This is somewhat of a long read, but it will be worthwhile if you want to understand the facts and truth behind what happened with respect to this decision and the issues being questioned as part of the upcoming election.
 

Most of the controversy (and criticism of the current City Council from our opposition) stems from a decision in February of 2022 to approve the development of two relatively small (58 & 79 unit) apartment buildings within the Mendota Plaza site.  The following are some of the issues being portrayed by a small group made up of Mendota Heights residents that are upset over the City Council's decision, and the corresponding verifiable facts behind the decision:

**It should be noted that almost an equal amount of Mendota Heights residents sent emails, letters, and placed phone calls to the current City Council in support of the addition of multifamily housing in the Plaza. Those emails were a part of the planning commission and city council packets which are available to the public for review via the City’s website. 

 

Issue #1:  The City Council does not listen to the people.
The following are just some of the issues heard by the City Council and acted upon, demonstrating, factually, that we do listen to our residents.
Fact:  Through the development process, the city council worked with the applicant to address several issues brought forward from the public through public hearings, public comment sessions, and a special public workshop where residents of the community were invited and welcomed to come and present their thoughts, concerns, and ideas about the proposed applications to the council.  Here are some of the issues heard and addressed by the City Council:

• Number of Units:  The original proposal for Lot 7 (off South Plaza Drive) included 113 apartment units.  The applicant voluntarily reduced that number to 89 before the application came to Planning Commission.  Knowing the number of units was an issue with the public, the City Council negotiated the number of units down to near the minimum number of units identified in the Comprehensive Plan, 79.  The approved applications will construct just two more units over the minimum amount established in the Comp Plan.

• Building Height:  Working with the applicant, we were able to lower the building height.  Granted, not as far as some would have wanted, but we got the applicant to lower their building even though the applicant’s originally proposed plan was [already] compliant with code.

• Setback from existing curb (not platted lot lines):  A member of the public wanted the building redesigned, so the footprint fit into the existing space without modifying the existing drive lanes, while providing a setback distance of 25 feet from the existing parking lot and drive aisle curbs.  Working with the applicant, the city convinced the applicant to redesign their building footprint to fit within the existing curb lines while providing a setback of 25 feet from the curb.  This specific issue was fully implemented by the applicant. 

• Building appearance:  Public comment was that they were concerned about the appearance of the building and that it would appear too large for the space.  Working with the applicant, in addition to lowering the building, they stepped back the top story of the building to soften the appearance, like what was done on the Reserve apartment building within the same development, approved in 2016.

• Improve walkability: Hearing the request from Mendota Heights residents, the applicant added sidewalks in the 25-foot setback created by altering the building footprint (see previous issue), increasing the walkability around their building, and added additional landscaping and a small pocket park that is open to the public (also a public request).

• Pedestrian access throughout the Mendota Plaza Development:  Several comments were heard about the traffic and pedestrian flow through the Mendota Plaza as a whole.  Working with the owners of the Plaza and expressing the issues our residents have about the property, the city council convinced the owners of the Plaza to voluntarily go through a public engagement process, to hear specific issues and develop plans to increase walkability/bikeability through the Plaza site, provide public green space, and review and potentially modify the vehicular traffic flow through the site. The owners of the Plaza have already followed through on their promise to engage the community and have hosted several public survey engagements, both on-line and in -person, on what people would like to see happen at the Plaza. We hope to see their results by the end of the year.

• Landscaping:  We heard people wanted additional landscaping on the Lot 7 site.  We listened and worked with the applicant to increase the number of trees being planted on the site from seven to 36, with 25 of those being overstory trees!

Conclusion:  The current council did listen to those residents who brought forward their concerns about the proposed application; and because of working closely with the city council, the applicant made numerous and significant concessions to their proposed plans.  

 

Issue #2:  City Council should have followed the Planning Commission recommendation and denied the development application.
Fact:  The Planning Commission is an advisory body and not a decision making one.  In fact, the City Council not following the recommendation of the Planning Commission is more common than most people realize. There has been no public outcry over the planning cases where the Planning Commission was “overturned” by previous City Councils.  
Planning Commission Duties:  The Planning Commission is charged with three things when it comes to reviewing planning cases:

• They evaluate the application against the goals & policies in the Comprehensive Plan and against the Ordinances in our City Code.

