2017-09-05 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 5, 2017 – 7:00 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 August 15, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of the August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Approval of the August 16, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes
d. Approval of the August 23, 2017 City Council Special Meeting Minutes
e. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy for Sept 27-29, 2017
f. Ordinance 513 No Parking Near Mailboxes
g. Ordinance 514 No Parking on Lemay Shores Drive
h. Approve Resolution 2017-75 Calling for Public Hearing on Right of Way Vacation and
Conveyance of Hilltop Avenue
i. Accept Resignation of Michael Toth from Parks and Recreation Commission and Authorize
Advertisement for Opening
j. Acknowledge Receipt of City Council Goals and Objectives Update
k. Authorize the Renovation of Marie Park Tennis Courts
l. Approve Revisions to Recreation Program Coordinator Job Description
m. Authorize Out of State Travel for Fire Department
n. Approve Change Order #2 for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street
Improvement Project
o. Approval of the July 2017 Treasurer’s Report
p. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations - none
8. Public Hearing
a. Resolution 2017-62 Easement Vacation at 950 Mendota Heights Road – St. Thomas Ice
Arena
b. NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2017-67, Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Alltech Engineering Corp. for
High Security Fence in I-Industrial Zone – 2515 Pilot Knob Road (Planning Case 2017-17)
b. Resolution 2017-68, Approving a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit to Peter
& Jennifer Eisenhuth to Allow Certain Construction Activities in the Critical Area Overlay
District – 1275 Knollwood Lane (Planning Case 2017-18)
c. Resolution 2017-69, Approving a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and
Wetlands Permit to Michael Development of MN, LLC, for the new Mendota Heights
Apartments Development – 2160 & 2180 Highway 13 (Planning Case 2017-19)
d. Resolution 2017-70, Approving a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit to
the City of Mendota Heights to allow the installation of a new Alternative Energy System
(Ground Mount Solar) next to City Hall – 1101 Victoria Curve (Planning Case 2017-20)
e. Award of a Professional Services Contract for the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota
Neighborhood Improvement Project
f. Order Preparation of Feasibility Reports
1. Resolution 2017-71 Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for the Lexington
Highlands Neighborhood Improvements (Project #201706)
2. Resolution 2017-72 Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for the Mendakota
Neighborhood Improvements (Project #201706)
3. Resolution 2017-73 Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for South Plaza Drive
Improvements (Project #201706)
g. Authorize Recruitment Process for Police Captain
h. Resolution 2017-74 Approve Final Plans and Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for
Bids for the City Hall Lower Level Remodeling Project and Exterior Wall Masonry Repair
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Paper, Miller, and
Petschel were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Miller moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilmember Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for
execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items b) Feasibility Study for Dodd
Road Corridor Study, c) Approve Joint Powers Agreement for Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization, i)
Accept Resignation from Jill Smith, Alternate-Noise Oversight Committee, and k) Approval of Claims.
a. Approval of August 1, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Accept Feasibility Report for Dodd Road Corridor Study
c. Approve Joint Powers Agreement for Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization
d. Approve Resolution 2017-63 Rogers Avenue Right-of-Way Vacation, Call for Public Hearing
e. Approve First Avenue Striping Modifications and Purchase Order for Solar Speed Signs
f. Approve Resolution 2017-65 Approve Plans & Authorize Advertisement of Bids for the 2017 Storm
Sewer Improvements Project
g. Accept Resignation of Christine Costello from Planning Commission
h. Approve Resolution 2017-64 Appointment to the Planning Commission
i. Accept Resignation from Jill Smith, Alternate on the Noise Oversight Committee
page 3
j. Acknowledge July 2017 Fire Synopsis
k. Approval of Claims List
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
B) ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR DODD ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY
Councilmember Duggan asked if any consideration had been given to the new Vikings facility and the
impact it would have on Dodd Road traffic. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that pedestrian
and vehicle traffic are not estimated to be a major increase north of Highway 110. That is based on the
AUAR study completed by the Viking’s development; a copy of which is available on the City of
Eagan’s website. Councilmember Duggan noted that he reviewed the study and was not impressed with
the impact on Mendota Heights.
Councilor Duggan said that, having spoken with residents from the area north of Highway 110, their
concerns were for the loss of land due to the trail. He suggested that staff pay more attention to the
study to ensure that there is either enough room or enough money to handle the additional City costs.
Mr. Ruzek replied that the feasibility study can identify the construction costs and needed right-of-way,
but not necessarily the right-of-way costs. Councilmember Duggan noted that the property owners are
not particularly interested in trading their land for anything.
