/09/2021) 3. Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Memo by Bolton&Menk(dated 08/16/2021) 4. MnDOT Review Memorandum(dated 08/11/2021) 5. 2009 Mendota Heights Plaza Master Development Plan 6. Mendota Heights Apartments—Phase III—Lot 7 Plans(2021) page 316 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL CUP for PUD Amendment For PHASE III- LOT 7 of The Mendota Plaza The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 89-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza, is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high density residential developments. 2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city,through various forms and tenures that allow residents to remain in the community; provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups. 3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21—30 units/acre as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development)land uses. 4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the established PUD. 5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area. 6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning standards to enhance the development of the property,without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes,reduced land area,and overall density of this development 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. 8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires. 9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other retail/commercial development(s)planned for in this PUD project area. 10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council's Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and commercial uses. page 317 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR DENIAL CUP for PUD Amendment For PHASE III- LOT 7 of The Mendota Plaza Lot 7,Block 1,Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment: 1. The 89-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans. 2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards,including reduced building and parking lot setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city. 3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within the PUD project area. 4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area,is not well-planned or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses, natural resources,vehicle traffic and nearby road systems. 6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area. page 318 a6home A P A R T M E N T S Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application: Narrative (UPDATED 08.09.2021) This updated narrative is being provided to highlight recent changes in the total unit counts for the two projects that At Home Apartments, L.L.C. (the "Applicant") proposed with its submission of Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. This application outlines the Applicant's plans for the development of the following parcels: 27-48401-01-070 ("Parcel 1"/Lot 7) and 27-48402- 01-010 ("Parcel 2"/Phase II of Reserve). As stated in the initial application, these parcels are currently owned by Mendota Mall Associations- Outlots, LLC. The Applicant is currently under contract to purchase Parcels 1 and 2 for the purpose of redeveloping both parcels with multi-family rental communities. The Applicant's initial plans called for developing a 61-unit "sister" building to the neighboring complex known as The Reserve at Mendota Village and a 113-unit market rate apartment building on Parcel 1/Lot 7 that will complement the nearby apartment complexes but will provide a different product type not available in the nearby vicinity. As is often the case, the Applicant continued to review and modify the interior floor plans for both proposed projects. These modifications and adjustments resulted in larger, but fewer units for both proposed buildings. The proposed unit total for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve is now 58 units and the proposed unit total for Parcel 1/Lot 7 is 89 units. This updated narrative is also being provided to correct a technical oversight in the traffic memorandum that was submitted with the Applicant's application. The original memo omitted a section that highlighted the comparison between the Applicant's proposed development for Parcel 1/Lot 7 and what is the current approved use for that parcel. This oversight resulted in skewed data for the traffic impact the proposed projects will have. An updated memorandum which corrects that oversight and takes into consideration the revised unit totals has been provided for review and reference. Parcel 2/Phase II of Reserve at Mendota Village - Project Description In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the current PUD and corresponding development agreement that allowed for the development of 139 market rate rental housing units and a commercial area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. The 139 market rate apartment building, now known as The Reserve at Mendota Village, opened in the summer of 2018 and reached occupancy stabilization within the first 6 months. It has continued to maintain full occupancy to this day. Due to many factors impacting the retail and restaurant real estate markets, followed by the unprecedented obstacles of COVID-19, the goal to develop Parcel 1 consistent with the 2016 approved plans became increasingly challenging. However, the strong and continuous demand for housing opportunities at the Reserve at Mendota Village demonstrated there was a stronger need to expand and develop a second phase for that particular community. page 319 The proposed development for Parcel 2 is a 58-unit apartment building consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727 SQFT, 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822 SQFT, and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428 SQFT. The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit. The units will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with the Reserve at Mendota Village. In addition, the amenity package offered in this second phase will expand and complement the existing amenities available at the Reserve. These amenity spaces will be located on the top —partial fourth floor of the three story apartment building and will include indoor pickleball courts, wine bar, outdoor fire pit, and indoor bocce ball court. The building will also have its own fitness area and common lounge spaces similar to the Reserve. By developing this second phase and allowing the residents of both buildings to enjoy the luxury amenity spaces found within the two buildings, the Applicant will create a resort style housing complex completing the vision of making the Reserve at Mendota Village a destination housing community. Parcel 1/Lot 7 - Project Description The Applicant also intends to develop Parcel 2 by building a four-story apartment building with one and a half levels of underground parking with 110 stalls and 47 surface parking stalls resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. Given the unit matrix of this proposed project and the perceived demographic, we believe this parking ratio is more than sufficient to serve the population. This project, which would open in 2023 is designed to complement the Reserve at Mendota Village but provide an alternative housing option that is not currently available within the city limits. This proposed project is an upscale, modern design apartment building that will provide 89 market rate apartment homes made up of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674 SQFT, 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772 SQFT, 18 large one-bedroom units with an average size of 864 SQFT, 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906 SQFT and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119 SQFT. This project is designed with the younger professional in mind. Mendota Heights is a vibrant community that is centrally located making it very attractive to younger professionals, especially to those that grew up in the area. However, one of the drawbacks is that most of the current housing stock is not attractive to or affordable for this age group. These units will be market rate units, but at a more affordable rental rate than that of the Reserve at Mendota Village. The amenity spaces located at this property will include an on-site leasing office, mail and package delivery room, state of the art fitness and yoga studio, and a separate clubhouse building with exterior connections creating a unique outdoor living space. This proposed project will have an excellent walkability score due to its proximity to local restaurants, shops, and other retail. This factor combined with easy access to public parks and walking trail systems, and several major highway connections, makes this project a desirable housing option for younger professionals or young adults starting out on their own while helping the City stay competitive with the surrounding communities. Community Impact Though the Applicant is applying for this conditional use to amend the guided uses for the subject parcels, the proposed use (multifamily housing) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare to the community, the proposed uses will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards as summarized in the attached traffic memo, the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding page 320 property value and the proposed use is in harmony with general purpose and intent of the City Code and its comprehensive plan. Overall, these two projects provide a benefit to the community because they allow for the redevelopment of two sites in a manner that is consistent with the City's housing and density goals while balancing the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic Understanding that impact on traffic is a genuine and obvious concern when new projects are being proposed, the Applicant contracted Biko Associates to prepare a technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for the two proposed development projects. This analysis not only provided the trip generation estimates of the proposed apartment projects but also compared these data against the trip generation estimates for the current allowed uses, a restaurant and retail building on Parcel 2/Phase 11 of Reserve and a 10,130 SQFT day care/child education center on Parcel 1/Lot 7. The traffic memorandum, which has been submitted with the Applicant's application, documents the analysis for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve and shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. Similarly, the analysis for Parcel 1/Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to note that the peak hour trips, which are of greater concern, are significantly lower. The combined analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 PUD amendment plus the original 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by Applicant. Development Schedule Assuming that the approval process follows the published schedule, the Applicant would like to commence construction on the Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve in the fall of 2021. Due to the smaller scale of the proposed building for this phase the anticipated construction timeline is approximately nine (9) months. The Applicant would then plan on breaking ground on Parcel 1/Lot 7 in the spring of 2022 with the goal of a spring 2023 delivery. Parcel 1/Lot 7 — Architectural Design The Parcel 1/Lot 7 development consists of 89 units and 157 parking stalls. The site area is 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 44 units/acre. The building is designed with a full level of underground parking and a partial level of above grade parking. The site has significant grade changes up to ten feet with the north and east being lower than the southwest corner. The grade change allows the lower level of parking to have direct access from the north, and the upper level has direct access from the west. The front entry is located on the eastern end of the building. We believe this is the best residential entry point as it connects with the residential use to the east and provides the best pedestrian access to the commercial area, the trails, and the other residential development of the Reserve. Due to the grade change, the entry is at the lower level of parking. This entry will have a grand two-story space that connects residents and visitors to the main / page 321 first level. The main level has direct access to a south facing courtyard. The courtyard will contain a clubhouse with residential amenity spaces, patio and seating areas, grilling stations, and an area for fire pits and lounging. A decorative trellis at the south end of the courtyard will provide shade and some privacy to the residents, and visual interest to the street. The community courtyard will have additional common area amenities surrounding the courtyard and some individual residential units with patios and balconies overlooking the space. Gardens will surround this courtyard area for resident enjoyment. The southwest corner of the building being at higher grade allows for three `walk-up' style units. Parking is conveniently located under the building for nearly every unit, with additional parking for every second bedroom, and visitors. The building will be constructed of one and a half levels of concrete, and 3 and a half level of wood frame construction. The first level with parking will be half concrete and half wood-frame. This site will be predominantly one-bedroom apartments with a range of generous sizes. The units will have a high level of finishes providing an upscale feel. The design is intended to attract a wide variety of people but we believe it will be mostly young professionals, younger renters from the community not quite ready to purchase homes, and community residents looking for housing and price options that don't exist in the area. The design is a mix of brick and siding. The siding picking up some wood tones to give it a residential feel, and to blend with some of the details and design of the Reserve, while still providing a distinct look and feel for this parcel. The design also features balconies for the vast majority of the units and large window openings to provide strong connections to the outdoors. Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve —Architectural Design The Parcel 2/Phase 11 of the Reserve consists of 58 units and 118 parking stalls. The site area is approximately 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 28 units/acre. The building is designed to be similar to the Reserve with the same brick, with stone, and with the same detailing as the first phase. The layout of the building also mirrors the first phase of the development picking up on the forty-five-degree angle and matching the stone at the ends of the building to provide a harmonious entry. This phase will be predominately three stories. There will be a partial fourth floor providing amenities that are not seen in the first phase of the Reserve and are very unique to the market. This fourth floor is envisioned to be a roof-top clubhouse with indoor bocce-ball, indoor pickle ball, and community gathering spaces along with a roof-top deck. The amenities in this building are designed to complement the first building with residents able to use either facility creating not just the look of a community with the similar buildings, but also interaction between residents that will help create community. The building design will be cohesive with the existing building with the brick and stone, wood tone siding, some large overhangs and an entry that will be similar to phase one. The window types, colors and patterns will also be the same as the phase one project providing for consistency. Some of the elements have been scaled down as this is only a three story building whereas the first Reserve building is four to five stories. The lower level will be concrete construction and contains seventy-one underground parking stalls. The grade change allows this to be easily accessed from the southern end of the site. The main level is accessed from the south side as well, with easy access to visitor parking. Due to the grade change, there is an upper and lower level parking area that works with the grade and will help the building fit into the site providing some unique character as well. The central area contains an existing underground storm water treatment system and will be developed with some green space and gardens at this central area. The upper levels are wood frame apartments with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Approximately half of these units also contain dens or secondary home office areas. This will have upscale amenities, page 322 finishes and features comparable to the Reserve. The sizing of the units is meant to compliment the phase one building and by doing so has added some larger units from 1400-1650 SQFT. Being a second phase, we believe the residential profile will be similar to the Reserve, but we have also identified a need for larger units to meet the needs of existing community residents looking for apartment by choice style living. Parcel 2/Phase 2 of the Reserve — Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 58-unit apartment adjacent to The Reserve at Mendota Village. Stormwater Design When The Reserve was constructed on the adjacent lot, the project included a two-cell underground stormwater chamber system to treat stormwater both from the Reserve apartment development and from the two retail buildings that were proposed on Parcel 2. The primary function of the first cell, southeast of South Plaza Way, is to infiltrate stormwater. The primary purpose of the second cell is to control the rate of discharge of stormwater into the existing wetland southwest of the site. The system was designed to treat 137,410 SF of total impervious surface spanning both lots and a portion of South Plaza Way that passes between them. This included 62,747 SF of impervious surface on Parcel 2. This proposed project to construct an apartment building on Parcel 2 reduces the proposed surface on Parcel 2 from 62,747 SF to 60,610 SF and the total from 13 7,4 10 SF to 135,273 SF. The proposed project will construct a stormwater collection system that will capture and convey runoff from the eastern developed portion of the site to the infiltration chamber southeast of South Plaza Way. Since the proposed development has less impervious coverage than the original design, it can be concluded that the existing system will support the proposed development. Overflow from the infiltration chamber will continue to be routed through the second cell of the system before ultimate discharge to the existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. Runoff from the western portion of the site will continue to pass through the existing pond at the west end of the property and be discharged into the same existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. This application includes a Stormwater Management Report for Parcel 1 that describes how the project meets all stormwater requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, including infiltration, rate control, water quality, and temporary best management practices to be implemented during construction. Sanitary Sewer Similar to the shared stormwater infrastructure, The Reserve at Mendota Village also included construction of a sanitary sewer lift station that is intended to be shared between Parcel 2 and the existing apartment building. This system is in place and actively serving the adjacent apartments with a stub that was extended to serve future development on Parcel 2. The system was originally designed to convey sanitary flows from two retail buildings on Parcel 2. The applicant has reviewed calculations to verify that the existing lift station has adequate capacity to serve the proposed change in land use from retail to residential. According to information received from Electric Pump, Inc., the contractor who constructed the lift station, the system has a capacity of 145 gal/min. A typical flow rate for residential populations of less than 5,000 is 60 to 70 gallons per day. page 323 Therefore, the existing lift station has a capacity to serve 2,980 to 3,480 people. When applying a conservative peaking factor of 4.0, which is appropriate for systems with pipe sizes less than 10-inches diameter or for 250 people, the lift station can still serve a population of up to 745 to 870 people. Water Main The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion developments constructed a ductile iron pipe network within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system. The pipe network serving this development is constructed within public utility easements and provides both water supply and fire protection. There is a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 2 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and design to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The Applicant is uncertain if an existing agreement maintenance agreement has been executed with the City of Mendota Heights documenting their responsibility of the maintenance of the underground stormwater chamber system or sanitary sewer lift station. If these agreements are not already in place, the Applicant will work with the City to execute an agreement to maintain these systems. Parcel 1/Lot 7— Civil Design Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 89-unit apartment on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Mendota Plaza Expansion development. Stormwater When the Mendota Plaza Expansion development was originally constructed, the developer constructed a stormwater pond in the north central portion of the site, along the south side of the existing wetland that passes through the site. The developer also constructed a stormwater collection system to convey water to the stormwater pond. The stormwater infrastructure was originally permitted in 2009, based on the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RLK Inc. dated December 22, 2008. The infrastructure was designed to meet the stormwater regulations that were in place at the time. However, stormwater regulations have changed since the original approvals. The City of Mendota Heights now requires Atlas 14, MSE-3 24-hr rainfall distributions to be used for stormwater design. The City also has implemented requirements for stormwater infiltration and phosphorus removal. page 324 This application includes a stormwater management plan with calculations demonstrating the compliance of the site with the new regulations. The existing infrastructure supports the updated rate control requirements. However, the original system did not provide any infiltration, and did not fully meet the updated phosphorus removal requirements. This project proposes construction of an underground stormwater chamber beneath the proposed eastern parking lot. This proposed chamber will be designed to meet the infiltration requirements. By doing so, the volume reduction achieved by the proposed underground chamber will also exceed the phosphorus removal requirements. Sanitary Sewer The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion development constructed PVC sanitary sewer main collection system to serve the development. This collection system is routed to the City of Mendota Heights public sanitary sewer system. The lateral main serving this development is an 8" PVC main with a 6" PVC stub that is deep enough to provides gravity service to the proposed development. Water Main Similar to Parcel 2, the ductile iron pipe network constructed within the development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system also provides a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 1 to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design. Landscape The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed landscape design meets the City's pollinator and native planting requirements. Maintenance The proposed project on Parcel 1 will connect to existing public storm water, sanitary, and water main infrastructure. The Applicant will maintain the private stormwater infiltration chamber proposed under the east parking lot, and the segments of private service connections that are within the proposed Parcel 1 boundary but not included within the public drainage and utility easements. BIKO ASSOCIATES page325 I N C 0 R P 0 R A I F D Technical Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2021 TO: Leanna Stefaniak, President Real Estate& Development, At Home Apartments FROM: William Smith,AICP Daniel Lubben RE: Trip Generation Analysis Introduction Biko Associates prepared this technical memorandum to document a trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments in Mendota Heights, Minnesota.The first is a 58-unit apartment building designed to be the second phase of the Reserve at Mendota Village and referred to herein as Mendota 2. The second is an 89-unit apartment building to be built on Lot 7 within the Mendota Plaza PUD and referred to herein as the Mendota Lot 7 development. Summary of Findings: 1. The analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but never implemented. (See comparison between Scenarios 1 and 3 in Table 6 on page 12.) 