• They hold a public hearing on the application.

• They make a recommendation to the City Council along with recommended Findings of Fact (the evidence provided by the Planning Commission as the basis of their recommendation) and/or conditions of approval.

Conclusion: The Planning Commission did all three of the things they are responsible for.  Where the Council and Commission disagreed was on the basis for approval or denial.  The fact is that the application was compliant with our Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2, pages 13-15 & Table 2-4 on page 19) as well as our City Code (Title 12, Article K). The Planning Commission did not ask the applicant to address any of issues brought forward by the public during the public hearing, which has been done by previous Planning Commissions on several occasions.  That was done at the City Council level.  In fact, by denying the application, Planning Commission afforded the City Council the opportunity to address those public issues with the applicant. Finally, the Findings of Fact forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Commission for denial could not stand up to scrutiny.  The Findings of Fact for approval were also heavily scrutinized and were found to stand up to that scrutiny.  Since there was a compliant application, strong Findings of Fact for approval (including the contributions the projects will make to our local economy), no defendable findings of fact for denial, and the applicant had voluntarily addressed nearly 85% of the public comments brought forward, many of which they were under no obligation to do, the City Council voted to approve the applications.

 

Issue #3:  Traffic Congestion on Dodd Road will be made worse by the development.
Fact:  Traffic is a regional phenomenon.  The traffic on Dodd Road (specifically between I-494 and Highway 62) is periodically influenced by what is happening elsewhere on the regional transportation network.  Events out of the city's control can divert traffic onto Dodd Road for isolated periods of time, and often occur without warning.  The city heard the concerns of the public regarding traffic on Dodd Road.  Since these issues are not related to traffic volume (see below for facts on traffic volume), the city is currently working with MnDOT (Dodd Road is a State Trunk Highway) to address specific concerns and individual design issues along Dodd Road.  Among these are:

• Institute traffic calming at the intersection of Dodd and Wagon Wheel/Decorah.  This will slow traffic and provide better spacing between cars to allow for better access onto Dodd Road from Creek and Hookah Avenues (a main issue brought up by the public).  

• Increase sight distance for vehicles accessing Dodd Road from Creek and Hookah Avenues (also addressing the access issues).

• Provide for increased safety at the pedestrian crossing of Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive. 

• Identify alternatives to modify the Dodd Road/Highway 62 and the Dodd Road/Delaware Avenue intersections.

• Successfully got the Dodd/62 and Delaware/62 intersections included in the update to the Dakota County Regional Visioning Study, which will help get cooperation and potential funding for the improvements.

• Canvassed concerned nearby neighborhoods to get public input on traffic issues. (See Police Chief McCarthy’s presentation during the 10/6/2022 City Council meeting - Video is posted under the "News" link on this web page)

Facts about the traffic volume on Dodd Road:

• Traffic volumes on Dodd Road are down over 22% from 2015 through 2019 (pre-pandemic) 

• Traffic counts taken by our Police Department in 2022 show that existing traffic volume on Dodd Road has not yet returned to that 2019 level.  

• The addition of the trips generated from the development added to the MHPD traffic counts still would not bring traffic volumes back to the 2019 level.  

• The Dakota County Regional Visioning Study, which was recently updated, shows that if all development proposed between now and 2040 in Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, and Eagan is built with no improvements to the regional road network, Dodd Road still would not reach its maximum capacity for a 2-lane State Trunk Highway.  

• Every congestion event since 2017 that has backed up traffic from Hwy 62 to the Fire Station on Dodd Road can be directly associated with another event nearby on the regional system (construction, accidents, closures, special events, etc.). 

Conclusion:  As stated above, traffic volumes on Dodd Road are down since 2015, but the city is working with MnDOT on specific design issues brought forward by our residents.  Since these issues are not related to traffic volume, they need to be worked through a separate process, apart from the Mendota Plaza applications.  Unfortunately, working through the bureaucracy of MnDOT takes time, and we simply are not at a point where design alternatives are ready for public presentation, review, and input.  Congestion and back-ups still happen on Dodd Road when other regional events influence traffic (i.e., accidents and/or construction on I-35E, I-494, Hwy 55, and/or Hwy 52).  Congestion back-ups past the fire station are rare and only take place when there are other issues on the regional system.  This information is corroborated/verified by our current Fire and Police Chiefs.