Councilmember Petschel noted that approval is needed to accept the report. Mr. Ruzek said that the City
would be able to use this as a planning document in the future.
Councilmember Petschel moved to accept the Dodd Road Corridor Trail Feasibility Study.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
C) APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR CHEROKEE HEIGHTS RAVINE
STABILIZATION
Councilmember Duggan stated he was concerned about having protections for Mendota Heights built
into the agreement. He requested that Mendota Heights be kept appraised of what is going on. He asked
if the City were to accept this report as is, does that mean that the City also accepts the consequences of
any failures that may result going forward?
Mayor Garlock spoke about the landslide that occurred a few years ago, and stated that St. Paul took the
full brunt of that liability. He stated that he believes the area of concern is that same area.
Councilmember Duggan agreed but also stated that some protections should be built into this agreement
so that the City of Mendota Heights is not expected to pay for an unexpected failure.
page 4
Councilmember Petschel referred to Section 13 (Indemnification) of the agreement and asked City
Attorney Tom Lehmann to address it. Attorney Lehmann stated that the clause would indemnify the City
to the extent that it was not liable or contributed to any of the responsibilities. He pointed out that at the
beginning of the document, it set out the responsibility and the purpose--to come up with plans and
specifications. The City would be involved in that. He believed that Mr. Ruzek would take that into
consideration when the plans are developed and brought before the cities for their acceptance.
Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Cities of Saint Paul
and West St. Paul for the Cherokee Heights Ravine Stabilization Project.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
I) ACCEPT RESIGNATION FROM JILL SMITH, ALTERNATE ON THE
NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Councilmember Duggan stated that Ms. Jill Smith has offered stellar service to the City in many
capacities, with the most significant work was when dealing with airport noise. He expressed his
appreciation for her service to the community.
Councilmember Petschel pointed out that Ms. Smith served on the Transportation Advisory Board at the
Met Council, and also the Blue Ribbon Committee that established the Noise Oversight Committee. She
had the vision to create the NOC, which has been productive for the communities surrounding the
airport.
Councilmember Miller commented that his time with Ms. Jill Smith on the Noise Oversight Committee
has been short but that she has been nothing but kind and generous with her time.
Councilmember Duggan moved, with deep regret, to accept the resignation of Jill Smith as the City’s
alternate to the Noise Oversight Committee.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
K) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS LIST
Councilmember Duggan asked that someone address the payment to ISD 197 for the Sibley Park
Maintenance Agreement in the amount of $22,342.12. Councilmember Petschel asked if the City was
receiving feedback from the Mendota Heights Athletic Association that they are having access to the
baseball field at Henry Sibley. Councilmember Petschel noted that this is a line item in the budget and
since the Council is taking a look at the budget they should receive some information going forward.
City Administrator Mark McNeill agreed to provide the requested information.
Councilmember Petschel moved to approve the Claims List.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
page 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, spoke on behalf of a group of residents who are concerned about
a number of issues facing the City. As background, he provided the Council with a Mission Statement
from that group, and a list of the people who support it. The item he discussed was the impact the
Vikings complex in Eagan will have on Mendota Heights, the proposal for development of the City
owned property in The Village, and the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
He said that all of these concerns involve the issue of traffic, in particular the impact of the traffic from
the Vikings complex. This is particularly in connection with the pending 2040 revision to the
Comprehensive Plan.
He said that the study commissioned by City of Eagan on the Vikings complex was characterized as an
area-wide study. The area it actually covered was essentially the City of Eagan; it did not extend to the
City of Mendota Heights.
The group also expressed concern about the proposal from Trammel Crow to build a four-story
residential complex on the City’s vacant lots near Dodd Road and Maple Street, which the group feels is
incompatible with the existing development. In view of the known traffic problems, he said that the
group feels that it may be unwise to do any development in this location at this time.
Mr. Friel said that his group is asking the City to conduct a traffic study of its own to determine the
traffic impacts the Vikings complex may have on Mendota Heights. They asked the Council to not
approve any project for the city properties at The Village until a traffic study has been completed. They
asked the Council to keep the residents informed as the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goes forward.
Councilmember Petschel stated that when the Council set their goals and objectives this year, Dodd
Road traffic issues was on the list. The Council has met with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) about the Dodd Road traffic issues. She encouraged the group to understand
that the Council has been talking to MnDOT. The Council has tried to have as much input as possible in
the environmental worksheet that Eagan completed for the Vikings facility.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, added that he has observed an increase in heavy truck traffic
along Mendota Heights Road over the last few weeks. He feels this is related to the Vikings site.