2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009 but never implemented. While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are significantly lower. (See comparison between Scenarios 4 and 5 in Table 6 on page 12.) 3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments. (See Table 7 on page 14.) As the volume of generated trips is a major factor in the operational performance of traffic and the Levels of Service (LOS) traffic will exhibit at key intersections, it is reasonable to assume, where other factors remain constant, that lower traffic volumes will result in better traffic operations and higher LOS at intersections. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND Di SIGN LAND ITSE, Atilt FRANSPORTATION POLICY RESE tR( H AND ANALYSIS GRAIN BELT BRENN ERY BOTTLnG HOUSE 79 13th AVENUE, N.E. STUDIO 107 ..1iINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55413-I073 P110NE-612-623-4000 FAX:612-623-0200 w►V w. h 1 k o a s,.o c l a l e s . c o in page 326 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 2 Background Mendota 2 Background: Five years ago in 2016, Paster Properties proposed an expansion of Mendota 2, a parcel located in the northeast corner of Mendota Plaza. The proposed Mendota 2 expansion was to include three uses: 1) an apartment building with149 dwelling units, 2) retail space at 4,826 square feet, and 3) a 6,000 square foot restaurant. Spack Consulting was contracted by Paster Properties to prepare a traffic study to determine how traffic generated by the proposed expansion project would impact traffic operations at surrounding intersections and, in particular, how a proposed right-in/right-out driveway would affect operations on TH 62 and impact safety. Figures 1 and 2, which are taken from the Spack Consulting traffic study, are provided to show the location of the Mendota 2 expansion proposed in 2016 and the site plan for the expansion project. Of the three uses proposed in 2016, only the apartment building (The Reserve at Mendota Village)was actually constructed with 139 units instead of 149 units. With the remaining site lying vacant, At Home Apartments is now under contract to purchase the property and is proposing to develop a 58-unit,three story mid-rise apartment building with both underground and surface level parking. The 58-unit apartment is referred to as Mendota 2, and construction is proposed to begin in fall of 2021. lo' Study Area ^ �-....a �E i kk i Nov b � . r a wIT, 4. Proposed Site 4 R's ry Figure 1: Development Site Regional Location Source: Traffic Impact Study: Mendota Plaza Expansion, Spack Consulting, August 8, 2016. page 327 Id tE ti cu u 41 Ca u Ca cu ci cu �3 06' :t to CF) uO -E ub 0 j5 u M 4J 0) CL c co Ln CU E o co 0 C) LU (a cz fC ro (a 0 cu ui J cu 4� 4� L/) 1 0 4 C) 2 u . cz CV (a � c c O a (a (D m cz cu u (D CZ 41 cz O cz cz 41 0 cz _j = U as(D CY) tA LL Uo Ln page 328 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 4 Mendota Lot 7 Development Background: In a PUD application from 2008/2009, a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7,which is located at the southern end of Mendota Plaza and on the north side of South Plaza Drive. The childcare/education facility was never built, and At Home Apartments is proposing to develop an 89-unit,five/six story mid-rise apartment in this location. It is hoped that construction on the 89-unit apartment would begin in the spring/summer of 2022 with a 2023 delivery date. Schematic elevations for the childcare/education facility, prepared by KKE Architects in January 2009, are shown below on Figure 3. _ T, R PROW c SOLIT'H ELEVATI❑ �r dd0"r JO' PROP_4_S.EDDAYCARECENTER _— — Md 1lOL9Y.E9 Figure 3: Schematic Elevations for Childcare/Education Facility Proposed in 2008/2009 The locations of both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota-Lot 7 developments are shown on Figure 4 on the following page. page 329 ., • • • .• • • . • s Q �• �h *[ •' tro • �." A � L • • • • • • G1 TLL ig r fC 41 41 ro r �. t � ' „ r a x 01 * 1 • . Q ++ H v -u,F .. a n c o � O aJ m w LL J 3 GJ bb vi M � Q a page 330 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 6 Trip Generation Analysis This section of the technical memorandum addresses trip generation and presents results of trip generation analyses in tables that support the Summary of Findings on page 1 and the Comparisons and Conclusions on page 12. Trip generation analyses are conducted as an element of Traffic Impact Studies to estimate the volume of trips that will be attracted to and depart from specific uses located on the Mendota Plaza site. Five development scenarios will be discussed in this section of the memorandum. Scenario 1: Trip Generation Estimate for the 2016 Mendota 2 Expansion Program A trip generation analysis for uses included in the 2016 expansion program was prepared by Spack Consulting. As shown in Table 1, on page 8, the expansion program was estimated to generate a low to moderate volume of trips over the course of an average week day. At the same time, the respective volumes of AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips were estimated to be almost "unremarkable." As presented in Table 1, Spack Consulting identified some of the trips as pass-by trips. These trips are "intermediate stops on the way" between a trip origin and an intended trip destination. One way to think about pass-by trips is that some of them can be "spur of the moment" trips where, for example, a driver is passing by a McDonalds restaurant, sees the Golden Arches, suddenly craves a Big Mac, then turns into the McDonalds' parking lot, purchases a Big Mac, and exits the parking lot to continue the original trip. Pass-by trips do not comprise new trips on roadway links adjacent to trip attractions but they do impact the driveways that serve them. Non-pass-by trips, by comparison, are new trips---trips that would not be on adjacent roadway links were it not for the attraction. In Table 1, for example, it is shown that the 2016 expansion program was estimated to generate 536 daily inbound trips and 536 daily outbound trips, and 35 percent of these (381 trips) are pass- by trips that would impact traffic operations at South Plaza Drive, North Plaza Access, and the right-in/right-out driveway on TH 62. These trips, however, would not have an impact on the intersection of TH 62/TH 149 because they are not new trips being added to the system. In essence, they are already included in the volume of trips that are already on the road. As Table 1 correctly indicates, the apartment building (a residential use) does not generate pass-by trips. As shown in Table 1, if the Mendota 2 Expansion Program had been implemented as originally planned, there would have been: E 1,072 daily trips, of which 381 would have been pass-by trips 0 73 AM peak hour trips, of which 17 would have been pass-by trips E 97 PM peak hour trips, of which 32 would have been pass-by trips page 331 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 7 Scenario 2: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 The impact of not building the proposed retail shops and restaurant in 2016 is one where trips estimated to be generated by those uses never materialized. Thus, they should be subtracted from the totals shown in Table 1. See Table 2 on page 8, which describes trip generation for what was actually built, i.e., the existing condition. As shown in Table 2, the volume of trips actually generated today is: 0 530 daily trips 0 46 AM peak hour trips E 52 PM peak hour trips Comparing Tables 1 and 2, the following reductions in trips have been realized by not building the originally proposed retail and restaurant uses. * Pass-by trips never materialized * 51 percent of daily trips (542 daily trips) never materialized ul 37 percent of AM peak hour trips (27 AM peak hour trips) never materialized E 46 percent of PM peak hour trips (45 PM peak hour trips) never materialized o \ q o 0 0 0 .. . \ .. .. \ .Y $ $ / _ 2 / » q � g \ 2 / o o � \ u to to } ƒ ƒ , q \ $ § / . , q o o q / -0 \ \ 7 m \ D \ § 7 0 0 e § / / / / _ \ / / z m Ln ® - _ . z � 00 \ k • \ _ ( 2 . (a e e u f ■ ' / 0 o m E o o E , I w m Ln \ 3 (a = tom z 0) q -Fa\ f z o o t f . / 0 / C $ $ q $ % J o 0 0 o e ' � 2 2 ( \ 7 t 7 \ q q q <CU to 7 \ o o en7 q w = e q \ o . Lu a t 0 e / f i q $ \ / � f o o $ / , \ 0 E E LU E 2 2 _m Ln g w tD § / G _m q Ln G \ q e Ln - \ k 0 C / k a) 2 u / E \ ( \ N \ 7 L t q o 2 / o / , / / { , { - a fu = - 7 = ! ° : a ! ° � _ k ' \ _ ± { = E u k ' \ _ ± m 0 ± a ° a ? W \ E e > / ) R ' ? k \ E / : j \ t \ \ t g k / k t \ \ t g f f ■ ° � 2 7 m = 0 ■ ° � � 2 7 3 0 { o § » ( ° 0 9 ( ° 2 ■ N 2 u ■ � 2 u » \ % E $ \ � e � E & - < � ƒ E E @ 3 : < � ƒ \ @ 2 M 2 / / \ Ln G a Ln G § f 2 — — / \ . � tA ? ° E u z u d ° E u z / } m to m — - 0 � 0 0 = — - 0 � 0 0 = k J a � I e 0 | � I e 0 , , page 333 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 9 Scenario 3: Trip Generation Estimate for what was actually built in 2016 and the Proposed Mendota 2 At Home Apartments proposes to build a 58-unit apartment (Mendota 2) on the parcel where the retail and restaurant uses were proposed in 2016. Presented in Table 3, below, are results from a trip generation analysis conducted to estimate the total number of trips that would be generated by the 149-unit apartment (The Reserve at Mendota Village), which was constructed in 2016, and the currently proposed Mendota 2 apartment. Table 3 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve at Mendota Village and Mendota 2, Combined Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Total 207 dus 422 1 422 1 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 Source: ++ Local date collected by Spack Consulting. +++ Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 3 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Comparing Table 1 to Table 3, it is shown that by implementing the proposed Mendota 2 residential development, fewer trips will be generated than those estimated for the original 2016 expansion program. Implementing the proposed Mendota 2 project, instead of the 4,826 square foot retail and 6,000 square foot restaurant uses, will yield the following: * All pass-by trips are gone * 21 percent of daily trips (228 daily tips) are gone * 10 percent of AM peak hour trips (7 AM peak hour trips) are gone * 20 percent of PM peak hour trips (19 PM peak hour trips) are gone Scenario 4: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve at Mendota Village, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Education Facility As mentioned, a 10,130 square foot daycare/educational facility was proposed to be constructed on Mendota Plaza's Lot 7. It was never constructed, and At Home Apartments is proposing an 89- unit apartment for this location. Table 4 shows the volume of trips that would have been generated if the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility were constructed on Lot 7, along page 334 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 10 with The Reserve (which is already constructed), and assuming Mendota 2 is approved for implementation. Table 4 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and a 10,130 SF Childcare/Educational Facility Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility on Mendota- Lot 7 ITE Code 565+++ Total 207 dus 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 and childcare facility Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 197, not 207, and the estimated trip totals in Table 4 for The Reserve are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 As shown in Table 4, this development scenario is estimated to result in: E 1,326 daily trips E 177 AM peak hour trips 0 191 PM peak hour trips Scenario 5: Trip Generation Estimate for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development This analysis considers trip generation for the combination of three At Home Apartments residential developments; where the Mendota Lot 7 development is implemented instead of the 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility. As shown in Table 5, below, the volume of trips that will be generated by the Mendota-Lot 7 development is low. Likewise, the addition of this proposed development will result in a total volume of trips that is low over the course of an entire day and, more importantly, is also low to low/moderate during the peak hours. page 335 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 11 Table 5 Estimated Trip Generation for The Reserve, Mendota 2, and the Mendota Lot 7 Development Use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus** 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village)++ Mendota 2 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 ITE Code 221+++ Mendota Lot 7 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 ITE Code 221+++ Total 296 dus 664 1 664 1 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: ++ Local data collected by Spack Consulting. +++Trip Generation: 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. As a result, the total number of dwelling units would be 286, not 296, and the estimated trips generated by the Reserve in Table 5 are slightly higher than they actually are. Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. Table 5 shows that by implementing the Mendota Lot 7 development, instead of the childcare/education facility, along with The Reserve and Mendota 2, the volume of trips is estimated to be: E 1,328 daily trips E 97 AM peak hour trips 0 118 PM peak hour trips Comparisons and Conclusions Comparisons: Table 6 presents side-by-side comparisons of estimated trip generation for each of five development scenarios. As shown, Scenario 4, which includes the 2008/2009 childcare/education facility,is estimated to generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when compared to the other scenarios. page 336 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 12 Table 6 Comparison of Estimated Trip Generation Scenario Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total 1)The • 149-du 536 536 1072 20 53 73 62 35 97 original2016 Apartment** Expansion • 4,826 SF Retail Program • 6,000 SF Restaurant 2) 2016 • 149-du 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 What was Apartment** actually built 3) Post 2016 • 149-du 422 422 844 11 55 66 50 28 78 What was Apartment ** actually built • 58 du combined Apartment with Mendota 2 4) What was • 149 du 663 663 1326 70 107 177 110 81 191 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58 du Mendota 2, Apartment plus a • 10,130 SF Childcare/ Childcare/ Education Education Facility Facility 5) What was • 149-du 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 actually built, Apartment** plus • 58-du Mendota 2, Apartment plus • 89-du Mendota Lot Apartment 7 Development ** Spack Consulting conducted its traffic study assuming there would be 149 dwelling units in the apartment building; only 139 dwelling units were actually constructed. Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021. page 337 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 13 Conclusions: Four important conclusions are outlined below. 1. Compare Scenario 1 and Scenario 3. The addition of At Home Apartments' proposed, 58- unit apartment(the Mendota 2 development) will result in lower trip generation than would have occurred if the 2016 expansion program had been implemented. 2. Compare Scenario 4 and Scenario 5. The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment (the Mendota Lot 7 development) will result in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcare/education facility; 1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference, however, in the volume of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcare/educational facility, would generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89- unit apartment; 177 AM peak hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5 will generate 118. 3. Compare Trip Generation for what was Proposed in 2016 and 2008/2009 against what is Proposed Today. As Table 7 shows, the planned uses for the subject parcels from the original 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD would have yield 1,554 daily trips. This is to be compared to the volume of daily trips (1,328) that will be generated by the Reserve and currently proposed uses (58 units on Mendota 2 and 89 units on Mendota 7). Table 7 also shows that the volume of peak hour trips, which is critically more important than the volume of daily trips, will be lower with the newly proposed uses, compared to the originally proposed uses from the 2016 PUD Amendment and the 2008/2009 PUD. As shown, the differences are stark: • Compare 184 AM peak hour trips to 97, a difference of 87 vehicles per hour • Compare 210 PM peak hour trips to 118, a difference of 92 vehicles per hour. Peak hour traffic volumes are more critical than those that occur over the course of a 24-hour day, because the peak hours are time periods where traffic volumes are at their highest within a short period of time. page 338 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 14 Table 7 Trip Generation for 2016 PUD Amendment and 2008/2009 PUD Compared to Trip Generation for Currently Proposed Uses [use Variable Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out Total In I Out I Total In Out Total Trip Generation for Fully Implemented 2016 PUD Amendment and 00: 00• PUD Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Specialty Retail 4,826 SF 60 60 120 9 10 19 3 4 7 Restaurant 6,000 SF 211 211 422 5 3 8 25 13 38 Childcare/Education 10,130 SF 241 241 482 59 52 111 60 53 113 Facility Total 1 777 777 1554 79 105 184 122 88 210 ProposedTrip Generation for Currently Mid-Rise Apartment 149 dus 265 265 530 6 40 46 34 18 52 (The Reserve at Mendota Village) Mid-Rise Apartment 58 dus 157 157 314 5 15 20 16 10 26 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Mid-Rise Apartment 89 dus 242 242 484 8 23 31 14 16 40 in General Urban/Suburban Settings Total 664 664 1328 19 78 97 64 44 118 Source: Biko Associates, Inc., August 6, 2021 4. Compare Scenario 2 and Scenario 5. The differences between these two scenarios describe the increases that can be expected between the existing condition and a future condition where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both constructed. This comparison shows that by implementing the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments, as currently proposed, the following increases over the existing condition can be expected. • Daily + 798 trips • AM Peak + 51 trips • PM Peak + 66 trips These increases between the current condition and a future condition (where the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are both implemented)are not significant and are typically thought to be too low to have a profound effect on traffic operations. Their relative insignificance becomes obvious when compared to the increases in trips that would have occurred if the original 2016 PUD Amendment (the 149- page 339 Ms. Leanna Stefaniak August 9, 2021 Page 15 unit Reserve, the 4,826 square foot retail space, and the 6,000 square foot restaurant) and the 2008/2009 PUD had been implemented as planned. ■ Daily + 1,024 trips ■ AM Peak + 138 trips ■ PM Peak + 158 trips By comparison,these increases over the existing condition are greater and are more likely to have an impact on peak hour traffic operations than the increases that are estimated under Scenario 5, where both the Mendota 2 and the Mendota Lot 7 developments are implemented. page 340 B O LTA N 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337-1649 i & M ENK Ph: 1952) 890-0509 Real People. Real Solutions. Fax: (9521 890-6065 Balton-Menk.com MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2021 To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director, City of Mendota Heights From: Bryan Nemeth, P.E. Subject: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review City of Mendota Heights Project No.: ORI.125201 This memorandum provides a review of the proposed development and the associated traffic analysis dated August 9, 2021 (Trip Generation Analysis). The August 9,2021 study references a previous traffic impact study completed for the project area that included the some of the area under consideration for development. As this is the basis for the traffic analysis, the study results were reviewed. 2016 Analysis Study Review The 2016 study proposed maintaining two full access points on the west to TH 149/Dodd Road and proposed adding one right-in/right-out or just a right-in access on the north to TH 62 (previously TH 110). Ultimately,the access to TH 62 was constructed with right-in access only. The 2016 study indicates that there will be resulting poor levels of service for all of the intersections by 2040 with the development but also indicates that improvements are beyond the scope of the study. Review of the queues resulting from the 2016 study indicates that the AM northbound queues at TH 62/TH 149 increase by 100 to 150 feet with the development in 2040 compared to the existing scenario in 2016. The AM queue can be accommodated with the existing access spacing on TH 149 and does not appear to be a concern. The PM queue in 2016 already extended past the North Plaza Access and would be longer by around 75 feet in 2018 and 1,200 feet in 2040 with the right-in access. Additionally, any queuing on the Plaza accesses to TH 149/Dodd Road are shown to be acceptable but would operate at LOS F in the 2040 scenarios. Overall, the study indicated that an access to TH 62 would provide some, if minimal, improvement to operations. The biggest improvement is likely a safety improvement to TH 149/Dodd Road, south of TH 62,by not having as much traffic make the southbound left turn movement into the accesses off TH 149/Dodd Road. Trip Generation The traffic study Technical Memorandum documented the trip generation analysis for two projects being proposed by At Home Apartments. This includes: • Mendota 2: 58-unit apartment • Lot 7: 89-unit apartment It is proposed that the increase in trips from the new development for Mendota 2 would be less than what was previously proposed in 2016, so no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, Lot 7 was previously proposed as a daycare/childhood center in a 2008/2009 PUD application but it is unknown whether a traffic analysis was completed with it. Review of historical aerial images indicates that Lots 6 H:\MHGT\OR1125201\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\2021-08-16_Plaza Expansion Development Traffic Review.docx Bolton&Mark is an equal opportunity employer. page 341 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 2 and 7 of the area were not developed by the time of the 2016 study. Consequently, the 2016 traffic impact study does not appear to take the Lot 6 or Lot 7 development into account. The ITE Trip Generation analysis uses the correct rates resulting in the following for Mendota Plaza. This also displays the previous trip projections for the two sites. Site Mendota Plaza Trip Projections 2009/2016 Trip Projections(new trips) Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak Mendota 2 314 20 26 542 27 45 Lot 7 484 31 40 482 111 113 Total 798 51 66 1,024 138 158 This results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily for"Mendota 2"than the previous development proposed in those areas for the 2016 study. This also results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and essentially the same for daily trips for Lot 7 than the previous development proposed in the area from the 2008/2009 PUD Application. This indicates that the new development would likely result in fewer trips than previously proposed, especially during the critical AM and PM peak hours. By itself, this does not indicate that the operations are acceptable or that the proposed development does not need to provide transportation network improvements. This new additional traffic will be added to the traffic that is there today. The most noticeable change is likely to be on South Plaza Drive, since much of the Lot 7 traffic would likely use South Plaza Drive to access TH 149/Dodd Road,due to proximity and due to queues on TH 149. Traffic Operations The 2016 study indicated substantial operational concerns with or without any new development in the area.This is a result of existing traffic volumes on the roadway, increased background traffic growth due to new development locally and region-wide, and the new proposed development. The poor operations are likely a concern for MnDOT(jurisdiction over TH 149 and TH 110) and the city of Mendota Heights, especially when it impacts the safety of the