​

Issue #4:  The approved buildings are “huge,” or, “massive.” (taken from comments on social media)
Fact:  The two approved buildings are 58 and 79 units respectively.  By contrast, The Reserve (the four-story apartment building approved by the City Council in 2016 and completed less than two years later) is 139 units, which is closer to an average sized apartment development in today’s market.  While terms like, “huge,” and, “massive,” are matters of perception and subject to individual opinion, these two buildings are considered small apartment buildings by market standards, have fewer units combined than the building immediately to their east and northeast, and are separated by a retail center, I respectfully disagree with these terms as definitive descriptions.
 

Issue #5:  The development would construct units of “more than 100 more than normally permitted it that zoning district.” (quoted from a letter to the editor in the October 2022 edition of the Saint Paul Voice)
Fact:  The zoning district for the Mendota Plaza is the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) District, and the housing density level for that district is established in the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan.  The Comp Plan sets a range of allowable density based on what had already been developed in the zoning district (Mendota Plaza and The Village) prior to the Comp Plan being revised and approved.  The development applications were compliant with the MUPUD district, and they also fell on the low end of the allowed density range.  The approved application will build only two more units than the minimum number called out in the Comp Plan.  Many more units could have been approved and still been compliant with the zoning district requirements.  The City Council worked with the applicant to reduce the total number of units so that they wound up near the minimum amount allowed.
 

Issue #6:  The current City Council is solely responsible for the approval of the 2020-2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 
Fact:  Here is the timeline of approval and final adoption of Comp Plan:    

• April 23, 2019 – Planning Commission unanimously recommends adoption of the Comp Plan

• June 4, 2019 – City Council lowers the maximum densities for Medium Density Residential (MR) and High Density Residential (HR) land use areas in the Comp Plan.  Does not address residential density in the Mixed-Use Area.

• December 17, 2019 – City Council unanimously approves the Comp plan for formal submittal to the Metropolitan Council.

• January 17, 2020 – Met Council sends “Incomplete Letter” to the city with a list of questions and requested changes to the Comp Plan.  Most comments and requested changes were in the Transportation, Sanitary Sewer, and population demographic categories.  Met Council did not ask us to adjust densities in any of our residential areas but did request an explanation and compensation for the lower MR and HR densities.

• December 8, 2020 – City Council meets in work session to review responses to Met Council questions and comments, which included the explanations for the modified densities in all areas (including adding a residential density range to the Mixed-Use area) and directed the City's consultant to draft the response to comments. *Note: this was a four-member City Council as Counselor Petschel had resigned in November 2020.

• December 15, 2020 – I am sworn in as a member of the City Council.

• December 30, 2020 – City Council holds a special meeting to formally and unanimously approve the sending of the response to comments as developed and directed at the December 8, 2020 work session meeting.

• January 5, 2021 – Mayor Levine is sworn in as Mayor

• July 15, 2021 – Met Council sends “Acceptance Letter” stating that the Comp Plan complies with the provisions of policy and State Statute.

• August 4, 2021 – City Council adopts the “accepted” plan.

Conclusion:  At the December 17, 2019 City Council meeting, the Comp Plan was approved and sent to the Met Council.  From this point forward, modifications or amendments to the Comp Plan, other than responding to comments and questions from the Met Council and/or other reviewing communities, would have resulted in the process for developing the Comp Plan essentially starting over.  Years of time and tens of thousands of dollars went into the production of the Comp Plan, which began in 2018 and resulted in a plan that addressed multiple public requested issues, and reflected (almost) the current state of the city.  So, the initial approval was on December 17, 2019.  A secondary approval including the response to comments and questions took place on December 8, 2020.  And the final approval took place on August 4, 2021.