His concern addresses a statement made by Public Works Director Ruzek that the AUAR study
concluded that the traffic impacts on Dodd Road would be minimal. Mr. Smith disagreed strongly with
that statement. Mr. Smith continued by stating that the study was an engineering study and does not
address the driver behavioral implications once traffic is established to and from the site. He suggested
the Council take a closer look an official city position.
City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that Mr. Ruzek was not the Public Works Director at the time
that the AUAR was being considered.
Mr. Brad Wallace, 715 Linden Street, asked for a show of hands on how many people in the audience
were in support of the comments made by Mr. Friel. A number of attendees raised their hands.
page 6
Mr. Bob Bonine, 688 3rd Avenue, stated that he believes every Police Department should have a policy
that requires a police officer to make a statement after they shoot a suspect or bystander. If the officer
does not make a statement, then they should be suspended from the police department. He encouraged
the Council to have such a policy in the Mendota Heights Police Department.
PRESENTATIONS
No items scheduled.
PUBLIC HEARING
No items scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) RESOLUTION 2017-57 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS WITH RELATED
VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained Resolution 2017-57, presenting a preliminary
plat for Orchard Heights. An application was received from Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty
acting on behalf of the property owners, Marilyn and David Olin, 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place. The
property is situated near Orchard Place, is just under 13.5 acres, is guided LR–Low Density Residential,
and is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential.
Two houses and the outbuildings located on the property would be removed as part of this new
development. The layout was revised and is now being presented as an 18-lot subdivision. All lots meet
the 100-foot minimum lot width and the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size standards. The density
was reduced from the initial 1.41 units per acre to 1.34 units per acre, well under the 2.9 units per acre
allowed by the code.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property showing the grade elevation of 50+ feet from the front of
the property to the middle and then dropping off on the back side down to the wetland. Storm water
would be handled on the north and south ends by separate storm utility systems. Based on concerns
raised by staff, the proposed utility plan was modified to show a reduction in the depths of the sanitary
and water service lines.
He said that this subdivision is being served by a single cul-de-sac street. The road meets the minimum
width of a right-of-way; however, it does exceed the City’s guided 6% grade maximum. City Engineer
Ruzek has accepted the grading plan.
He further noted that the cul-de-sac as proposed is more than 950 feet in length. Based on City Code
11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, cul-de-sacs in Mendota Heights shall normally not be longer than 500 feet.
City staff stated that there are a number of cul-de-sacs over 500 feet in length within the City, including
some within this area itself.
page 7
It was noted that the subject property has two potential right-of-way access points coming off Hunter
Lane which ran along the west side of the property. The City-owned lot at the end of Veronica Lane
houses a sanitary lift-station. Any connection onto Veronica was ruled out due to distance, grading
issues, and greater impacts to the wetlands. Mr. Benetti said that any connection to Mallard Lane would
impose severe impacts on the adjacent wetlands. To re-grade the section of Mallard Lane to make the
connections would also require grading beyond the limits of the Mallard right-of-way and into
neighboring properties. It would cause the loss of some significant evergreen trees on the north side of
Mallard Lane.
There was initially a concern by the Fire Department that a long cul-de-sac could hinder emergency
response times. However, the Fire Department previously stated that they would drop their objections to
a long cul-de-sac if the homeowners or the developer were to provide sprinkler systems to each
individual house as a requirement. The Police Department had not raised any concerns or objections.
Mr. Benetti said that the Council may either adopt a resolution for approval of this preliminary plat, or
adopt a resolution denying the preliminary plat.
Councilmember Miller, referencing the third reason why a variance would be allowed that reads “The
variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood”,
said that this is a very subjective statement. He asked how the essence of a neighborhood is defined, and
whose job is it to define that? Mr. Benetti replied that when the state law was re-crafted in 2011, when
the law removed the hardship language from the variance test, with the intent being to give discretionary
rights to the decision makers or local government unit. Staff believes that if the developer was meeting
the minimum standards on the lots, the length of the cul-de-sac would not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood.
City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that in 2011, there was a push to try to make property rights more
to align with the property owner, rather than with government. The statute was amended to be amended
to look at practical difficulties as the reason for giving variances. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subdivision
6 set out the requirements for a City to grant a variance. City Attorney Lehmann continued by
explaining that it is a factual determination as to whether or not the sitting body feels that this cul-de-sac
is out of character with other streets in the area.