traveling public. As indicated previously, the new development by itself does not appear to be the biggest driver for the operational concerns, as the 2018 operations appear to be minimally different than the 2016 operations prior to the expanded development. But the new development will add trips to the network,resulting in slightly longer queue lengths. Additional review of options for improved operations and safety, such as different access configurations at both North Plaza and South Plaza Drive may need to be considered. Traffic Safety Review A review of the recent crashes in the area was completed to understand how the most recent development since 2016 impacted traffic safety and if improvements are needed in the area, especially as traffic increases due to additional development. Location 2014-2016 Crashes 2018-2020 Crashes Notes Angle Rear-end Other Angle Rear-end Other Dodd/South Plaza - 1* - 1* - - Dodd/North Plaza 2* 1* - 1** 2* 1 TH 62/Ri ht-in - - - I - - - *Crash involved a northbound queue backup through the intersection **Crash involved a motorized scooter using the pedestrian crossing ***No crashes appear to involve the right turn off of TH 62 S ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 342 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 3 Overall,it appears that the development increase did not result in an increase in crashes or a reduction in safety. The crash data does indicate that there is a consistent crash type occurring on TH 149, especially when there is a long queue evident that extends south from TH 62. The number of crashes are low though, and would not appear to be a substantial concern. With the increased traffic at South Plaza Drive, constructing a southbound left turn lane at South Plaza Drive would be anticipated to provide a safety improvement by allowing southbound traffic to bypass southbound left turning vehicles, especially since the access appears to be blocked by vehicles on a frequent basis. The proposed development on Lot 7 would likely increase the number of southbound left turning vehicles in the PM peak hour, when the queues appear to be the most prevalent. Mendota 2 development does have some safety concerns that should be rectified prior to development. The current north access occurs right after the right turn off of TH 62 and is directly after the entrance sign structure. These are significant safety concerns for sight lines. The north access should be moved south to provide more distance from TH 62 and the sign structure. Additionally,the signing and striping of the internal roadway that connects to the right-in off of TH 62 should be revised to make it easier for motorists to understand the traffic movements allowed in the area as the Mendota 2 site is developed. Pedestrian Considerations The network for pedestrians appears to provide access to all of the currently developed parcels except for Lot 6.With the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 the pedestrian network should be expanded to serve those parcels. Of special consideration, the transit stop on South Plaza Drive is not connected to the overall pedestrian network,nor is the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive. A sidewalk or trail should be extended from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. Additionally, the sidewalk/trail should extend from the access points for the building on Lot 7 to this sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive. This would provide access to the overall transportation network and the transit stop from Lot 7. Pedestrian network access to and from Mendota 2 can expand on what has already been completed in the area during Phase 1. Mendota 2 should connect to this network of sidewalk and trail to the east. In conjunction with the above improvements, the current pedestrian activated RRFB located on the southeast corner of TH 149/S Plaza Dr should be considered for relocation to the north side of the intersection since that is where the pedestrian crossing is located, to get it in compliance with the MnMUTCD. Conclusions The following improvements are recommended to be made to the surrounding transportation network to improve pedestrian connections and improve potential safety concerns with the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 into apartments: • Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail. • Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east. • Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows and as approved by MnDOT. • Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2. Ba{ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. page 343 Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Date: August 16,2021 Page: 4 Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic movements and improve safety. O ton&Menk is an equal opportunity employer. DEPARTMENT OF Metropq%"i�ptrict MI TRANSPORTATION 1500 County Road West Roseville, MN 55113 August 11, 2021 Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 SUBJECT: At Home Apartments - MH MnDOT Review#S21-049 SE quadrant of MN 149 and MN 62 Control Section: 1917 Mendota Heights, Dakota County Dear Tim Benetti, Thank you for submitting the plans for At Home Apartments—MH. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, received 7/19/21, and has the following comments: Drainage A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. 2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. 3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed, and additional information may be requested. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234- 7539 or jason.swenson(cstate.mn.us with any questions. 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 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, An equal opportunity employer page 345 Page 2 of 3 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 deemed 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, Metro District Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Riesg state.mn.us. Pedestrian and Bicycle Consider including indoor bicycle parking and making sidewalk connections to South Plaza Way ADA accessible so all road users can easily access the Parcel 2 building. Please contact Jesse Thomsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or jesse.thornsen(a�state.mn.us with any questions. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT's Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.crai gg state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT's goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s)to MnDOT's web transfer client site at: https:Hmft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at metrodevrevi ews.dotg state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Please do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. page 346 Page 3 of 3 You are welcome to contact me at(651) 234-7792 or david.kratz(c�state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Ryan Wilson, Area Manager Buck Craig, Permits Mackenzie Turner Barger, PedBike Ben Klismith, Right of Way Jesse Thomsen, PedBike Almin Ramic, Traffic Lance Schowalter, Design Jason Junge, Transit Cameron Muhic, Planning Natalie Ries, Noise Tod Sherman, Planning Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Casey Crisp, Surveying Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council page 347 From: Dave Dreelan To: Tim Benetti Subject: Fwd:Signal Preemption for Fire Station Date: Tuesday,October 26, 2021 3:00:21 PM Attachments: image001.pno imaae001.wa image001.wa Was able to do it from my phone. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Date: October 25, 2021 at 1:47:00 PM CDT To: Dave Dreelan <DDreelan@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Cheryl Jacobson <cj ac ob son @mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Hi Dave, Please see email below from MnDOT. It looks like they are not recommending any changes at this time. I did highlight a section for homework below. Let me know if you need anything else now. Thank you, Ryan Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651)255-1152 office phone rruzek(&_mendotaheightsmn.gov www.mendotaheightsmn.gov From: Ficek, Bryant (DOT) [mailto:Bryant.Ficek@state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 1:50 PM page 348 To: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzek@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: RE: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Hi Ryan, Following up on this thread, our signal operations have completed a review and have the following information: • EVP operations are working as programmed. Currently, the northbound protected left turn arrow is not active during preemption (in favor of the flashing yellow arrow). We are exploring whether the northbound preemption could operate with the protected left turn movement to clear out vehicles more quickly. • The signal timing was reviewed and is appropriate for the existing travel patterns. • After watching peak periods several times, the northbound queues were observed at a maximum of 700 feet from the signal. Most of the observed time, this queue was a few hundred feet and fully cleared with the signal approach green time. • They are reluctant to add another EVP pole in front of or push button within the station at this time. A key concern is the lack of quantitative data indicating your issue is a consistent problem.They also noted adding either option would require a level of design and significant costs to implement. Not impossible, but definitely difficult. Operations further suggested an abnormal surge in traffic would be needed in order for queues to reach the fire station. One possibility for a surge is if surrounding road construction would push more drivers to this intersection. Even regional construction on 494 could have increased through traffic on Highway 62, increasing northbound queues as more signal time gets devoted to the east-west through traffic. It's possible a bad crash in the surrounding area could also divert more traffic to this intersection. Given this information and how MnDOT operations is viewing the situation, here's what I suggest to move forward: 1. 1 will continue to work with them on the preemptive timing using the northbound protected left turn phase. It's not directly related to the issue of queues in front of the fire station, but more efficient clearing of vehicles would only help emergency vehicles move through the intersection. 2. You work with the Fire Station on documenting when the northbound queue reaches the fire station driveway. Ideally, we could record the date, time, and duration of the blockage.These specifics would help us to understand the issue better and provide details needed for additional changes. I understand we won't get 24-7 monitoring, but anything to help quantify how often it happens would be good. Lastly, did you and Molly ever discuss improvements at the Highway 62/Highway 149 intersection? I am trying to find if any groundwork has been established for future page 349 improvements, which would also help reduce vehicle queues. Let me know if you have any questions/comments about this plan. BJ F Bryant]. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. (he/him) Metro District—South Area Engineer for Dakota County 651.443.2564 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION From: Ficek, Bryant (DOT) Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 11:29 AM To: 'Ryan Ruzek' <RRuzek(@mendotaheightsmn.g_ov> Cc: Wilson, Ryan (DOT) <rvan.wilsonC@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Hi Ryan, Following up with some additional information on this topic for you. MnDOT allows fire station warning signs on the highway, typically to warn of unexpected entries to the highway by those vehicles. Sight distance issues are an example of where flashers would make sense. However, in many cases vehicles from fire stations can both be seen and heard by approaching vehicles, and that is usually enough to alert drivers to their presence without signs or a warning system. We would need to know more about the background and data around this specific issue. Once the issue is fully understood and agreed upon, we can determine the appropriate solution. If it is some type of flasher system, then the City could move forward to install the devices via permit (and be responsible for maintenance). If the issue could be resolved with pavement markings, pavement messages, or static signs, then it might be something MnDOT could complete or assist with. If this is a subject you would like to advance now, then I would suggest we set up a meeting between the City(you and the Fire Chief) and MnDOT(me,Traffic, Signing, and maybe Maintenance). At that meeting, we could discuss the background and issue, determining if there is additional evaluation needed or another step toward agreement on the proper solution. Have a great weekend, BJ F Bryant]. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. (he/him) Metro District—South Area Engineer for Dakota County page 350 651.443.2564 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION From: Ficek, Bryant (DOT) Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:58 AM To: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzeVDmendotaheightsmn.gov> Cc: Wilson, Ryan (DOT) <rvan.wilsonC@state.mn.us> Subject: RE: Signal Preemption for Fire Station Good morning Ryan, Yes, I am familiar with different types of devices intended to warn drivers of emergency vehicles.There are multiple options to achieve this type of warning device, including: <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Alert; flashing beacons or LED lights around the sign <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Power; solar-powered or hard-wired <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Communication; wireless radio signal activation or hard-wired <!--[if !supportLists]-->• <!--[endif]-->Activation; push-button, hand held device activation, console mounted push button, or using the EVP emitters TAPCO has a good website discussing and showing the options - https://www.tapconet.com/product/emergency-vehicle-warning-system - but that's not an endorsement of their products as many companies can provide these set-ups. I suspect this would be a local improvement with MnDOT coordination since it would be placed on MnDOT right-of-way. However, I will confirm the process and get back to you soon. BJ F Bryant]. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. (he/him) Metro District—South Area Engineer for Dakota County 651.443.2564 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION From: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzeVDmendotaheightsmn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 1:49 PM To: Wilson, Ryan (DOT) <rvan.wilsonPstate.mn.us>; Ficek, Bryant (DOT) <Bryant.Ficek(@ state.mn.us> Subject: Signal Preemption for Fire Station page 351 This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. Hi Ryan and Bryant, The Mendota Heights Fire Chief left the attached voicemail. He is stating that at times, cars can be backed up from Highway 62 to in front of the fire station (2121 Dodd Road). He is asking about the possibility of a preemption device to help alert traffic to the emergency vehicles. This could be a sensor on the road or even a push button operation from inside the station. I do see devices along curved roadways before an upcoming signal. Do you have information on these devices? Is this something MnDOT does or is this a local improvement? Thank you, Ryan Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E. Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1152 office phone rruzek0.mendotaheightsmn.gov www.mendotahei htg smn. og_v From: Tim Benetti Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:13 AM To: Ryan Ruzek<RRuzekl@mendotaheightsmn.gov> Subject: FW: Message from WIRELESS CALLER (6514852272) Do you share the Chief's opinion on this one? Maybe the back-ups were recent due to the gas line project north of Hwy 62 intersection.... but really— do they experience back-ups that far up the road?? Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve page 352 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (651) 255-1142 timb(@mendota-heights.com From: Cisco Unity Connection Messaging System <unityconnectionc@vm-mail.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:03 AM To: timbC@ym-maiLorg Subject: Message from WIRELESS CALLER (6514852272) page 353 A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AND 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION AND EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND WETLAND PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the report packet contains additional information submitted by At Home Apartments,the applicant/developer of the proposed Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 241h meeting,these two planning case items were presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the Commission determined additional information was needed from the applicant/development and voted to table both cases to a future meeting date. The additional information was determined as follows: 1) Provide an overall and proposed impervious surface calculation; 2) Provide a lighting plan; 3) Provide a traffic circulation plan; 4) Provide an updated parking analysis or parking data on the existing site; 5) Provide an update traffic analysis; 6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap stalls; 7) Provide an updated landscape plan; 8) Address fire protection and safety measures. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this report also includes an update on the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24th hearing; along with a legal opinion from the City Attorney addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. The Site Development and Elevation Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those presented at the August 24th meeting. The Commissioners should also refer to the information and analysis contained in the original August 24th Planning Reports which were included in the supplemental packet. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should first consider the 58-unit development and then consider the 89-unit development. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of'29 page 354 Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that even though the applications are being presented as one development, staff would still like to see two motions. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the childcare and restaurant uses and whether those were approved and part of the original PUD. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the approved PUD did include a childcare center use on the Phase III property. He explained that if the developer had an interested childcare business they brought forward, that could move forward without additional approvals. He also confirmed that the Phase II site was approved for a restaurant use and as such, if there was an interested restaurant, the developer could move forward on that in the same manner. He stated that those elements were never built, which is why the developer is requesting the amendment process. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. Leanna Stefaniak, At Home Apartments, that she is available to answer any additional questions. She stated that she believes that they addressed the requests the Commission made at its last review. Commissioner Toth stated that he was not present at the last meeting. He referenced the traffic study and noted that it was said there had been a three percent decrease on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that compared the projected traffic from the current approved uses to the projected traffic from the proposed new uses. She stated that if the restaurant and daycare would add 1,024 trips onto Dodd Road while the proposed uses would add 794 trips on Dodd Road. Commissioner Toth asked if there have been any current studies on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that since 2016 there have been several studies on Dodd Road and at the 62 intersection. She stated that the City conducted its own north/south mobility study in 2017/2018 in addition to the 2016 study they completed. She stated that they completed the analysis for the new uses and then the City's consultant reviewed those results. Commissioner Petschel appreciated the data provided related to parking. He stated that he has driven through the lot quite a bit since the last review to observe parking. He asked how many parking spaces are paid within the underground parking structure. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit receives one underground stall for free,which is a total of 139. She stated that there are also overflow stalls which are available for rental and 20 reserved guest stalls. Commissioner Petschel asked if tenants with two vehicles are allowed to park the second vehicle wherever they want. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 29 page 355 Ms. Stefaniak replied that tenants are told that the parking stalls out front are available for short- term basis parking only. Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicant for working with the Master Gardener and believed that many good things came out of that. She noted that in the count of native plants, not including the wildflower mix, only 48 percent are truly native for Phase 11. She commented that she appreciates that native cultivars were also used as those are also good. She stated that she has some concern with greenspace for residents. She stated that perhaps additional planting could be added. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she would have to defer back to the landscape architect, noting that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener as that plan evolves. She stated that they would want to be concerned that the roots do not impose on each other and/or utilities. Commissioner Johnson stated that she spoke with MnDOT and there is an opportunity for the developer to partner with the City and MnDOT would enter into an agreement, supplying plants. She stated that the developer would install and maintain the plants but would not be responsible for the cost of the plants. Chair Field stated that sounds like an interesting suggestion and perhaps Commissioner Johnson could discuss that with the applicant later. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is somewhat aware of the program. She stated that she would want to review other concerns, such as vehicle safety. She noted that if a vehicle goes off road, they would go down a grass area and would be concerned with placing a tree where a vehicle could hit that. Commissioner Johnson stated that it appears the planting specs are missing from the landscaping plan. She stated that she would like to see the correction made to the planting style of the trees to ensure the planting style from Mendota Plaza does not continue, as those trees are not doing well. Commissioner Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for providing the additional information as she finds it to be a much more complete plan. She stated that a focus of the last discussion was parking. She stated that when she reviewed the additional parking information, the handicap accessible stalls appear to be off. She noted that a total of eight handicap stalls are shown for Phase I. She stated that she counted the non-handicap stalls and those are also off. Ms. Stefaniak stated that there are 155 stalls and acknowledged that there was a miscount. She stated that it is possible that there is a typo or two as they have made changes since July. She stated that the numbers within the narrative are correct. Commissioner Lorberbaum reiterated that the different plans and number of stalls do not match on the different documents. She stated that she would love to see the spaces match the table. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of'29 page 356 Pete , architect for the applicant, stated that there are 155 stalls as opposed to 157 stalls and 117 stalls as opposed to 118. He noted that some of the spaces that Commissioner Lorberbaum may be seeing he may be using for mechanical devices. Commissioner Lorberbaum hoped that would be more accurate when presented to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel stated that he believes there is an existing parking problem that could conceivably get worse. He stated that if he is a resident and given the chose between renting an additional space or parking in the giant surface lot, he would take his chances on the surface lot. He stated that driving through the site there are sometimes 45 cars in front of the building. He noted that vehicles are also parking on the dirt, road, and demarcated spots. He stated that he also suspects that people are parking in the shopping center lot, as there are vehicles parking in front of vacant tenant space at 5:30 a.m. He stated that he cannot wrap his head around the scenario where spaces are counted towards the main allotment that would require an additional rent charge to be paid. He stated that people could, and most likely would, choose not to use those rental spaces. Ms. Stefaniak stated that most buildings charge for parking,but they provide an underground space as a service to residents. She stated that the night there were 45 vehicles there was a parent hosting a Saint Thomas homecoming dinner in the community space. Commissioner Petschel stated that from what he has observed it is typical to see 37 to 40 vehicles in the front lot. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not aware of residents parking in the commercial lot and has not received complaints from Pastor or their tenants. She stated that tenants are required to register their vehicles with the apartment, whether they have one or two vehicles. She reported a total of 193 registered vehicles and 223 interior stalls. She stated that some of this is a seasonal and communication issue. She noted that in the summer, some people prefer to park outdoors. She noted that in the winter,people do use the underground stalls. She stated that there was an instance where a vehicle was parked in the dirt lot for a few days, explaining that was a unique situation where a resident's parents were being treated at the Mayo Clinic and parked their vehicle to be out of the way. She stated that with the addition of Phase II,they would have additional surface stalls that could be used by Phase I residents as well. Commissioner Petschel commented that he feels that there is a parking problem. He stated that if people are parking in the dirt or on the street,that is an issue, and those spaces cannot be used. He agreed that the applicant was very transparent with their data, but that data enforces the interpretation that there appears to be a parking problem. Ms. Stefaniak stated that people park on the dirt because it has been undeveloped since 2016. She stated that the development of the lot and providing additional striped stalls would alleviate that problem. Commissioner Petschel commented that the data the applicant provided looks accurate compared to what he observed. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 29 page 357 Lee Copy, engineer for the applicant, referenced the impervious values that were shown in the staff report, noting that those were incorrect. He stated that for Phase 11, the numbers are correct, but they did not compare those to the previous design numbers and compared that to the impervious surface that exists today. He stated that gravel is considered impervious surface and therefore the proposed development would reduce the impervious coverage for that lot. He stated that currently the overall PUD has an impervious rate of 62.4 percent and noted that if both developments are considered, the impervious percentage would then be 65.5 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there was a typo in what was presented by staff related to the lot coverage and provided additional clarification. Maurice , 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, he referenced the project for Lot 7 and stated that lot has been vacant for some time. Chair Field noted that the Commission is considering the first request at this time and noted that there would be time to provide input on the second request. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that at the last hearing comments were permitted in respect to both sites simultaneously and asked if that pattern is being changed tonight. Chair Field confirmed that the intent is to vote separately and therefore the comments should be reflected separately. Mr. Friel stated that most of the comments would apply to both requests and asked if the Commission prefers to have residents repeat themselves. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are two different planning applications, and the Commission could take those separately or accept public input at once. Chair Field stated that if comments apply to both requests, those could be made once. He stated that related to the last speaker,those comments were specific to the second request and should be reserved for that discussion. Mr. Friel commented that his comments apply to both requests. He noted that the comments of Mr. Hanton will apply to traffic and applies to both requests. Chair Field stated that those comments could then be made now and would apply to the second request as well. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that two months ago he spoke about traffic and the problems he believed the development may aggravate. He stated that he has since had a chance to test his theories as there was a medical emergency at his home and it took about 15 minutes for the ambulance to reach him home on a Sunday morning. He stated that because of the traffic styles of the prime and secondary accesses for the project, he would be concerned with the traffic that would be generated by this traffic and the health and safety concerns it would impose on the October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 29 page 358 community. He stated that he is concerned of those north of 62. He stated that people go by that Dodd Road and 62 intersection whether they want to or not, and it is terrible. He commented on the traffic studies that have been done and noted that several different companies have been involved in the studies since 2008 and the resources those companies used. He stated that this application is using materials for a project that never happened and the projected traffic numbers mention a decrease compared to the project that never happened. He stated that the City's north/south study is not even mentioned, which showed the intersection of Dodd and 62 as an F, failing, rating at that time. He stated that the Fire Department comments mention an Opticom system but stated that system would not provide benefit because during times of traffic there is no area for vehicles to move out of the way for an emergency vehicle. Tamara Wills, 788 Hoca Avenue, stated that she shares similar concerns with the last speaker. She stated that the residents do not feel that they are being heard on this matter. She stated that the 2017 north/south mobility study is dated as many things have changed in the area since that time. She referenced areas that were above the critical crash rate within the report with failing ratings. She hoped that the City would learn from those changes,noting that there has been a lot of building and more traffic. She stated that if traffic was bad then, she was unsure why the City is not paying attention to those studies and numbers. She stated that the traffic alone should be showing that this would not work. She appreciated that people buy parcels of land for development, but that should not be at the cost of the safety and convenience of the residents. She stated that she must use Dodd Road daily and hopes that the Commission considers traffic more heavily than it has. She commented that MnDOT would not allow an exit on 62 from The Reserve because traffic moves too fast and because of the proximity to the lights, therefore that would not be allowed for these new developments. She commented that South Plaza Drive and Dodd would then be the only options and those are already bad. She referenced a neighborhood meeting that was held that had representatives from the County and MnDOT, at which time it was stated that Dodd Road was not on their radar because they have higher priorities. John Matsco, 751 Cheyenne Lane, also commented on the traffic on Dodd Road. He stated that if another 800 vehicles are added to Dodd Road, the developer should be required to make improvements. He stated that if traffic issues are caused by a development, the developer should be required to make the necessary improvements. He stated that to add 800 vehicles per day to Dodd Road without making improvements should not be allowed. He referenced the Phase II development and stated that it seems that building this building near the 110 right-of-way would change the character of 110 as there are no other buildings that close to the roadway. He stated that this would seem to be maximizing what can be put on the site to maximize returns. He stated that the Commission does not have to go along with what the developer wants and should instead continue to focus on what the residents want and overall vision for the community is. He stated that it is hard to believe this would be 51 percent impervious. He stated that at his lake place, the gravel driveway is not considered impervious because it is not bituminous or concrete. He stated that just because the site is gravel does not mean it was intended to stay gravel and therefore, he was unsure why a comparison was provided as it is a vacant lot. He stated that there is a lot of parking occurring on the street, on the vacant lot, in the parking facility, and in the commercial area from residents of The Reserve. He stated that he drives by the facility every day and it occurs daily. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 29 page 359 Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for additional ideas for traffic improvement. Mr. Matsco stated that developers have been required to add traffic control, additional lanes, and other improvements that would support the proposed development. He stated that it is clear that the development would place increased stress on the issue. He stated that the improvements are typically a negotiation between the different entities. He stated that it is clear there is already a traffic problem and adding 800 vehicles would not make it better. He stated that 62 and Dodd Road already has Opticom. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that Opticom is being anticipated for 149 and 62, noting that both are controlled by MnDOT. She stated that any improvements for Dodd Road are very far down on the priority list for MnDOT. She stated that even if this would be needed, MnDOT approval would be required and is not guaranteed. She stated that the Mendota Plaza guidelines were used to support plan consistencies, but the setback set as a standard by McDonalds is not being used for Phase 11. Chair Field asked if the setback from 62 has been changed from the original review. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it has not been changed. Chair Field asked that comments be focused on the additional information. He noted that many of the speakers had an opportunity to speak at the last public hearing and the Commission received those comments, therefore any comments tonight should focus on the new information provided since that time. Ms. Smith stated that the Fire Department previously required access behind the Phase 11 building and asked if this is no longer needed and how that would impact those residents. She stated that many of the items within the findings of fact are not facts and suggested the Commission review those carefully. She stated that this development would have an impact far beyond Mendota Plaza and asked the Commission to consider the impacts to the overall community. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, referenced the landscaping plan and comments of the Master Gardener. She wanted to ensure that the model landscape ordinance is reviewed more carefully from the standpoint of the developer. She stated that the current ordinance is very gray, and the PUD allows the City to make additional requests. She would want to ensure that the GreenStep Cities model is followed and that the plan of the Master Gardener is followed rather than the plan proposed. Kate Christianson,2280 Ocala Court, stated that the traffic study completed in 2017 was well done with facts and data. She stated that it includes a summary and conclusion with suggested improvements. She believed that should be considered and the City should work with MnDOT and implement those improvements before additional development is added. Chair Field encouraged the residents to reach out to their State Representatives to push pressure on MnDOT. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 29 page 360 Ms. Christianson stated that the City should not make the situation more difficult for the residents. Jim , 815 Hazel Court, stated that he uses Dodd Road as the main route to leave his home and the road is already overloaded. He commented that Dodd Road has serious problems with the existing traffic and adding this amount of traffic would only make the situation worse. He stated that he was a member of the City Council from 1973 through 1984, and in 1979 they had some tough times with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to keep Mendota Heights spacious and gracious. He commented that most people like to live in the community because it is an open space area. He stated that four or five years ago, the City began to lose the spacious and gracious attitude and is once again under pressure to give away that vision. He asked that the Comprehensive Plan be used as a guide for new development with a focus on keeping existing residents happy. He stated that because of the proximity to the Twin Cities, developers are attracted to Mendota Heights and there will continue to be pressure placed upon the City. He stated that Dodd Road is in trouble right now and encouraged the City to be cautious with the traffic that is added. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the Commission is being asked to possibly approve the revised proposal for these two buildings. He stated that the revised proposal does not deserve serious consideration as it offers very little change from the August proposal. He referenced the staff analysis and stated that he disagrees with some of the proposed findings of fact for approval. He stated that a number of years ago the traffic rating for Dodd Road and 62 was an F,which is the lowest grade you can receive. He referenced the findings of fact listed in the report supporting denial and provided additional comments. He asked what rationale there could be for the Commission to approve the revised project as there is no change from the original project. He considered it to be an insult that the developer would bring back this "revised" proposal and provides opportunity for denial. He did not believe the Commission has a choice other than denying the request. He commented that he doubts that the developer would provide a plan that would change the nature of the proposals. Mr. Friel commented that he would prefer to hold his comments until the presentation is made for the second case. Chair Field stated that the Commission would most likely vote on this request prior to Mr. Friel's comments if he chooses to make his comments in that fashion. Mr. Friel asked if the actions would be separated rather than making motions at the end of the complete presentations. Chair Field stated that he believes that is the expectation of the Commission. Mr. Friel stated that he would make his comments at this time then. He stated that the staff report mentions a five-year completion for the PUD, which was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. He clarified that the project, not the PUD needed to be completed by 2026. He noted at that time the apartment complexes were not contemplated and therefore cannot be considered. He stated that the extension allowed time for the project and not the PUD. He stated that the PUD appears no longer to be, withstanding the assertions of the October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 29 page 361 applicant, a 21-acre PUD as some land was sold. He stated that the tenants within the plaza have not been made aware of the proposals, which he found unusual. He stated that he also found it troubling that staff and the Commission are not understanding the terrible difficulty people in the first section of Friendly Hills have accessing Dodd Road. He noted that those residents were also not notified of this meeting and proposed development. He commented on the issues that exist in terms of safety and traffic volumes on Dodd Road from the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that the developer has suggested that it is important to compare the traffic generated by what was proposed in amendment six,the retail space, restaurant and childcare facility and was unsure why that would be relevant to compare something that was not with something proposed. He stated that there never was a plan for the size of the childcare facility, retail facility or restaurant and there was not a plan for the parking that would be available. He stated that the only thing that was approved by the City is amendment six, which was an agreement that those proposals could be made but nothing was ever planned for or submitted. He stated that he has not heard a word of how these projects benefit the people of Mendota Heights. He stated that it would appear that these projects would only hurt the residents by making the traffic issues worse and would make access to the shopping center even worse. He stated that he has comments with respect to the second project when that presentation is provided. Chair Field briefly recessed the meeting. Chair Field reconvened the meeting. Ms. Stefaniak stated that some residents brought up the north/south mobility study,which she also mentioned. She stated that report used assumptions and modeling available at that time which included the retail, restaurant and childcare uses as well as the Tramal Crow project which was larger than the Linden project. She stated that report highlighted that the most significant area of concern was Dodd and Market Street, not Dodd and South Plaza Drive. She stated that using the modeling and assumptions in that study,which were the higher and more intrusive uses,the results are still valid as these would be less intensive uses. She stated that the recommendations were made for a ten-year period rather than immediate needs. She stated that the report also considered to be built scenarios that were outside of the control of the City, as the assumptions concluded that Inver Grove Heights would be built out as would Vikings Lakes and both of those have not been completed. She stated that MnDOT owns those roads and there would be time to address those concerns over time as originally planned. She stated that she visited four times per day for two weeks at peak times in order to obtain traffic counts as well as non-peak times. She stated that in terms of requiring a developer to complete improvements, that applies to City owned roadways. She stated that their plans were submitted to MnDOT and MnDOT chose not to opine on the project. She stated that it is not their purview to tell MnDOT how to operate their roads. She stated that the Opticom system exists and is located at South Plaza Drive. She stated that the Fire Chief was commenting that it would be helpful to have a trigger closer to the door to trigger the light. She stated that is not their responsibility, but they have been happy to participate in those conversations. She stated that a resident mentioned the GreenStep program, but the City has not developed its own ordinance of that manner. She stated that they have worked with the Master Gardener and have implemented some of her suggestions, but others could not be due to utility and underground water tank storage location. She noted that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener throughout this process. She commented that she lives in Mendota Heights October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 29 page 362 and enjoys the community. She stated that she is not proposing to put apartments in a residential neighborhood or on park property and is instead proposing this development in a business corridor in order to complete the PUD and housing would be the best use. She stated that MnDOT objected to the right-in/right-out access which limits the development opportunity for that parcel. She stated that without that access housing becomes the highest and best use of the property. She stated that they spoke about the mixed-use designation and 75 percent of that should be housing, which this would achieve. She stated that these two parcels were identified in the Comprehensive Plan as underutilized, and this proposal matches the goals of that plan. She stated that many residents of The Reserve sent in supportive emails stating that they wanted this development and believes it would complete the vision and be better than a dirt lot. She stated that business owners within the Plaza would also like to see this development. She stated that details plan for the other proposes uses were included in the 2009 amendment. She stated that they are requesting to change those because market needs have changed. She stated that regardless of the ownership of the property there is an overlying OEA that is encumbered against the entire PUD. Commissioner Corbett provided clarification on the statement within the Comprehensive Plan which states that undeveloped land proposed to develop mixed use is at 75 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that these lots are undeveloped. She noted that the statement intent is that of the undeveloped land, 75 percent of that should be housing. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked and received confirmation that there would be four handicap stalls would be provided for each of the proposed buildings. 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 JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett referenced the Comprehensive Plan mixed use section that was discussed along with tabled identifying the dwelling units within mixed use within the staff report. He stated that he was confused on the language used and the related 75 percent. He stated that it seems to be a discontinuity as the majority of the land is developed, and with other uses. He stated that the math seems to be convenient in making the calculations work for mixed use and has concern with the density as proposed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this method was used consistently with The Reserve. Commissioner Corbett stated that his concern would be that the convenient math would continue to compound the problem that already exists. He stated that if this is reviewed lot specifically and October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 29 page 363 not under the PUD,perhaps a different calculation should be used and that would still exceed the dwelling units per acre. He commented that he does not believe that math to be appropriate. Commissioner Katz stated that the original PUD includes language related to traffic impacts and that access and exits to the mall could be adjusted if there are impacts to traffic. He stated that there were specific requirements that stated if a traffic grade of such is issued, these specific adjustments/improvements would be made. He noted that it appears those may have been lost through the multiple amendments that have been made. He noted that the primary concern from residents is related to traffic. He asked who would then pay for improvements if deemed necessary. He understood that staff may be unable to answer his question tonight. Commissioner Petschel asked staff for the best assessment of the traffic grade for Dodd and 62. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City's north/south mobility study, completed in 2018, showed a level of service at F for that intersection. He stated that the other intersections along Dodd were identified in green. He stated that looking towards 2040, assuming other communities build out, a number of intersections will go to a poor level of service. He stated that the City continues to work with MnDOT as the study includes ideas for improvements. He stated that the City would just need to continue to work with MnDOT to install improvements. Commissioner Johnson stated that the original developer agreement dated March 31, 2008 a degrading level of service D or worse was included, but amendment six stated an overall below level of service F. She asked if an intersection could get below an F. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that F is the lowest level of service. Commissioner Johnson referenced the 2016 amendment and asked how the below level of service F would be obtained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that the 2016 amendment mentioned the South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road intersection. He stated that the level of service for Dodd Road and 62 existed before that 2016 amendment. Commissioner Petschel stated that he commutes through this intersection twice per day and The Plaza does not get credit for the southbound traffic as that is moving right or left on 62. He asked the opinion of staff for the direction of traffic attributing to the poor level of service. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the southbound traffic for Dodd Road at 62 provides the worst level of service. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data determining where the northbound traffic is originating. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is a streetlights program that could track cell phone data, but he does not have that for Dodd Road. He stated that the City met with MnDOT in early September and MnDOT received the feedback from the City and has been watching the October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 29 page 364 cameras. He provided details on the ques for northbound traffic,noting that all vehicles in the que are able to make it through the first traffic light cycle. Commissioner Toth commented that he uses Dodd Road,traveling from the south to the north and has been in traffic behind Mendakota Park,taking 11 minutes to make it through the light,therefore he questions that data. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that MnDOT has asked the Fire Department to provide additional data on their observations and MnDOT would then review the cameras on those dates/times. Commissioner Corbett stated that he struggles with how this is framed. He stated that this is a mixed-use PUD and asked how the appropriate levels of density and setbacks would be determined. He stated that within City Code, it would appear the appropriate underlying zoning standards should be applied for the use. He stated that using R-3, the square footage of units was breeching with The Reserve and therefore the developers have consumed the residential footprint for the site. He stated that when reviewing the mixed-use language within the Comprehensive Plan it appears the numbers are made to work rather than reasonable. He recognizes the input on traffic and noted that he does not experience that firsthand and therefore appreciates those comments. He stated that the traffic backs up past the park every day. He appreciated the comments of the developer comparing what could be versus what is proposed but the comments should have focused on what exists and the current circumstances versus what is proposed. He stated that traffic will increase and there was no plan to mitigate for that. He stated that this plan relies on the City going outside of its ordinances and requirements requesting additional flexibility in return for financial motivation. He believed that consideration should be put into the effort that was put into creating ordinance and guidance for development by previous Councils and residents. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2021-12 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR THE REASONS HE SPECIFIED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH APARTMENTS OR THE DENSITY. HE STATED THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF DENSITY BECAUSE THIS IS PHASED DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS HIS LARGEST CONCERN AND IT IS ALREADY HORRIBLE. HE STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES HE HAS SAT THROUGH THREE LIGHT CYCLES. HE STATED THAT HE CANNOT IMAGINE MAKING THAT TRAFFIC WORSE AND HE CANNOT IMAGINE A WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT MAKE IT WORSE. HE STATED THAT ULTIMATELY, HE BELIEVES THESE APARTMENTS SHOULD BE BUILT, BUT THE INTERSECTION HAS TO BE FIXED FIRST. COMMISSIONER TOTH AGREED THAT HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BUT HE HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT IF A BETTER PLAN CAN BE REACHED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC, THEN THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED. HE STATED THAT THERE October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 29 page 365 IS ALREADY A CONCERN WITH HOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN MANEUVER THROUGH THE TRAFFIC. HE STATED THAT THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HOPEFULLY PROPOSE SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ECHOED THE COMMENTS MADE. SHE THANKED THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS AND MADE COMMENTS. SHE AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS RELATED TO SETBACKS, DENSITY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND BELIEVED A SOLUTION COULD BE FOUND THAT IS LESS DENSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECISION MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HEARS THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND SHARES THAT CONCERN. SHE STATED THAT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT SPLITTING THE TWO REQUESTS, SHE HAS CONCERNS WITH DENSITY, SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SHE COMMENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE THIS PHASE MORE APPEALING TO THE RESIDENTS BY USING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WORKING WITH MNDOT TO DO THAT. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS PLEASED TO SEE A 2.0 RATIO FOR PARKING FOR THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS MUCH HAPPIER WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS MANY MORE CONCERNS WITH PHASE III. SHE COMMENTED THAT THIS PHASE WOULD ADD SOME TO THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT IS ONLY 58 UNITS. SHE BELIEVED THE CITY SHOULD WORK DILIGENTLY WITH MNDOT AND REVIEW OPTIONS WITH OPTICOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT IN HER MIND, SHE WAS OKAY MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PHASE. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT TO SOME EXTENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WILL PUSH MNDOT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Johnson and Fields) Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:G requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purposes of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7) and is generally located south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building, or the vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is an 89-unit apartment building. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 29 page 366 Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site;no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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 reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. Ms. Stefaniak stated that given the conversations they have already had, she will stand for questions. She stated that the supplemental information they provided applies to this request as well. Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the plan it appears a ratio of 1.76 for parking for a total of 155 stalls. She stated that when reviewing the traffic circulation, on the west side of the building there is no yellow or red lines, only traffic. She asked why a sidewalk was not proposed. Pete , architect, stated that the reasoning is based on the connections. He stated that the access is on the east side with another access on the east and both of those would have sidewalks. He stated that those accesses would connect to the sidewalk and then to a sidewalk to the shopping center. He noted that the west side has a parking ramp. Commissioner Johnson commented on the walkability of the entire PUD and believed that would be the shortest path of resistance. She believed people would walk in that street. Mr. replied that they could include a sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson asked if that could be fit in without modifying the landscaping. Mr. replied that the landscaping would need to be moved in that area in order to accommodate additional sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson provided clarity on the actual percentage of native plantings,which would be 52 percent. Maurice , 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, stated that he studied this application with friends,and they found this to be wholly noncompliant in terms of the unit square footage,density,and building and setbacks. He also commented on issues with parking and traffic. He commented that this is an excessive development and the allocation for residential development within the Plaza was already filled through The Reserve. He asked the Commission to carefully consider the lot line boundaries for Lot 7. Jill Smith,625 Hampshire Drive,referenced the area behind the Plaza building,which she assumed is for employee parking but noted that those stalls are identified and included within the apartment October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 29 page 367 count. She also provided comments related to open space and greenspace,noting that the building could be smaller to accomplish that goal. John Matsco, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that he understands that the whole idea is to create a mixed-use PUD, but it is developed piecemeal. He stated that when he looks at this, he cannot help but think of how this is being individually rather than as a whole. He acknowledged that the market desires have changed. He referenced the development across the street that was built as a whole unit with places for people to go and with open space for recreation. He stated that this is concentrated residential development on a portion of the property,and it is not walkable. He stated that every available piece of property is being used,reducing setbacks, and decreasing greenspace. He commented that the density does not match with the vision people had to make that happen. He stated that the setbacks proposed are too tight and are dramatic compared to the original concept. He stated that this is a maximization of what can be developed rather than thinking of people that will live there or use the space. He stated that parking is an issue and employees use the parking behind the Plaza. He did not believe there is enough vision to put this in. He commented that when you continue to deviate from the plan and piecemeal development, it deviates from the original vision. He stated that people have a right to develop property,but it has to be within the vision for what the community is rather than the availability of what developers want. He stated that the longer-term vision does not play out with this proposal that puts buildings on every inch of the property, exceeding density, in order to maximize profits. He stated that there is a reason people come to Mendota Heights and want to live here, and it is not because they develop every square inch. He stated that this would take exception from every ordinance in order to make this fit and the residents deserve better than this. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, referenced the size of the parcel and property lines. He stated that it appears the two acres includes half the private drive, all of the alley,the parking on the south side of the alley, and all of South Plaza Way. He stated that it seems to utilize parts of the PUD that have already been used to support other portions of the PUD in order to provide additional size on this parcel. He stated that if the delivery access to the Plaza and employee parking would be lost to this development as presented. He stated that he also has concern with the density and parking issues already addressed. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the PUD does allow for accommodations to the underlying zoning code. She stated that the deviations from various zoning code applications are not different or uncommon from other PUD developments. She stated that the Code was written in 1980 and the size of the units was considered in 1980, while apartment trend development has changed since that time. She stated that the deviations requested are similar to The Reserve which was a collaborative process through the developer, Commission and City Council. She stated that also applies to two other recent apartment developments. She stated that she is more sensitive to greenspace because this would be for her residents. She stated that the residents at The Reserve appreciate the greenspace and amenities that are provided. She stated that they would not develop a building where they want people to live without providing the necessary amenities. She stated that the parking stalls employees currently use for the Plaza are on Lot 7. She stated that she cannot speak of how the strip mall will parks its employees when Lot 7 develops but noted there is ample parking in front of the Plaza. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 29 page 368 Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he grew up in Mendota Heights and lived on Douglas Road prior to City Hall being constructed in this location. He stated that he has sat patiently and has not been happy with the way the night has gone. He commented on the changes and expansion of the strip mall throughout the years noting that he and his father before him working cooperatively with the City on the project during that time. He stated that he is open to the comments from the residents. He stated that he is a long-term owner of the Plaza and is not just interested in financial gain or the return on investment. He commented on his involvement in the Plaza and community which shows they are committed to the communities and neighborhoods they invest in and are interested in making more livable and enjoyable developments. He believed that this is a unique and rare opportunity to be able to look at the Plaza and have a vision they have worked with the City to create. He stated that the vision has somewhat changed, as the market conditions have changed. He stated that they took a guess in 2016 and discovered the market was not there to support that change. He stated that part of being a retail and commercial developer is that you can create unique places that bring people together and allow them to congregate. He commented on the businesses that have been a part of the development throughout the years. He commented that perhaps he should have spoken during the first review in August. He noted that positive comments that have been received via telephone and email. He stated that as a long-term owner he looks at the Plaza to determine what could be made to make the area to most attractive and bring people in. He stated that in today's world,more density adds more vibrancy and energy to an area which is critical to retail in today's world. He noted that the retail sector has been challenged even before COVID because of the introduction of Amazon into that market. He stated that Mendota Heights is much stronger is the retail node at 110 and Dodd is as strong as possible, and density is required in order to make that strong. He stated that perhaps the mindset is shifted to consider that area as a downtown where people can come together. He acknowledged that many have a perspective that they do not want to see change and that the land should stay open. He stated that while everyone appreciates open space,things become denser in a first ring suburb. He believed that the PUD allows this flexibility. He stated that today is a different world than 2009 when the initial PUD was approved. He asked everyone on the Commission how they are shopping differently and visiting restaurants differently than they did in 2009. He ventured that those experiences are pretty different, and those things should be considered when thinking about the vision for Mendota Plaza and what is appropriate. He commented that they area quality developer, which is reflective in their work not only in this development but in others throughout the metro. He acknowledged that change is hard, especially in a community where things have remained the same for a long time. He believed that the proposal from At Home would increase the housing stock and provide people to come to Mendota Heights as a renters, which is a good thing and would be a good thing for the retailers in the shopping center as well. He stated that if they want to continue to maintain the existing retailers and fill the vacancy,they will need additional density to support that. He stated that he was involved with the PUD in 2009 and he thinks it was a great disservice to include the calculation related to vacant lots and should have been sorted out ahead of time to make that calculation clear. He stated that there is no question that traffic is a problem, noting that it was a problem in 2009 when they began working on the PUD and the intersection was rated a D. He stated that this development is not what is causing the traffic grade and that is an unreasonable standard. He noted that traffic is already at a level F. He noted that they are openminded as to how that can be fixed, but it should be fair and reasonable. He believed they should be treated as an equal partner, and they should be able to make this work in a reasonable October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 27 of 29 page 369 manner. He apologized if his frustration shown through but noted that this is important to him and this is important to the future of Mendota Plaza. Commissioner Corbett referenced the language that was used in terms of the previous amendments being "bad guesses" and commented that he would want to ensure that this was not another bad guess. Mr. Pastor stated that what he referred to was that in 2009 and again in 2016 they could not just leave parcels blank and therefore they planned for childcare, a restaurant and drive-thru coffee. He stated that prior to 2016 they included office and retail, which was somewhat of a guess based on the market. He stated that there is not always a retailer or proposal for those spaces. He stated that the difference is that today there is a viable proposal for viable uses on the two remaining lots rather than a guesstimate on what could be on those parcels. Commissioner Corbett commented that there have been a lot of amendments since 2009. He noted that times will change again in another two years and therefore the use has to be considered in the immediate timeframe as well as the future. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that Pastor Properties has been a long-term community leader hosting many public events. She hoped that Mr. Pastor heard that many of the Commissioners believe there is a way to get to the desired result,but changes would be necessary. She stated that there was not a no to the concept,but to this plan. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-13 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS WELL AS THE REASONS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THE POINTS HE MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS CASE APPLY TO A HIGHER DEGREE ON THIS PROPOSAL AS THIS IS A MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE APPRECIATES MR. PASTOR'S INTENSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DENSITY AND DOES NOT EXPECT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE RAZED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THE SAME THING WITH THE SAME DENSITY AS IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE PROJECT. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION COULD DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC WORSE IN GOOD CONSCIOUS. HE AGREED THAT MNDOT HAS TO DO SOMETHING BUT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE"IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME"PLAN AND October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 28 of 29 page 370 BELIEVES THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE SOLVED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDED. HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PLAN, ONLY WITH THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON A SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY BAD IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAD MORE CONCERNS ON THIS PHASE DUE TO THE DENSITY AND PARKING. SHE COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PASTOR. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE 2 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT WITH A SIDEWALK TO MAKE IT MORE USABLE AND WALKABLE, WHILE KEEPING THE GREENSPACE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOWER DENSITY WITH BETTER SETBACKS. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 22 YEARS AND PASTOR PROPERTIES BRINGS RESIDENTS TOGETHER THROUGH THEIR BONFIRE. HE STATED THAT HE HOPES THAT THEY COULD COME TOGETHER AND WORK TOGETHER, THE CITY, PASTOR PROPERTIES, AND MNDOT AND FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK FOR EVERYONE. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN HIS MIND. HE THANKED MR. PASTOR FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THE CITY. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Field) NewlUnfinished Business No comments. Adiournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:43 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 29 of 29 page 371 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24,2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 2021 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, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Commissioners Michael Toth and Andrew Katz. Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuzust 9, 2021 Special Meeting Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE ONE, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...MUD WAS..." ON PAGE TWO, THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, "...AND ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DESIGNER WERE TO MAKE..." AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings Chair Field stated that he is going to amend the agenda to consider Case C first. C) PLANNING CASE 2021-15 ZACH ROBINSON, 684 3"AVENUE—VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Zach Robinson, owner,and resident of 684 3rd Avenue, is requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 One Family Residential District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a list of adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to the staff report; and one email letter of support from a neighbor. No other comments or objections were received. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page I of 16 page 372 Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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. Zach Robinson, applicant, thanked staff for making this process accessible and thanked his neighbors for their support. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she stopped by the home and was impressed by the garden. She stated that the addition will go closer to the street and asked if there is a reason that was chosen over the existing setback. Mr. Robinson stated that the addition will go forward six inches because of the recommendation of the builder for the garage space. Chair Field thanked the applicant for attending. Misty Becken, 685 3rd Avenue, stated that the Robinsons are great neighbors, and she would hate to see them leave for something so minor. Ken Noack, 677 4th Avenue, stated that they are happy to have the Robinsons into the neighborhood. He noted that they have a smaller lot, smaller house and garage and it would be nice for the family to update the home with an attached garage and front porch. He commented that they are good neighbors, and the updated home will fit well with the neighborhood. Robert Bonine, 688 3rd Avenue, commented that he lives directly next door, and the proposal will enhance the home and property, as well as the neighboring properties. He commented that he strongly supports the proposal. Mr. Robinson thanked everyone that attended in support of his request. He asked the Commission to approve the request. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS TO August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 page 373 SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF SAID VARIANCE TO ZACH ROBINSON OF 684 3RD AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT WHILE THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SETBACK IN A FEW AREAS, THIS IS REASONABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SHE NOTED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS DUE TO THE LOT SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE HOME. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 9, 2021 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:g requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as Phase 11 of The Reserve of Mendota Village and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment complex (720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti 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). Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the impervious surface calculation for the proposed calculation, which would be based on taking away the wetland area. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 page 374 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the applicant's engineer could provide that information. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the stormwater standards for The Reserve and whether that meets the current requirements. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that Phase 11 was designed under the City's current design standards, noting that there are two underground chambers designed to serve the property. He noted that the new apartment proposed is a slight reduction to the originally planned development. He stated that the 2016 design standard goals were met. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she heard two different parking stall references within the report and asked for clarification between the 118 stalls mentioned and the 122 stalls mentioned. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied there would be 118 stalls. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the number of two-bedroom units. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there would be 30 two-bedroom units. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Leanna Stefaniak with At Home Apartments, stated that they are present to address any questions the Commission may have on the two housing proposals. She stated that they are requesting a PUD amendment for the two housing parcels. She stated that the proposes uses approved in 2016 never came to be, but The Reserve fully leased within six months which proves that is a desired housing type in the community. She noted that The Reserve continues to be fully leased with additional interest. She stated that the additional restaurant and retail components never came to be, and the undeveloped portion of the site continues to be an eyesore. She stated that they intend for this to be a second phase of The Reserve. She noted that they have seen a lot of demand for two-bedroom units, which allows the older population to move into the apartment home option and turns over the single-family homes for new families in the community. She stated that they would treat this as one property together noting that the residents could access all the amenities from the different buildings. Commissioner Corbett asked the breakdown of units within The Reserve. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she believed that 65 percent of the units are one bedroom while 35 percent of the units are two bedroom. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on impervious surface. She asked the impervious surface of the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have that information for the entire 21-acre PUD. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 page 375 Lee Copy, architect representing the applicant, stated that the impervious surface calculation is provided within the stormwater report. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the stormwater report is a very large book and noted that this proposal would be a slight reduction of about 2,000 square feet from what was previously approved. He stated that the stormwater reports submitted are specific to this parcel and not the entire PUD. Mr. Copy stated that he could provide that calculation as a follow up with staff or could attempt to gain that information tonight. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she would want that information in order to consider the application complete. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan and asked if the darker shaded area around the perimeter is where the wildflower is mix proposed and whether sod would be in the lighter shaded areas. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that the lighter shaded areas are sod, and the darker shaded areas are the wildflower mix. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it is her understanding that a lighting plan has not been submitted, which is supposed to be provided. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she does not have the lighting plan with her, but that information could be provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she could not recommend approval without that information. She stated that it is her understanding that a circulation diagram should be provided for traffic, which she did not see. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to the entire PUD or this parcel. Commissioner Lorberbaum replied that it would need to be for the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak asked for clarification if that is required as this is already a PUD and whether that would be required for the CUP requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Bolton and Menk provided the third-party traffic review and will be completing the site circulation prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the parking study is based on information from three years ago, although there were updates. She stated that things have changed, and she was concerned that the study does not compare the current conditions to the proposal. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to traffic or parking. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 page 376 Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified that she was referring to traffic. Ms. Stefaniak replied that they provided their proposed use to the previously approved uses and would not compare the proposed use to Vikings Lakes. She explained that the trip generation compares the proposed residential uses to the previously approved restaurant and daycare uses. She stated that if a full-fledged market study would be required, they could entertain that, but that direction was not provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she has driven by The Reserve a number of times. She noted that staff has said that less than the required parking stalls were allowed, and it has worked out just fine. She noted that when she has visited the site, she has seen all the outdoor parking stalls used, along with the spaces along the curb, and there are also vehicles parked in the triangle that is going to be an addition to The Reserve. She commented that it appears there is not sufficient parking already and this would remove parking and make the situation worse. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she cannot say that all the parking in the dirt is a result of The Reserve. She noted that this proposal would increase parking from 1.6 stalls to 2.03 stalls and would add a significant surface lot. She stated that the additional surface lot would be shared with the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she spoke with a resident of The Reserve and the resident commented that they love living there but it can be difficult to park there. She stated that the resident commented that people do not want to pay for underground parking which is why the surface parking is full. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit of The Reserve receives one underground parking stall included in their rent. She stated that there are additional spaces that can be rented for an additional cost. She noted that there are an additional 22 guest stalls in the underground parking as well. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that her thought was that if a lesser number of parking stalls are allowed, people would need to find a place to park which would put additional burden on the restaurant parking area. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there is not a parking shortage for the commercial space and did not believe there was a complaint from the residents utilizing commercial stalls. She again reviewed the proposed parking for this request, which would provide additional parking for the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on the request for the shorter parking stall length. Pete Keely, architect representing the applicant, stated that the stalls would be 18 feet deep and nine feet wide, while some would be deeper, and handicap stalls would meet the required dimensions. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 page 377 Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it appears there are only three handicap spaces for The Reserve. Mr. Keely replied that two percent of the parking stalls are required to be handicap per the guidelines from the State and generally speaking those stalls are not heavily utilized. Commissioner Lorberbaum believed that handicap stalls in Mendota Heights would need to be 12 feet by 20 feet,not including the access aisle. She believed that the stalls would need to be adjusted to meet that requirement. Mr. Keely replied that they met the State of Minnesota standard. He noted that if that is the requirement, it could be made a condition. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that this proposal would include 2.03 parking stalls per unit. She stated that information was included in the packet which included comments from the Department of Transportation, specific to noise standards for residential uses adjacent to highways. She stated that the comment was made that the noise from the highway in this location could exceed the standards. She asked what would be done to mitigate noise. Mr. Keely stated that noise is something they are always concerned about and provided details on the elements that they incorporate in order to mitigate for noise. He stated that noise has not been a complaint and the tests have exceeded the standards from the State. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that a review from the Fire Department was included in the packet and asked if those concerns would be addressed. Mr.Keely provided additional details,noting that fire hose connections are included in the building permit review. He commented that there is fire access around the property and did not note any concern with that. He was not aware of any specific concerns noted in that report. Commissioner Corbett stated that it has been brought up that the last amendment is not working as planned. He asked the effort that was given towards those uses. Mike Sturdivant with Paster Properties,stated that they have been marketing all of the undeveloped lots since 2009. He noted that there were issues with access from retailers as there is not direct access from 62. He stated that Mendota Plaza is currently 22 percent vacant,therefore the market is showing there is not sufficient demand to develop additional commercial space on that parcel. Commissioner Petschel commented that a deviation was granted on the number of parking stalls for the original Reserve property and asked if there is any data available that would help inform whether that plan worked. He asked if there is any parking utilization data for the remainder of the Paster property. Mr. Sturdivant stated that since The Reserve was developed in 2016 there have been no complaints. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 page 378 Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data or methodology to review current utilization of the parking. Mr. Sturdivant commented that the video he has seen shows parking available at any given point. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would like to have the data to support that the parking is sufficient. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have quantitative data to provide tonight but could provide that information. Commissioner Petschel explained that the City deviated from its parking requirement on The Reserve and would like to see those results before deviating again. Ms. Stefaniak stated that from a general Code perspective and what occurs in other communities. Commissioner Petschel interrupted and stated that Mendota Heights is no other communities, and he does not want to hear that information. Ms. Stefaniak asked if there has been any analysis done by the City on the 2.5 stalls required in the 1980s and whether that continues to be necessary. She stated that she was simply attempting to show the current development trends compared to the standards set in the 1980s. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that the standard may be outdated but that is the standard the Commission has to use until it is shown to be outdated Ms. Stefaniak asked if that should be an analysis by the other properties that used a smaller ratios or whether that would fall to only this property. Commissioner Petschel stated that a deviation from the standard was granted and there has been some discussion as to whether it worked, and that information has been provided. Ms. Stefaniak stated that deviation was granted for other developments as well. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that deviation may have worked but he would like to have the data before continuing to make the deviation. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it would be great to have data that shows that it worked. Commissioner Corbett asked how the data would be defined or measured. He stated that the City has deviated on multiple occasions,but this would be the third deviation within the PUD. He noted that he has been to a restaurant in that development recently and the lot was 85 to 90 percent full. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is a quantitative method in which that could be evaluated. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 page 379 Commissioner Corbett agreed that he would like to see the data if that is available. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that data would be difficult to obtain. She noted that one of the restaurants is only providing take-out service, therefore it would be difficult to assume what eat in parking would demand. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is difficult as the Commission can only discuss this project and cannot go back to what has been done before. She stated that they are also talking about a community where people need vehicles and therefore that data would be important. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the restaurant that is only providing take-out service at this time. Commissioner Johnson referenced the review from the Fire Department and concern with the additional traffic that would utilize South Plaza Drive. She referenced a statement that mentioned traffic would increase 28 percent from the existing conditions. Ms. Stefaniak commented that was an error that they clarified and updated as it did not take into account the current allowed use of the daycare. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that it would be a local responsibility to add the preemptive traffic measure as that issue already exists. He confirmed that the City would handle that update independent of the application. Bernard Friel 750 Mohican Lane, stated that his comments are not directed just at this project, but both proposed projects. He stated that the planning staff reports on the projects are very disappointing. He stated that he could not tell if the reports were prepared on behalf of the Metropolitan Council or developer but did not believe they were prepared on behalf of the City. He stated that the current staff indicated and made several suggestions that Mendota Heights' ordinances should be updated to be similar to other communities. He stated that perhaps staff does not understand that Mendota Heights does not want to be like other communities in the area and is known and rated as one of the most desirable metro communities. He stated that residents like that Mendota Heights is characterized as spacious and gracious. He commented that the objective of a PUD seems to have gotten lost in current years as it has become a mechanism to increase density rather than for the purposes PUDs were created in the first place. He provided a historical definition and purpose of PUD. He stated that these two proposals fail badly on the scale test as they do not preserve natural and scenic quality of any area. He stated that the original PUD concept plans for this property were presented in 2003 and was before the Council six more times in 2007. He stated that a long-held contention shared by the Planning Commission and Council was that no part of the PUD be any closer to 62 than the existing McDonalds building. He stated that the applicant at that time proposed relocation of the restaurant and retail space to 70 feet from the right-of-way, which this proposes that the apartments be setback only 15 feet from 62. He stated that in 2008 the City indicated a strong desire to maintain as much greenspace as possible along 110, also supported by Dakota County. He stated that would be an important feature to maintain greenspace for those living in The Reserve. He stated that the City also expressed concern with a lack of usable greenspace for this 12-year-old PUD. He stated that the PUD ordinance devotes August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 page 380 two pages to usable open space issues, yet said space is hard to find in this PUD. He stated that the City also expressed concern that the developer could cherry pick for certain types of development and does not get around to the other uses and believes that this proposal is an example of that cherry picking. He stated that while there have been several plan amendments, all of those have been consistent in carrying out the original PUD objectives while this amendment proposes to eliminate original uses without benefit of a feasibility study and adds uses at locations not intended for such uses. He stated that one of the most troubling features of PUDs is the willingness of cities to give up open space in return for the payment of money rather than usable open space. He stated that there is a bill pending that would place limits on the use of PUDs. He commented that in the 2008 traffic study,the City had to request that McDonalds be included in the study. He stated if approved, traffic would be the most devastating legacy of these apartments. He believed an updated traffic study should be completed to provide meaningful information for these applications. He stated that the entire PUD should be considered for traffic studies and impervious surface, rather than considering bits and pieces. He stated that the original PUD report states that the total time of completion for the construction shall be within five years from the approval of the final development plan, which was approved in 2009. He stated that a PUD should terminate at the end of the five-year period as only the developer benefits after that length of time expires. He did not believe sufficient context was provided within the staff report. He stated that a PUD has a unified ownership, or all individual owners must be signatories on any potential amendment. He stated that these applications should be treated as applications for new PUDs. He stated that in 2008 there was concern with a percentage of 69 percent of impervious surface for the site. He stated that the staff report mentions that R-3 would be the suitable zoning district but then suggests that those standards do not apply. He did not believe the Commission should consider the requested setbacks or density. He commented that the obligation to the residents of Mendota Heights is greater than the obligation to the Metropolitan Council. He did not believe that these two apartment buildings would be a good fit for the site and instead believed the spaces should be converted to open space in order to help the Plaza achieve the objectives of the PUD. He requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the PUD be formally terminated and adopted the findings of fact supporting denial of the requests. He asked that the Commission require the two parcels to be developed as open space. He provided copies of his statements to staff. He commented that the staff report was 169 pages and therefore residents should be given sufficient time to make their comments. Gary Fishbach, 2150 Fox Place, stated that he loves his neighborhood and neighbors. He commented that the entrance to the mall property is a mess for those that have to use those roads every day. He stated that the statement was made that retailers are not interested in the site because of the poor access to the property. He noted that he does not agree that this development would generate less traffic than what was originally proposed. He stated that if this is approved the City would be adding onto something that is already a mess. He believed that a representative from MnDOT should have been involved. He stated that if this development moved forward, it would create more of a mess and a situation where the residents have to wait until MnDOT schedules improvements. He asked the Commission to think of the residents that live in that area. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that this lot is part of the mixed-use PUD for Mendota Plaza which includes residential uses and is subject to the general zoning regulations for R-3. She stated that this property is also subject to the guidelines of Mendota Plaza. She stated August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 page 381 that while the requirements and regulations are mentioned within the report, staff also goes into detail about how those standards would not have to be met. She provided examples of where the proposal does not meet the standards. She reviewed the requirements of a wetland permit and the related site work proposed that would require wetland permitting. She commented that distance to structures is not shown on the sketch. She reviewed the different variances that she believed would be necessary for the proposed project. She commented that these two projects are being shoehorned into the site and an updated traffic study should be provided. She asked where overflow vehicles from The Reserve would park. She believed a circulation study would be needed for Fire Department safety. She asked who would benefit from the proposal outside of the developer, the owner of Mendota Plaza and the residents that choose to live there. She stated that this proposal, however, would negatively impact residents traveling on Dodd Road and residents that live north of 62. She stated that this is Mendota Heights and not another adjacent community and the City should continue to impose its standards in order to keep the City in its excellent standard. She stated that she was a member of the City Council when this PUD was adopted, and it was never envisioned that a PUD would be abused in this manner as a way to eliminate the zoning standards. Dr. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that he believes that analysis of traffic volumes works best when what has happened is studied rather than what could happen in the future. He stated that driving up and down Dodd Road is already unpleasant in that area and adding that number of apartments to a confined space would increase that problem. He stated that to say these uses would be better than other potential uses is not an applicable argument. He referenced the 2008 traffic and impact study that was done in preparation for the original Mendota Plaza PUD and read excerpts from the report. He also compared that report to the 2013 report. He stated that the 2020 scenario which reported calm reports. He also referred to a north/south mobility study that provided comparisons to the 2017 existing intersection ratings to the anticipated 2040 build scenario and base conditions. He stated that he is unsure how the Fire Department would get to his property during times of heavy traffic. He stated that when apartment buildings are constructed,those are temporary living conditions, and those people are going out much more than those living in single-family homes. He stated that the Commission has a tough job. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, stated that her main concerns for the proposal are related to density and traffic. She commented that the density exceeds the density specified in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the biggest problem would be traffic and that this density would cause more traffic. She believed that improvements should be implemented before additional traffic is added. She referenced the study completed by the developer that compared what might have been to this proposal. She referenced the incorrect percentage of trips shown in the report and noted that it would be helpful to have the correct number. She stated that Bolton and Menk commented on the improvements to the plaza and not the other roadways but mentioned that the City needs to focus on other improvements to control traffic. She believed that the improvements should occur prior to the additional apartments being added. She stated that many Mendota Heights residents use 149 as their main way out of their neighborhoods and the City should concentrate on those improvements before adding additional density. She asked that the Commission recommend denial of the plans. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 page 382 Randy Swenson, 775 Creek Avenue, echoed the comments made thus far including traffic. He stated that he has concern with light pollution. He stated that he is unsure of the impact from lighting from the big apartment buildings. He referenced noise pollution, noting that he has Anderson windows in his 1957 home, along with new insulation and siding but is still awakened by the garbage trucks that empty the mall trash containers. He stated that on the other side of his fence is the south plaza office building and therefore he hears those trash trucks three times per week as well. He stated that there is a taekwondo center adjacent to his home as well, which creates additional noise for his property. He commented that in the winter, the parking lot behind his home causes additional noise from snow plowing. He stated that additional apartment buildings and surface lots would create additional noise for his property. Thomas Smith,625 Hampshire Drive, offered a broader perspective on the comments that previous speakers have made tonight. He pointed out that Mendota Heights is fully developed and furthermore throughout that development history the City has avoided rampant commercial development and rampant density development that is characteristic of other adjacent communities. He stated that as a first-tier community, Mendota Heights is unique in that category because many decades ago, City officials recognized that the community had unique appeal in terms of development. He stated that the first Mayor was a leader in saying the City would not pander to developers and that mantra prevailed over the succeeding decades and therefore the pattern of development has been prudent and careful. He stated that there are numerous flaws with this current proposal including traffic, setbacks, unit size, etc. He stated that it seems that the developer is asking the City to pander to them. He asked who the Commission would rely on to guide the City in the future. He noted that City staff does not seem to have a sense of defending the special character of the City. He stated that developers are also not invested in the future of the City, only making money. He commented that the future of the City and sustaining its pattern of development lies to the Commission and City Council. He believed that the requests for parcel two and parcel three should be denied because of the number of flaws. He commented that residents like the City the way it is. Allen Olson, 2153 Fox Place, commented that he is in awe of the previous speakers who were incredibly prepared. He commented that he agrees with the comments made thus far. He commented that the intersection of 62 and Dodd is already a failure and therefore a study is not needed. He commented that it is often difficult and unsafe to get out of his neighborhood. He stated that the smoke and mirror statistics/study was offensive. He stated that even though he lives close to the Plaza, he does not frequent those businesses because of the traffic problems. He commented that there is a daycare facility on his street and that is enough. He stated that he likes the open space and does not see it as an eyesore. He commented that in his experience wildflowers is a nice way to say weed patch. He referenced median plantings that were done that turned into weed patches. He echoed the comments of the previous speakers and stated that he is adamantly opposed to the request. Beth Henry Olson, 2153 Fox Place, stated that making a left turn onto Dodd Road has always been a struggle and therefore she cannot imagine more traffic. She stated that when she moved to her property, Mendakota Park was still being hayed and people were riding horses in that area. She stated that there is nothing specific about this proposed addition that she would like to address but noted that pieces added to the development have a cumulative effect. She believed that the traffic August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 page 383 issues should be addressed with communication with MnDOT prior to allowing additional development. She stated that if traffic is not addressed with this proposal, the request should not move forward. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they are not proposing a daycare, that is the current proposed use, and this request is for apartment housing. She stated that they understand the concerns with traffic. She noted that MnDOT was communicated with and chose not to opine on the traffic piece. She acknowledged that there are different owners within the PUD but noted that The Reserve and housing projects proposed would be of the same owner. She stated that there is an OEA and Declaration Agreement that governs the overall PUD and how the properties and uses exist in harmony. She requested that the vote be tabled in order for her to provide the additional information requested by the Commission including an impervious surface study for the entire PUD, a lighting plan, a traffic circulation study, and quantitative parking analysis. She asked if they are being asked to complete a traffic study for the entire 21 acres, as that would be quite an undertaking. Commissioner Lorberbaum deferred to staff, noting that it is her understanding that would be required for what is current. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff asked the developer to provide a traffic analysis based on the conditions that would be added to the PUD. She stated that the City review was done independently and separately and was provided in the packet. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the plans should be adjusted to reflect the required handicap stall dimensions. She also asked that those stalls be marked on the plans. Ms. Stefaniak stated that her request to table would extend to the following case as those same concerns would exist for that proposal. Commissioner Petschel stated that the apartment is proposed to be 15 feet from the right-of-way and asked what concerns would exist for placing an apartment building that close to the highway, below the grade of the road, without barriers. Pete Keely stated that the distance is 15 feet from the right-of-way, which is 75 feet. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the location of the traffic study language. Chair Field clarified the request of the applicant to table this request with the public hearing open and forgoing opening the public hearing on the next case at this time. He asked if the applicant would submit a written request to that nature for the public record related to the 60-day review period. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was not mentioned that the unit sizes do not meet the minimum of 750 square feet. She stated that she would like to see balance in that area or for the standard to be met. She noted that for the following plan there is no landscaping plan, and the Master Gardener was not provided the ability to provide input. She noted that request is also August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 page 384 missing the lighting plan. She referenced the Comprehensive Plan which mentions goals and policies in chapters seven and eight related to development and suggested the applicant review that information. She stated that there were comments from the Master Gardener that were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a follow up was received from the Master Gardener related to the hole diagram for the trees and related to the mulching near the base of the tree. He confirmed that staff shared that information with the applicant. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that they can work with those recommendations from the Master Gardener. She stated that the Master Gardener was helpful in creating the landscaping plan for The Reserve and many of those elements carried over into these plans. Commissioner Johnson referenced the Bolton and Menk review and recommendations for City and MnDOT improvements and asked that the applicant review and address those. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the recommendation of the southbound left turn lane would fall to MnDOT. She noted that they could have another discussion but was unsure what the reply from MnDOT would be. Chair Field commented that statements were made related to the standing of the PUD and stated that it would be interesting to have a comment related to that. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that it is his opinion that the application for the amendment of the PUD would be the proper course to take as the existing 21-acre parcel is zoned PUD and there have been seven amendments within that 21-acre PUD. He stated that because the existing parcel is already zoned PUD there would be no point in requiring a new PUD application as it already exists within a PUD and therefore an amendment would be the appropriate course to take. Commissioner Corbett asked if the City is acting out of its own rules and guidelines and whether the PUD should have been closed after the time period expired. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that whether this was proceeding as a new PUD application or an amendment to the PUD, the City's regulatory powers are not diminished or lessened. He stated that the standards existing within the City's ordinances would still need to be met. Commissioner Corbett asked whether this was supposed to be closed five to seven years ago. Commissioner Petschel asked if that is specific to the rights of the applicant to execute against a hypothetically sunset plan. He asked if the project was not completed within the appropriate time, would the approvals expire. Commissioner Corbett stated that the PUD is done in accordance with the wants of the City and developer. He asked if too much leeway has been provided in continuing to amend the PUD to meet the needs of the developer. He stated that units are used as a measure of volume. He stated August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 page 385 that when referencing R-3 the square footage is based on bedrooms. He asked if the acreage this is based on is 75 percent of 18 for density. That was confirmed to be true. He stated that The Reserve has gone 15 percent over the threshold for that area, in that there are 618,000 square feet permissible for residential and 694,000 is consumed by The Reserve. He stated that The Reserve exceeds the highest density for that entire site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in 2016 when The Reserve was approved, staff presented 139 over the two-acre parcel. He stated that the parcel equates to about 60 units per acre,but staff presented an overall density calculation on the entire 21-acre site,which dropped the density to 10.7 or 10.8 units per acre. Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps there should be some recollection as to how the density is calculated. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are differences between R-3 and MU-PUD. Commissioner Corbett stated that obviously there is leeway but if the proposal exceeds over ten percent past the guidelines it would appear to fail. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE CASE 2021-12 WITH CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO TABLE CASE 2021-13. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT ONE RESIDENT WAS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON 2021-13. THE RESIDENT CONFIRMED THAT HE WOULD POSTPONE HIS COMMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 7, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No additional comments as the item were tabled. Staff Announcements/Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • All cases recommended for approval at the Commission's special meeting were approved by the City Council. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she did not notice a screen along Lexington. August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 page 386 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff is working with Xcel to have that screen installed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief update on road projects. Adiournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:58 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 August 24,2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 page 387 First, let me say thank you Mayor and Council members for your service to the community. My wife, Louise and I became Mendota Heights residents 3+years ago with the opening of the Reserve. After over 30 years of raising a family in our Eagan home,we decided to downsize. We were so excited to be able to find an upscale housing facility such as The Reserve and have been very happy since. We feel Mendota Heights is a hidden gem of a community and appreciate your efforts in guiding the city. We find many of our fellow residents in similar situations, still working (mostly professionals), not needing 4000 square foot homes and starting to travel more with our families raised. In this sense,the Reserve fills an important need. Upscale amenities, great location and the opportunity to be a part of a great community. This is not your stereotypical apartment. It is quiet, friendly and community oriented. We and fellow residents love supporting our local restaurants and businesses. I feel a greater local pride than I would have expected moving in. The management has been wonderful keeping property and units beautifully maintained and are very responsive. I would without reservation endorse their further development in the area and would find an additional Reserve development a great neighbor. Thank you again for your community service. I tell people weekly about what a great place Mendota Heights is and encourage them to consider this a place to live and work. Sincerely, Glenn L Detlefsen, MD Louise Detlefsen Cell #651-26-6669 page 388 From: Reid Bradley To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: Meeting Tonight Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 2:55:38 PM Hey Tim &Stephanie, My name is Reid Bradley and I am the franchisee for Anytime Fitness—Mendota Heights. We have been in business since 2006 in Mendota Heights and survived the pandemic! I wanted to send you an email as I know you have the planning commission tonight to discuss some proposed market rate housing projects potentially coming soon to Mendota Heights. I won't be able to attend but I wanted to make sure and share my thoughts with you. I am 100%supportive of these projects as we desperately need additional housing options to keep the community thriving with young professionals. Our gym depends on local residents and Mendota Heights needs additional opportunities for new families to join the community. Apartments are also needed to help support local restaurants, making Mendota Heights a more desirable community to visit. Please keep us in mind as we depend on projects like these to stay in business. Thanks! REID BRADLEY Anytime Fitness Franchisee Direct: 612.309.2246 Reid6DAnytimeMN.com page 389 From: Nilsson,Steve To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: New Mendota Heights apartments Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 12:42:38 PM Good afternoon Mayor Levine and Mr. Benetti. My name is Steve Nilsson and I live at 1220 Sylvandale Road. I have lived at this address the past 15 years with my wife and three children. We love this community and all that it has to offer our friends & family! I am writing you today to offer my support for the proposed new apartment project at Highway 62 & Dodd Road. This proposed project should not only strengthen demand for new restaurants and retail in the immediate area, but also increase the tax base for our beautiful community! Please call with any questions on my position to this project and hoping the council approves this quality development being proposed. Enjoy your day and thanks for considering my position! Steve Nilsson 612-719-6058 Please excuse any typos as this message was sent from my mobile device. page 390 From: Betsy 3ovice To: Stephanie Levine;Tim Benetti Subject: The Reserve at Mendota Plaza Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 10:11:05 AM Good morning Stephanie and Tim, On behalf of At Home Apartments and Paster Enterprises I would like to express to you my support of phase 2 of The Reserve. I have been a lifelong resident of Mendota Heights. My husband, three kids and two dogs are currently renting at The Reserve while we undergo a remodel on our home located on South Lane. I grew up in Copperfield and attended Mendota Elementary and Visitation. The project at the Mendota Village and now Linden have been great additions to the community. Allowing At Home and Paster to finish off The Reserve and Mendota Plaza would give the intersection of Dodd and 62 its final touches. Not to mention all the benefits the businesses at Mendota Plaza would receive as well with more residents just a short walk away. The Reserve has done an outstanding job with preserving the areas closest to the beloved Dodge nature center. It encourages all its residents to enjoy but also respect the cleanliness of the community. The landscaping At Home has incorporated around the building is of superior quality and design. We have been so grateful to be able to live in a beautiful and comfortable building and community while we are remodeling our forever home. Our children and their friends all thought it was a five star hotel we were moving to Thank you for your time. Betsy Joyce 1862 South Lane Mendota Heights 651-428-9249 page 391 From: Dave Kvarnlov To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine;Joel Paper;duaaan.ultan(@amail.com;John Mazzitello;Jav Miller Subject: Proposed Reserve Phase 2 Date: Tuesday,October 26,2021 10:01:00 AM Mayor,Council and Staff I understand that At Home will be presenting their phase 2 plans to the council soon. I have been a resident of Mendota Heights for 28 years and love our community. I sold my house on Canton Court 4 years ago and without the"then proposed"Reserve apartments in progress,I would have had to leave our community. The Reserve has exceeded my expectations in every way and believe it has brought value to our community.I have no doubt that this same quality would carry over to Phase 2. When talking with friends outside of the MH area,many have commented on what a beautiful building and area we have. I believe that Phase 2 will bring additional value to our community. This will definitely enhance the aesthetics of the existing dirt area in front of our building,add to the vibrancy of the mall,but more importantly,will provide additional opportunities for MH residents who want to downsize,but would love to remain in our city. Based on the above comments I wholeheartedly support the city granting approval to At Homes to move forward with Phase 2. Thank you. Dave Kvamlov Sent from my iPad page 392 From: felipe mata To: Tim Benetti Subject: From Teresas Mexican Rests. Date: Monday,October 25,2021 8:49:13 PM Dear Tim, I have been a longstanding Tenant at the Mendota Plaza shopping center and wanted to write in my support for these two projects. We think they will add to the vibrancy of the existing center and businesses. We believe our proposed projects will benefit business owners located in the Mendota Plaza shopping center in the following ways: -Apartment development will strengthen the demand for patrons of the shopping center. - Enhancing Mendota Plaza with these two projects helps strengthen the tax base for the community, and locating housing density in the commercial corridor increases the City's walkability. Sincerely, Felipe page 393 From: Mortensen,Scott To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine;Joel Paper;Jay Miller;duaaan.ultan(cbamail.com;John Mazzitello; Litton Field Subject: At Home Apartments-support Date: Monday,October 25,2021 7:43:11 PM Attachments: imaae001ona Stephanie,Joel,Jay, Ultan,John, Lit and Tim, I am writing in support of the continued development of the Mendota Plaza area. I have been life- long resident of this community and for as long as I can remember the cyclical failures of Mendota Plaza has and continues to be a black eye on our city. We finally have one part of it that lives up to a "Mendota Heights standard," the At Home Apartments building. In speaking with Mike Cashill and Leanna Stefaniak, it is my understanding that before you is an opportunity to significantly upgrade two additional areas of the development. I know they are committed to a standard of quality that we can be proud of. My hope is that you use the additional tax revenue generated toward further upgrading the entire area. At Home Apartments raises the bar in the Mendota Plaza development and other apartment buildings throughout our community. We do not have much retail space in this town and what we have is substandard. Adding more residential space and thus furthering the mixed use to this space can only help the merchants which will hopefully lead to Mendota Plaza being a more vibrant part of town. Thank you for reading and your consideration, Scott Scott A. Mortensen Principal T +1 612-758-5014 scott.mortensenO)bernstein.com BERNSTEIN **Please note our change of address- 225 South Sixth Street Suite 2500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 www.bernstein.com CONTEXT/AB Bloa YouTube Linkedln ............................................................................ For further important information about AllianceBernstein please click here page 394 From: John Gelderman To: Tim Benetti Subject: Mendota Plaza Date: Monday,October 25,2021 5:26:16 PM Hi Tim, I just want to offer my support for the apartment projects planned for Mendota Plaza. The existing apartments that were developed by At Home are some of the nicest ones in the entire metro area, and it sounds like the new ones will be similar. Also, I think Mendota Plaza is the PERFECT place for high density housing in Mendota Heights. The existing center is an ideal candidate for redevelopment and there seems to be plenty of undeveloped land behind the center. John Gelderman 1812 Valley Curve Road Mendota Heights MN 55118 Office: (612) 840 2096 Cell: (612) 840 2096 page 395 From: Alexander R.Bisanz To: Tim Benetti Subject: Resident Support for Mendota Plaza Multifamily Projects Date: Monday,October 25,2021 5:27:17 PM Hi Tim, My name is Alex Bisanz. I am a resident of Mendota Heights and live at 741 Evergreen Knolls. I am writing to acknowledge my strong level of support for the two multifamily projects that are being proposed at tomorrow evenings Planning Commission meeting. The projects I am referring to are the second phase of The Reserve at Mendota Heights as well as the proposed 85 unit project that would be located behind the Mendota Plaza on the vacant land parcel. As a real estate developer within the Twin Cities, I have a pretty good fundamental understanding regarding how these projects can impact a community in a positive way. Please see below a few of the highlights that I believe these projects will do to enhance the community as well as the local economy: -These projects that add to the density surrounding Mendota Plaza will continue to strengthen the Highway 62 & Dodd Road intersection as a commercial node.The proposed projects will provide additional housing options for Mendota Heights residents that want to downsize and stay in the area. The project located behind the plaza is geared to young professionals who want to live near employment opportunities in the area they grew up in without needing to purchase a home (yet). Additionally, downsizing helps turnover existing single family home housing stock and provides opportunities for new families to move into Mendota Heights and support our local school systems. -Apartment development will strengthen the demand and desire for existing and new restaurants and retail at Mendota Plaza and The Village. - Enhancing Mendota Plaza with these two projects helps strengthen the tax base for the community, and locating housing density in the commercial corridor increases the City's walkability. In addition, not that either group needs the acknowledgement based on reputation, but At Home Apartments and Paster Properties are both incredible development firms that build a very high- quality product and are very strong and responsible landlords. Long term ownership and management in the multifamily business is important particularly from good reputable companies. Please consider this email as my personal endorsement as a resident of Mendota Heights to see these projects approved at the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council meetings. To the extent you have any questions or would like to speak with me, feel free to contact me on my cell at (651) 895-5418. Thanks! Alex Bisanz Development Partner REAI. F T TE EQUITIES 579 Selby Ave, St. Paul, MN 55102 d 651.389.3801 f 651.389.3701 c 651.895.5418 REEapartments.com page 396 From: David Williams To: Tim Benetti;slevine(cbmendotaheightmn.gov;Joel Paper Subject: Planning Cases 2021-12 and 2021-13 Date: Monday,October 25,2021 4:54:15 PM Dear Mr. Benetti, Mrs. Levine and Mr. Paper I have been a resident of Mendota Heights for 7 years after looking to move to the area for more than 15 years. We love our home, the community, access to the greater metro area, parks, walking trails, schools, etc. We are glad to see that the city is encouraging development in and around the Mendota Town Center and Mendota Plaza area. As you know, Mendota Heights has very few options for well designed rental housing. That means that seniors that want to sell their homes and stay in the area have very few options. It also means that young adults that have family in the area need to locate further away from the community due to lack of adequate rental housing options. The proposed additions to Lot 1 and Lot 7 will add much needed quality rental housing to the area giving both empty nesters an option to sell homes to younger families that want to take advantage of all the benefits of raising a family in Mendota Heights. The new apartments will also give young adults an attractive option to rent in the area that they may have grown up in or hope to someday own a home and raise a family. This land has been sitting idle for too long and if there were better development options they would have come to fruition by now. It's time that they started generating some tax revenue for the city and school system. As you can see by the Reserve at Mendota Heights property and any other At Home Apartments property in the metro area, they are truly expert developers and managers that take tremendous pride in their properties. I'm sure from your past experience in dealing with them and the success of the Reserve that they are definitely a known quantity to the city and staff. Maintaining consistent quality, while being sensitive to unit mix is obviously important for the success of this housing. I think that having the same owner/developer make this additional rental housing even more attractive and complimentary to the success of the Mendota Plaza mixed use development. The additional housing units should also make the retail more valuable and hopefully help attract some more businesses to our community. Thank you for all you do for our wonderful city and thank you in advance for considering approval of this high quality rental housing. Sincerely, David Williams Mendota Heights Resident page 397 From: ellen sue stillman To: Tim Benetti; Stephanie Levine Subject: Supporting Howard Paster Properties and At Home Apartments Project Date: Sunday,October 24,2021 7:18:15 AM Dear Planning Commission for the City of Mendota Heights, We are in favor of two newly proposed high quality projects that include a 58 Unit apartment, considered as the second phase of The Reserve at Mendota Village, and an 85 unit apartment project located behind The Plaza. The corners of Hwy 62 and Dodd Rd have a great opportunity to enhance quality living in Mendota. It will bring in new people, breathe in "new life" and an "updated" living community that our city needs. People who want to sell their homes in Mendota and stay in Mendota are looking for quality places to live after their move. We want to keep our Mendota Hts citizens here after their transitions, along with enticing new citizens who will have a reason to move here. It would provide a reason to stay, rather than move to other suburbs and communities. There is a need for high quality places where professionals can live before deciding to stay and purchase a home in Mendota. This will also promote new businesses and restaurants and keep our community vital. Our neighborhoods are continuing to turn over to new families with children who come here for quality schooling. We have lived here for 48 years and we see the turnover. We wonder where we will move. Walkability for seniors is desirable and housing within good and vital commercial real estate is a plus for all ages and necessary. People who have lived in Mendota all their lives, stayed to raise children and want to remain in Mendota. They are looking for the next step in their lives. Mendota is close to the airport, and 20-30 minutes to downtown Mpls, St. Paul and other suburbs. Mendota would be a nice place to entice other suburbs to come and visit as we go to their residential and commercial areas. page 398 It has a country feel and has needed NEW quality restaurants and retail for a long time. Howard Paster builds quality apartments and commercial real estate with community in mind. An expansion of The Reserve would be the next step in providing a desirable next step living,plus bring in professional people to our city to work and decide to stay buildIng their families here. We are in favor of this new proposal on October 26. We need more NEW in Mendota Heights. Thank you. Sincerely, Tom and Sue Stillman Sent from my iPad page 399 From: Holly Douohty To: Stephanie Levine;Tim Benetti Subject: The Reserve Date: Sunday,October 24,2021 10:12:34 AM Dear Stephanie and Tim, My name is Holly Doughty and I am a resident at The Reserve.I was the first person to move into The Reserve in July of 2018.As a long time home owner in the city of St.Paul being a renter was a big change for me and it has been a very positive experience.At Home management is second to none with their quick response to resident concems,upkeep of the building and a fostering a warm welcome community.I love the"neighborhood"feel of the building and the strong connection with the residents. I am also enjoying being a resident of Mendota Heights,i.e.voting in your city elections,supporting local businesses,and taking advantage of the beautiful amenities. My grandchildren and I spend countless hours at Dodge Nature Center and the local parks.I have fully embraced being a resident of this great community and have a strong connection with family here as well.My son,daughter in law and their children live in the Ivy Falls area and my brother became a resident at The Reserve in January of 2020. I am in full support of and looking forward to the next phase of The Reserve community development. I believe expanding our"neighborhood"will attract new restaurants and retail spaces which will be a very welcome addition. I urge you to support At Home Apartments and Paster Properties with this exciting and vibrant project. Please reach out to me with any questions you may have about my experience at The Reserve. Thank you. Holly Doughty 720 South Plaza Way, 102 Mendota Heights,MN 55120 page 400 From: Bob McNaney To: Tim Benetti Subject: RERSERVE CONSTRUCTION LETTER OF SUPPORT Date: Sunday,October 24,2021 6:22:14 PM October 24, 2021 Dear Council Member Benetti, I am writing in support of the proposed "Phase 2" construction project at The Reserve. I view the project as an important addition to the City of Mendota Heights. For nearly three years, I have called The Reserve home and could not be more impressed with the management team, the property itself and the residents who have become my neighbors. I have no doubt that the proposed project will enhance the community significantly. As a business professional who travels extensively for work, I view the addition of more rental housing close to the airport and both downtowns to be imperative to attracting working professionals such as myself. It is my understanding that the project will create the high quality, well-maintained, safe and friendly environment residents and neighbors have experienced in the current building. Having such rental housing available is serving many folks-from travelers like myself, to "empty- nesters" who want to keep a residence close to their families without the burden of maintaining the homes their kids grew up in. Simply put, the proposed project is exactly the type of addition any community would welcome. Again, I wholeheartedly support the project At Home Apartments and Paster Properties have proposed. Very best regards, Bob McNaney Resident, The Reserve Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website. page 401 From: Will Stewart To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: apartment development Date: Monday,October 25,2021 9:20:05 AM Greetings, As a resident of Mendota Heights I am writing you in support of the two proposed apartment developments being presented to Planning Commission on 10/26. Both Paster Properties and At Home Apartments have proven to be of the highest quality when it comes to past developments. The Reserve was a wonderful addition to our community and I look forward to the addition of the two new buildings being proposed for the following reasons..... -Additional quality buildings that add to the density surrounding Mendota Plaza will continue to strengthen the Highway 62 & Dodd Road intersection as a commercial node.The proposed projects will provide additional housing options for Mendota Heights residents that want to downsize and stay in the area.The project located behind the plaza is geared to young professionals who want to live near employment opportunities in the area they grew up in without needing to purchase a home (yet). Additionally, downsizing helps turnover existing single family home housing stock and provides opportunities for new families to move into Mendota Heights and support our local school systems. -Apartment development will strengthen the demand and desire for existing and new restaurants and retail at Mendota Plaza and The Village. - Enhancing Mendota Plaza with these two projects helps strengthen the tax base for the community, and locating housing density in the commercial corridor increases the City's walkability. All the best Will Stewart President MFC (Minnesota Flexible Corporation) Phone: 651-645-7522 Direct: 651-789-8925 Cell: 612-805-6049 www.mfchose.com For all the latest information follow us on Please check out our intro video Come To Know MFC page 402 From: Michael Waldman To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: Reserve at Mendota Village Project Date: Monday,October 25,2021 9:44:57 AM Dear Stephanie and Tim, I am not able to attend the planning commission meeting tomorrow night, but I understand there is some question about the approval of the support for the 2nd phase of the Mendota Reserve project at Mendota Village. As a Copperfield neighborhood home owner, I am very much in support of the project that adds density to Mendota Plaza, encourages more stores and restaurants to open in our neighborhood, and strengthens the shopping area at 62 and Dodd Road. I know you usually hear more often from the very few that oppose this type of growth for our community, and more rarely from the much larger group that thinks it is terrific. So I wanted to make sure your heard from the majority on this issue. Thank you for all you are doing to build our wonderful community! Best, Michael Waldman page 403 From: Loren Geller To: Tim Benetti Subject: Two New Apartment Projects Proposed at Mendota Plaza Date: Monday,October 25,2021 11:27:27 AM Dear Mr. Benetti, We are expressing our support for the two new apartment projects proposed by At Home Apartments and Paster Properties. We believe the proposed projects will benefit the Mendota Heights community by adding additional quality apartments to strengthen the Highway 62 & Dodd Road intersection both residentially and commercially. Thank you for your consideration of our support. Loren and Rosie Geller 165 Stonebridge Rd. Lilydale, MN 55118 Get Outlook for iOS page 404 From: Gerry Frisch To: Tim Benetti Subject: Paster Properties Apartment Projects Date: Monday,October 25,2021 12:39:33 PM Mr. Benetti: As a home owner in Mendota Heights I support the Pater Properties proposed projects at Mendota Village. The proposed projects will bring a more visual awareness to the growth of our city. We need quality apartments for existing homeowners to move to so they can remain in the city after the sale of their homes as elders and it will also encourage new residents to the city. I think it will help our community to thrive. Gerald E. Frisch page 405 From: Mary Horan To: Tim Benetti Subject: Please approve At Home Apartments Expansion Date: Monday,October 25,2021 3:37:21 PM Hello Mr.Benetti, I am a resident at the The Reserve Apartments in Mendota Heights.I have greatly enjoyed living here and At Home Apartments has been gracious and attentive owners and landlords to the residents here. Currently,I look out my window at a dirt lot. I think it is begging for development.I believe the proposed Phase 2 of The Reserve will enhance the livability here and will greatly benefit the existing businesses,as well as attract new ones. I'm asking for your support to approve the variance needed to make this project a needed and welcomed addition to our neighborhood.Thank you! Sincerely, Mary Horan Resident The Reserve Apartments page 406 From: Paul Wagner To: Stephanie Levine;Tim Benetti;Joel Paper;duagan.ultanCabgmail.com;John Mazzitello;Jay Miller Cc: Carrie Ferris;Cindy Wagner Subject: Mendota Heights Reserve Expansion Date: Monday,October 25,2021 4:45:45 PM Attachments: imaae006.pna Good Afternoon, I appreciate some of you taking my call as I was making the rounds. I also appreciate all the work you do given the variation of all opinions; that is never easy on any level. Just a short message from a local Mendota Heights citizen and an original Reserve tenant. I have heard and read what I could from the Reserve to expand their footprint near our apartment building. I am in support and here is why: I have always been treated well and they seem like good, honest, nice folks. They have been good people to deal with if any issue arises. I have talked to most of the owner operators across the street, and often times know them by their first names; it seems to me they are also in support. Granted, it is in their best interest but yes, I think they are sincere. The Reserve are local folks. I am a life-long St. Paul resident until I recently moved to Mendota Heights. In St. Paul, everything is local. Being local, they seem like long term players vs just builders. I think they navigated the Covid challenges in a first class manner; not easy considering the stress and circumstances. If anyone of you would like to chat about my personal experiences, feel free to call my cell listed below. Good luck with the vote. Paul Paul J. Wagner Chairman / CEO Minnesota Wire Mobile: 651.592.5999 mnwire.com J" MINNESOTA WIRE cl1'Si—V lf<w'rk. 'STTReTCFr CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, and any attachments and/or documents linked to this email, are intended for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise protected by law. Any dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited. This notice serves as a confidentiality marking for the purpose of any confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement and covers the contents of this e-mail and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this communication in page 407 From: Tom Mattaini To: Tim Benetti;Stephanie Levine Subject: Mendota Heights Apartment projects Date: Friday,October 22,2021 4:10:07 PM Attachments: image002.ona Dear Mr. Benetti and Mayor Levine, It is my understanding that there is a proposal for two (2) new construction apartment projects at the Mendota Plaza by At Home Apartments and Paster Properties. The proposed projects include a 58 unit apartment building as a 2nd phase of the Reserve at Mendota Village and an 85 unit apartment project to be located behind the plaza. As a business owner in Mendota Heights, and one who grew up in the city, I strongly feel that it is important to strengthen the tax base for the community as well as strengthen the demand and desire for new restaurants and retail at the Mendota Plaza and the Village. The proposed projects will also provide additional housing options for current Mendota Heights residents that want to downsize but also remain in the area as well as allows for younger families to afford living (and remaining) in our great city. I am in support of this project and I hope that you consider the benefits to our community when you vote to approve this project. SICn wam rimer TOM MATTAINI BRANCH MANAGER NMLS#283258 GET PREQUALIFIED I WEBSITE MOBILE 651.245.5855 1 DIRECT 651.255.6506 FAx 651.256.2054 800 S. Plaza Dr., Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Tom.Mattaini annafinc.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email message and any attachments are for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review, use,disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message along with any attachments,from your computer system. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator. page 408 From: Mark Kamomever To: Tim Benetti Subject: The Reserve Phase II at Mendota Plaza Date: Friday,October 15,2021 3:37:20 PM Good afternoon Mr. Benetti— I am a resident of Mendota Heights and have been following the proposal to add a second phase to the Reserve at Mendota Plaza apartments. I would like to voice my support of the project for a number of reasons—The project brings additional needed tax base, and helps to further solidify the intersection of Hwy 62 and Dodd Road as a destination. This helps support retail and generates demand for more services to an appropriate location in Mendota Heights, which benefits all of us in Mendota Heights. More quality multi-family, like the Reserve also provides more options for older residents like me, to downsize and stay in Mendota Heights community. Probably most importantly, it creates more residential density without requiring vast raw land to accommodate housing. We enjoy a beautiful community in Mendota Heights and demand for housing is very strong—We love and want to preserve our parks and open areas but also want to welcome new neighbors to our community. This project satisfies our needs in a responsible fashion and will be good for Mendota Heights. I urge you to support this project and to vote in favor of it. Thank you! Mark Kampmeyer I TRANSWESTERN Senior Associate - Retail Services 706 Second Ave. South I Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Direct: 612.359.1684 1 transwestern.com Member cYl: FFe CAL -rY ;ZtG 0 U R C E .S This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Transwestern and its affiliated companies, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or if you have reason to believe you have received this message in error,please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding,printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. page 409 From: Mark McNeill To: Tim Benetti; Ryan Ruzek Subject: FW: Comments on August 24 Planning meeting Date: Wednesday,September 8, 2021 10:47:44 AM Attachments: OutlookEmoii-161151350327916571084-7fb2-443c-9873-9a6714d lfe32.ono OutlookEmoii-16115135032799a8fld lb-7c42-4f62-bd 16-af3930ab8d23.ona From: Belina Reisman <belinareismanPcomcast.net> Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 9:02:00 PM To: Stephanie Levine; Joel Paper; duggan.ultanPgmail.com;John Mazzitello; Jay Miller; Litton Field; Sally Lorberbaum; Patrick Corbett; Cindy Johnson; Brian Petschel; Michael Toth; Andrew Katz Subject: Comments on August 24 Planning meeting Mayor, City Council members, Planning Commissioners, I am concerned that the MH City Council and the MH Planning Commission do not adequately comply with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or consider community needs in their review of proposals. I have been to some planning meetings, live in a planned community, am a 28 year resident, and observed the decisions already made. My comments on the At Home proposal and the August 24 planning meeting • Traffic congestion in Mendota Plaza and on the major roads around it and on Dodd Rd. are again at issue. This has been an issue for other projects, yet building continues to be proposed in that area. The city is supposed to address this and potential traffic problems. I would like to see the city prioritize solving traffic issues in MH and put a hold on development in affected city areas, such as Dodd Rd and Hwy 62. Will Delaware Rd. also have this problem? • Character and open spaces are emphasized in the 2040 plan, but the Reserve, At Home apartments and the new senior housing on Dodd Rd. do not reflect that. The apartments are very tall and close together compared to the shorter buildings in view. Eliminating the setback for the Dodd building amazed me, because it left no open space between the building and the road. At Home apartments with the setback variance to 62 also eliminates open space. It will look like a hotel in a busy commercial area at a major intersection instead of the feel of a small community. Variances provide developer flexibility, but variances should not eliminate the overall character of our community unless the residents obtain some substantial benefit. No explanation was given for this benefit, other than to have a large apartment building in an already developed suburb. Note that the architectural renderings of At Home do not show the surrounding roads or buildings, which could give a better idea of its fit in the current setting. • Parking and traffic flow are getting tight at Mendota Plaza at times. Eliminating the allowable parking spaces and increasing the allowable density for At Home page 410 adds to the concern for parking and traffic. Again, what benefit would residents and store customers have for this inconvenience? • At the August 24 meeting one commissioner asked a number of questions on the impact of variances requested in the At Home proposal. The other commissioners asked few or no questions. I left the meeting wondering, firstly, how thorough the commissioners were in questioning a project with many variances and with a major impact on the community, and, secondly, how carefully they made their decisions to the city council. I am pleased that Mendota Heights will contribute to the need for affordable housing in the metro area. Thank you for considering my comments. Belina Reisman 2338 Lemay Shores Dr page 411 9d. 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights,MN »iia 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com R CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator John Boland, Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Mound Request for Victoria Highlands Field INTRODUCTION The City received a request from the Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA) to install a permanent mound on the city-owned ball field at Victoria Highlands Park. BACKGROUND At the October Parks and Recreation Commission meeting the Mendota Heights Athletic Association (MHAA)provided an overview of their Spring/Summer programs and asked for a list of desired improvements to be made to Mendota Heights facilities. One of MHAA's requests was to add a permanent pitching mound to the city-owned ball field at Victoria Highlands Park. The Victoria Highlands field is utilized for both baseball and softball,whether formal or informal, as well as pickup wiffleball, kickball, and for general use to practice pitching/catching. When MHAA reserves/uses the field for baseball they utilize portable pitching mounds at the site. This is the practice at many of the fields in the City. Currently, Civic Center and Hagstrom King are the only two City-owned fields with permanent pitching mounds. Fields without mounds include: Mendakota, Friendly Hills, Ivy Hills, Marie, Valley and Wentworth. At the November Parks and Recreation Commission meeting the Commissioners were in favor of the mound project if MHAA would agree to pay 50 percent of the total project cost and agree to maintain the mound moving forward including providing necessary tarps and weights. Once a field has a pitching mound, it is not usable for softball or regulation kickball or wiffleball. By adding a mound to Victoria Highlands, it takes a field off-line for other types of use outside of baseball, future sport requests, and limits the available facilities for softball play within the City. If the City Council finds the addition of a permanent mound acceptable at Victoria Highlands, staff will begin soliciting written quotes for the project. Staff will also continue discussions with MHAA regarding a donation to cover a portion of the total project costs associated with the addition of the mound. page 412 BUDGET IMPACT Staff estimates the cost for adding a mound and necessary infield dressing at Victoria Highlands to be around $4,500. This project would not be eligible for Special Parks Fund dollars and would be funded through the Parks Maintenance Levy Fund. This project was not budgeted for 2022. RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of the installation of a permanent pitching mound at Victoria Highlands,with the condition that MHAA cover 50 percent of the final project cost. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs, it should pass a motion approving the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission to add a permanent pitching mound to Victoria Highlands Park, with the condition that MHAA cover 50 percent of the final project cost.