​

Issue #7:  The City Council should have required the property remain as open space and save the bonfire.
Fact:  This decision would have assuredly resulted in litigation against the city.  If the city denies a private landowner the proper and compliant use of their property, that could be considered what is referred to as a constitutional “taking” of their property, and the City would likely be held to compensate the owner for the fair market value of the property.  This would have been millions of dollars the City of Mendota Heights simply does not have.  To generate the funds to compensate the owner (essentially for the City to buy the property), property tax rates would have needed to be increased by a substantial amount, even if the city issued bonds to finance the purchase, everyone’s taxes would have gone up to pay off the bonds. If a claim of a taking was not pursues, the applicant/land owner could have litigated against the City for their decision, and the city would have likely likely lost, resulting in the applicant being able to build the originally proposed 113 unit building.  As for the bonfire, The private property owner allowed the city use of their property for the bonfire for a long time, and we are grateful for that use.  But the fact remains that the bonfire was held annually on a privately held piece of land that the owner decided to sell.  The City had no control over that action unless the city wanted to buy the property for several million dollars.  this option was never brought up during any of the discussions about the proposed development.  Again, the city is grateful to have had the opportunity to use that private land for a city function for all those years, city staff is working on trying to find a venue that would allow that tradition to continue, but has not found a suitable site in the city yet.

​

Issue #8:  City Council could have denied the application with no ramifications.
Fact:  The application was compliant with our Comprehensive Plan and City Code.  To deny it, would have surely brought litigation from the applicants and owners of the Mendota Plaza.  A litigation the city would have likely lost, and a much larger building (see the original application for 113 units) would have been constructed on that site, without any of the modifications negotiated by the City Council after hearing comments from the public.

 

Issue #9:  The property owner should have been held to the original 2008 plan for their overall planned unit development (PUD).
Fact:  The purpose of a PUD (particularly a mixed-use PUD) is to provide flexibility for future phases of the development.  Virtually all PUDs are developed this way, including The Linden development at The Village (across Highway 62 from Mendota Plaza) which, although requiring an amendment to their PUD, faced very little or no scrutiny from the public.  The Linden site was originally planned to be townhomes, but with the townhome market shifting post-recession, townhomes were no longer a feasible development for that site, so an amendment was required to change the PUD plan.  Just like the retail and restaurants were no longer feasible on The Reserve Phase II site (along Hwy 62), and a day care facility was no longer feasible at the lot 7 site in the Mendota Plaza.  Every additional phase beyond what was built at Mendota Plaza in 2009 has required at least one, if not more than one amendment to the PUD agreement.  For example, the originally approved PUD from 2008 had a four-story apartment building included as part of the plan.  When The Reserve came forward in 2016 (a 4-story apartment building), the plans did not match the PUD plan exactly, so an amendment was needed.  Just like what happened with the Linden.  It’s the same process.

 

Issue #10:  The group providing the issues stated above, would like Mendota Heights to remain, “spacious and welcoming to all.” (quoted from a letter to the editor in the October 2022 edition of the Saint Paul Voice)
Fact:  Mendota Heights has just less than 12,000 residents spread out over 10 square miles.  We are certainly spacious (the most spacious first-tier suburb in the Metro Area by a substantial margin), and we are guided and zoned to stay that way through our Comprehensive Plan and CIty Code.  Being, “welcoming to all,” should mean being welcoming to all.  Members of this group testified before the City Council and provided written documentation that their objection to the development application was because it would, “benefit transient apartment dwellers at the detriment of permanent residents.” (quoted from a petition brought to the City Council on February 2, 2022).  City government should not be a party to decisions the willfully discriminate against any group or class of people.  This includes whether people choose to rent or own their homes.  

“The chief danger to our republic will come from the growth and encouragement of anything in nature of class hostility. It will be an evil day for us when we try to make this a government especially designed to help any one class, save as that class includes honest, fearless, upright, and hard-working citizens. And it will be only a less evil day when any considerable proportion of our people fail to remember that it is the duty of the government not to favor one class nor to discriminate against them; nor to favor a different class or discriminate against them, but to favor everyone, provided their behavior demonstrates doing their civic duty to the state and to their neighbors." – Theodore Roosevelt

​

Analysis: While it is the right of those who are against the multifamily housing communities to appear before the City Council to voice their concerns, their dislike over the proposed application (or the people that would live there) does not bind the Council to do as they ask. Our responsibility was to review the application before us, and that application was deemed to be complaint with our code and our Comprehensive Plan.  Moreover, these two developments will provide great benefit to the city in the long term by helping to close a housing gap for people ages 22-35, providing customers to our businesses, boosting our tax base, and demonstrating the welcoming spirit that makes Mendota Heights the crown jewel of the Metro Area we have all come to know and love.