Mayor Garlock asked if a majority of the longer cul-de-sacs are located in the southern part of the City.
Mr. Benetti replied that most of them are located in that area because that is where the newer
developments have been built. Mayor Garlock asked if the Fire Department had any problems with the
30 foot street widths? Mr. Benetti replied in the negative.
Councilmember Petschel asked if any of the longer cul-de-sacs have trail abutments or other egress or
ingress into the neighborhood? Mr. Benetti replied that Augusta Shores does have a safety connection
through Resurrection Cemetery, for use by emergency vehicles. He said that he is unaware of any other
situations like this within the city.
Mayor Garlock asked if there had been any discussions on using Mallard Lane as a safety trail. Mr.
Benetti replied that discussions did occur; however, the developer declined to put that in.
page 8
Councilmember Petschel asked if the load-bearing requirements for a pedestrian trail are different than a
street? Mr. Benetti said that he was not an engineer, but felt that it probably would be very challenging.
However, in this case it would still need to cross over the wetland area, and that was the biggest issue.
Councilmember Miller asked, in regard to the cul-de-sac, if there was any thought of lining up the cul-
de-sac with the existing Orchard Circle. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and shared an image
suggested by another homeowner in the area. From a staff perspective, that modification was believed
to be a good plan because it does line up with the intersection with Orchard Circle. However, it would
involve re-engineering the whole northern end of the proposed plat, and the developer could lose a lot or
two. City Engineer Ruzek noted that intersections should ideally line up, as off-set streets create hazards
when cars turn at different times.
Councilmember Miller stated that the non-alignment of the cul-de-sac with Orchard Circle, and the
longer cul-de-sac length, present hazards. He also believes this plat does not fit in with the existing
character of the neighborhood. He stated he is not against the development of the area, and is not against
people being able to sell this property. However, this is the time to make the intersection safe and make
the lots in line with the beauty and the openness of the surrounding community.
Councilmember Duggan noted past experiences with plats that have been presented that were too dense.
He stated that that takes away from the character of the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan states
that the character of a neighborhood matters a lot, as does the ordinance language. He said that he
personally would not support the lot sizes in this proposed development.
Councilmember Paper stated that he believes the intersection should be a 4-way, and the street could
then curve going into this development. The way this was proposed, he would not support it.
Councilmember Petschel stated that she believes this is a really beautiful and valuable piece of property.
She did not see that with this plan. More value could be reaped from this plan if it was redone with a
realigned street and fewer lots. She encouraged the owners and the developer to look at realigning the
street, losing a few of the lots, and making it more spacious so that it does match the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Benetti said that he heard consensus from the Council that they would like to see changes made to
the plat, if possible. He said that the developers have been made aware of information and emails from
the residents in the area. He asked that if the developer offered to make some changes, would the
Council be willing to have this brought back at another meeting?
After brief discussions, Counsel Lehmann stated that the Council should hear from the developer to
determine if he is willing to make modifications to the plan.
Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty and developer of the property, came forward to address
the Council and indicated that he was representing Marilyn Olin and David Olin, who were in
attendance. He also introduced Mr. Adam Ginkel of Plowe Engineering, and Mr. Ernest F. Peake,
Attorney for Royal Oaks Realty. Mr. Eibensteiner explained that the plat is an 18-lot subdivision
containing a cul-de-sac that is 950 feet long. He noted that this plan follows the City’s subdivision
ordinance. He did not feel that the developer should be required to obtain a variance for the cul-de-sac.
He questioned why a variance was necessary.
page 9
Mr. Eibensteiner continued by explaining that Orchard Hill was developed in 1995, and the City told the
the Olins that their property could be developed. All of the lots proposed are within the ordinance
guidelines.
He further stated that what makes the other long cul-de-sacs in the area different is that they have
curves. However, this could not be done on the Olin property because it is boxed in, and that they have
only have so much property with which to work. Because of these factors, he believed that the City must
grant a variance under the law if they decide that it is required.
Councilmember Duggan asked if Mr. Eibensteiner had looked at the plans that were developed by Mr.
Stephen Rolf. Mr. Eibensteiner indicated that he had seen the plans; however, it reduces his 18 lots
down to 11 lots. Mr. Eibensteiner stated that this would be stealing from the landowner.
Councilmember Duggan also noted that when the City ordinance sets a lot minimum size, it is guidance
for developers. The same guidance applies to the length of cul-de-sacs. From the Council’s viewpoint,
he said that the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the character of the neighborhood is paramount.
Councilmember Petschel, addressing Mr. Eibensteiner, noted that he has been made aware of the
feelings of the surrounding neighborhood, the concerns of how the streets do not line up, and the
concerns raised that the development does not match the character of the neighborhood. She asked him
how willing he would be to adjust his plan to address the issues and concerns, should the Council decide
to table this application.
Mr. Eibensteiner replied that what he is hearing is whether he would provide for the street to curve
going through the area. He said that all he could do would be to put the street back 30 feet. Mayor
Garlock stated that it would only be one curve, not curving all the way through the development. Mr.
Eibensteiner stated that as of right now they are set to have 18 lots.
Mr. Ernie Peake, Attorney for Royal Oaks Realty and Mr. Eibensteiner, came forward and asked for an
answer to Mr. Eibensteiner’s question regarding the appropriateness of requiring a variance for the
length of the cul-de-sac. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied staff has indicated that a variance is
required by their interpretation of the ordinance. The length of the cul-de-sac is over 500 feet, and as
such, staff has determined that a variance is required.
Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-57, DENYING THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS AND THE RELATED VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT
FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1136 AND 1140 ORCHARD PLACE with an edit to the
Findings of Fact for denial #4 as follows:
4. The layout and sizes of the lots as presented under the preliminary plat, although recognized as
meeting City Code minimum standards, does not match with other adjacent or abutting single
family lot sizes, and appears to be inconsistent and out of character with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Duggan expressed his appreciation to all of the residents in attendance.
page 10
B) MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD & KENSINGTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS
– CHANGE ORDERS 1 & 2
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that under consideration was a change order to the
Mendota Heights Road construction project, as well as a change order to the contract with the City’s
consulting engineers Stantec. He introduced Mr. Chad Davison from Stantec to explain the change
order.
Mr. Davison explained that they are currently under contract, along with Valley Paving, to complete the
Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement Project. Since they started the project, they
have a number of items that have come up on the contract.
A. Additional mobilization costs to fast track portions of the Kensington construction for soccer
program. ($2,950)
B. Add water service wet taps, water service to 2535 Condon Court and reduce service size from
1.5” to 1” ($6,709.40). It was originally assumed that this work was going to be completed by St.
Paul Regional Water Service.
C. Add portable concrete barrier, truck detour, and drain tile to maintain traffic through the area of
Mendota Heights Road that was not closed ($15,879.05)
D. Add a storm sewer catch basin east of the city trail in north Kensington Park. The city trail has
caused seasonal flooding to the back yards of homes on Stockbridge Road ($15,462). Remove
“Brentwood Estates” monument sign ($1,690). Residents on Whitfield Drive and Stockbridge
Road requested the development monument sign be removed due to lack of an association. This
entire cost will be added to the single family home portion of the assessment.
E. Remove milling existing trail and overlay only (-$345)
Councilmember Paper asked what ‘additional mobilization costs to fast track portions of Kensington
Construction for soccer program’ meant? Mr. Davison replied that the contract has a completion date
for Kensington Street of September 1, 2017, a substantial completion date for the remainder of the
project of October 1, 2017. Typically, a contractor would bring in its concrete crew, do all of the curb
replacement in the development, all of the grading, and then all of the paving at one time. Ahead of
schedule in the Kensington area, they brought in crews to remove the curb in the single family portion,
replaced the curb, reclaimed the pavement, and are now nearly ready to start preparation for the
bituminous paving the following week. Under the current contract, the contractor could have phased that
later with all of the other work on Concord Way, Bedford Court, Lockwood Drive, and along with the
paving of Claremont. The equipment the contractor uses is fairly large, and there are costs associated
with moving it on and off site.
Councilmember Paper, for clarification, noted that there was a discussion that the city would ensure that
this would not be an impairment on the neighborhood during the soccer season. Mr. Davison replied that
the contactor is ahead of schedule on this portion of the project, as it was asked to “fast track” that work.
Councilmember Paper noted that they were going to try to pave Mendota Heights Road and Kensington
all at the same time. Mr. Davison replied that Mendota Heights Road scheduling has always been that
they would pave that ahead of time to accommodate the schools. Councilmember Paper asked what
equipment they are bringing in that is different – for $3,000. Mr. Davison replied that the contractor is
page 11
bringing in materials in small quantities, bringing in small amounts of concrete compared to the entire
development. Councilmember Paper asked what was being done early. Mr. Davison replied that they are
trying to complete the eastern half of the Kensington development.
Councilmember Petschel, referencing the piece about the water main, asked if St. Paul Water was not
handling the water service wet taps? Mr. Davison replied that St. Paul Water had not planned for the
project. Councilmember Petschel stated that she was of the understanding that this was part of the
agreement with St. Paul Water. Mr. Ruzek replied that St. Paul Water crews have been busy, and that
they do not have much in way of crews available to share with this type of work. New water main
installations are the costs of the developer.
Councilmember Petschel asked about the sign removal, and whether that is being charged to the
homeowners of that development? Mr. Ruzek confirmed that it was. Councilmember Petschel
continued by explaining that there are some development signs within the City that should either be
removed or repaired as they are in poor condition. Councilmember Petschel asked that this topic be
returned to Council at a later date for discussion, along with reviewing aerials of the City to know the
locations of waterways.
Councilmember Duggan noticed that the percentage difference is approximately 2.5% more for the
additional costs. This seemed quite reasonable to him.
Change Order #2 was outlined in the staff documents as a request from the city consultant, Stantec, for
an increase in the contract amount to perform the necessary work due to the poor soil conditions and
additional requested tasks.
Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize Change Order #1 in favor of Valley Paving, and Change
Order #2 Stantec, both regarding the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement project
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
No community announcements were made.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petschel observed that this is a beautiful City in terms of the care people are showing
for their yards and neighborhoods. She extended her appreciation to the residents whose properties make
her walks enjoyable.
Councilmember Miller noted that he is continually reminded of what a special place Mendota Heights is.
He felt that it was on full display tonight when the residents spoke about things about which they are
passionate. He said that this is what makes this City unique and excellent. There are many places across
page 12
Minnesota and the country where people are not tuned in to what is going on in their community. He
expressed his appreciation to the evening’s meeting attendees, and especially for their civility.
Councilmember Paper expressed his appreciation to everyone who came to the meeting and expressed
their opinion, one way or the other. He also wished good luck to the students who are seniors in the
Class of 2018 as they begin their senior year.
Councilmember Duggan pointed out that the solar eclipse would be the following Monday, August 21st,
and asked that everyone should be careful and do not ignore the advice about viewing safety that is
being presented by the media.
He thanked Tim Benetti for the presentation on Orchard Heights.
He said that businesses north and south of Dodd Road and Highway 110 are struggling due to the TH
110 construction. He encouraged residents to go visit them.
Mayor Garlock stated that this new Council has been very busy with many meetings and workshops,
and that it has received support from city staff. He felt that everyone is seeing a Council that works
together, and is becoming a cohesive team. He expressed his appreciation to everyone for their hard
work.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Paper moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
ATTEST: Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Tuesday, August 14, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, and Petschel
were also present. Councilmember Paper arrived at 2:20 p.m.
Also present: City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Finance
Director Kristen Schabacker; City Clerk Lorri Smith, Fire Chief Dave Dreelan, Police Chief Kelly
McCarthy, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and Fire Fighters Tom Mattaini and John Boland.
2018 BUDGET DISCUSSION
City Administrator Mark McNeill gave an overview of the base budget projections (providing the same
level of service as the previous year). The current base budget amounts to an increase of 3.93% over
2017 which is due to personnel costs, health insurance costs, and anticipated inflationary amounts which
have been factored in.
McNeill clarified that the Improvement Packages have not been factored into the base budget amount.
These are proposals which would add something different than what the department is currently
providing, including larger equipment purchases.
The members discussed the fund balance amount and noted that the City’s AAA Bond rating is at risk if
the fund balance falls below 75% of the annual spending amount.
Fire Relief Association– Tom Mattaini, Scott Goldenstein, and John Boland presented a request from the
Fire Relief Association to increase the city contribution to the Relief Association Pension Fund by $500
per firefighter. They requested that the Council also consider this increase for years 2019 and 2020.
They said that the increase would help with the retention of the firefighters.
Fire Department - Fire Chief Dave Dreelan discussed with the Council the request for replacement of
the fire hoses and nozzles to 1 1/2 inch fire hose and 150 GPM nozzles. The current hoses and nozzles
limit the flow, are not adequate for today’s homes, and do not meet the industry standards. The cost for
the replacement is $17,500.
Chief Dreelan asked an increase of $9,000 in the personnel budget, for payments to new firefighters for
attending their initial training, and also for payments to officers for attending monthly meetings. In
addition, additional training hours for all firefighters would be added in 2018.
Chief Dreelan asked to move the expenses for uniforms and fire prevention education costs from the
Relief Association’s budget to the City’s general budget. In 2018, the cost for uniforms would be
page 14
$14,500, and the cost for Fire Prevention education would be $3,500. These would be on-going costs to
the City.
Chief Dreelan asked to add mobile data computers to Engine 10 and Engine 11 at a cost of $13,500. He
said that these computers link directly with the 911 center, and receive real-time event updates, provide
mapping, and access to building preplans.
Police Department – Chief of Police Kelly McCarthy proposed adding two sworn officer positions for
patrol to the department at a cost of $194,000. This would allow the department to increase
communications, effectiveness, efficiencies and officer wellness. The Council asked about staggering
the start dates of these two officers, starting one in January and the other in July.
Chief McCarthy requested the purchase of one additional squad car at a cost of $17,400, to be used for
traffic enforcement.
Chief McCarthy requested additional training for the department to improve performance and retention
through increased professionalism. The cost of this leadership training is $8,500.
Chief McCarthy requested money for the transition of a forfeited vehicle to the department at a cost of
$10,000 for the installation of emergency equipment.
Public Works – The Council discussed the City’s policy on Emerald Ash Borer and how the disease is
affecting the City’s trees. Best practices were discussed, which includes removing the affected trees and
everything around the tree.
It was noted that a new site for the October bonfire will be needed in 2018.
Councilmember Paper requested the City look at the costs associated with street sweeping, and if it
would be more cost effective to purchase our own sweeper.
The budget for crack sealing and chip sealing of the city streets was discussed. It was noted that there is
$200,000 in the budget for 2018. Councilmember Duggan requested an update be sent to the Council in
September.
The City’s assessment policy was discussed. It was noted that the City has charged a flat 6% interest
rate to property owners since approximately 2003, regardless of what the market rates have been. The
City could change the policy to charge 2% above the interest rate paid on the bonds funding the project.
The Council decided that topic will be discussed further at a later date.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek presented a proposal from the Streets Division for the purchase of a
wing/plow quick connect for the public works front end loader. The quick connects would allow the
loader to be changed over for plowing easily during snow storm events.
For the Parks Division, staff recommended the purchase of a 3/4-ton pickup with lift gate, light bar, cab
rack and plow package, for a cost of $47,700. The existing Chevrolet pickup purchased in 2008 would
be traded in.
The Parks Division is also requesting to purchase a zero turn mower to replace the existing mower
purchased in 2007, at a cost of $14,200, less trade-in value.
page 15
Ryan Ruzek updated the Council on the sump pump inspections. He stated that the project is 90%
complete, with a total of 1,900 inspections being completed so far. He noted the inspections had found
120 failures. A report will be given to the Council once the inspections have all been completed. The
Council will then discuss phase 2 of the project.
The Public Works Utility Division is requesting to purchase a ¾ ton pickup truck with utility boxes at a
cost of $54,000, including trade-in of the existing Ford F-250 pickup, which had been purchased in
2009.
Engineering – Ryan Ruzek explained the request for a GIS Technician position to assist the Engineering
and Community Development departments with mapping, studies, and general office duties. The
position is estimated to cost $98,720.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Council discussed an appointment to the Planning Commission to replace Commissioner Christine
Costello who resigned. The Council interviewed candidates on July 17, 2017. The consensus of the
Council was to recommend Michael Toth for appointment to this position.
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Neil Garlock
Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 16
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Tuesday, August 16, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the Mendota Heights City Council was held at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and
Petschel were also present.
Also present: City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Finance
Director Kristen Schabacker; City Clerk Lorri Smith, Community Development Director Tim Benetti,
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and Public Works Supt. Terry Blum.
2018 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Community Development--Tim Benetti, Community Development Director, discussed the Comp Plan
budget with the Council. He said that there will be a special council meeting in the future for the Comp
Plan. Councilmember Duggan encouraged the Councilmembers to review the current Comp Plan so
they are familiar with it.
Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director, explained the request for a new position to add a GIS Technician to
assist with mapping, records management, plans and specs, code enforcement, and other miscellaneous
duties.
Building Official - City Administrator Mark McNeill discussed the Building Official’s budget and
explained that it should be proportionate to the revenues generated from that department.
Dodd Road Traffic Study - The Council was in agreement that a traffic study should be completed for
the entire stretch of Dodd Road, using reserve funds. Councilmembers stressed the importance of
obtaining a impartial firm that currently has no connections to the building of the Vikings facility or
previous Dodd Road studies. The contractor should review how the fully-developed Vikings facility
will affect traffic patterns on Dodd Road.
Councilmember Duggan suggested the City send letters of concern regarding the traffic problems on
Dodd Road to the City’s current representatives at the county, state, and national levels.
Recycling – Ryan Ruzek explained how the recycling budget will increase due to an increase in funds
from Dakota County. It is recommended to increase the hours of the Recycling Coordinator position
from four hours per week, to ten hours per week. He said that the City will also be putting out an RFP
page 17
for a single waste management contractor for the city-owned facilities. An organics recycling site will
also be explored in 2018.
City Hall – Mark McNeill explained that the company that the City contracts with to do the cleaning for
the Police Department not be continued in 2018. The City’s Facilities Manager will be performing those
duties.
Mr. McNeill updated the Council on the remodeling in the lower level, and the continuing infiltration of
water into the lower level. The architect which has been hired by the City has provided a contruction
estimate for the building remodeling at approximately $250,000. In addition, he estimates that the City
will need to spend an additional $110,000 to fix the joints along the outside of the entire building to
prevent the water infiltration problem. It was noted that these expenses will be paid for out of the Water
Tower fund.
Fireworks – The Councilmembers decided that the City will not be funding the fireworks display in
2018, and discussed local fundraising efforts to provide fireworks.
Administration – McNeill reviewed the Administration budget. He discussed the proposal to add a part-
time Volunteer Coordinator position to the budget. It was noted that staff should complete an inventory
of the volunteer opportunities in our city.
McNeill presented a proposal to add a Communications Coordinator position to City staff. The position
would assist with social media, the two electronic newsletters, maps and brochures, and media
connections.
McNeill presented a proposal to replace the phone systems at City Hall, Public Works, and the Fire
Station at a cost of $65,000 to $70,000
Information Technology – Cheryl Jacobson updated the Council on the contract the City has with
LOGIS, which handles the City’s IT issues. It was noted that fiber line fees were added to the budget.
Par 3/Recreation – The Council discussed fees associated with recreation programs, and how those
should be set at a rate high enough to cover the cost of the program.
The option of partnering with the City of West St. Paul to share a positions was discussed. While the
Council indicated interest moving forward, the 2018 Budget would include the current staffing levels.
The Recreation Coordinator job description will need to be reviewed by Council before the current
vacancy is advertised.
The Council discussed the need to remove the damaged equipment at the skate board park, and revitalize
the landscaping along Wagon Wheel Trail, in order to open up the site. Staff will search for possible
grants to help with updating the park.
Public Works – Terry Blum, Public Works Superintendent, reviewed with the Council his list of
Improvement Packages. He updated the Council on the age and condition of the equipment proposed to
be replaced.
Fire – City Administrator McNeill presented an Improvement Package from the Fire Department to
replace the Assistant Chief’s vehicle at a cost of $38,000, which had not been included in the previous
budget discussion of the fire department.
page 18
The Council reviewed the overall budget, along with the Improvement Packages that were presented.
They discussed funding options for the larger equipment purchases.
The Councilmembers agreed to include the following in the 2018 base budget:
-2 additional police officers for patrol, adding one position in January; one in July, 2018
-Leadership training for the Police Department
-Increase City’s contribution by $500 to the Firefighters’ pensions
-Fire hoses/nozzles for the Fire Department
-Increase the Fire Department personnel budget for new firefighter training, officers pay to meetings,
and additional training for all firefighters
-Mobile computers for fire engines
-GIS Technician for Engineering/Community Development departments
-Tractor/loader for streets division
-Auto greaser for loader for streets division
-Quick connect for streets division
-3/4 ton pickup truck for parks division
-VOIP telephone system for city offices
-3/4 ton pickup truck for sewer division
City Administrator McNeill was asked to present a summary of the proposed budget to the Council for
their review at a future meeting. It was noted that the preliminary budget and tax levy will be presented
to the City Council in September.
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
ATTEST: Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 19
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special session of the Mendota Heights City Council was
held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and
Petschel were also present.
RESOLUTION 2017-66 INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR MINNEHAHA ACADEMY
Community Development Director Tim Benetti presented Resolution 2017-66, authorizing an interim
use permit for Minnehaha Academy. The Academy requested to use the former Brown College site,
located at 1340 Mendota Heights Road, for temporary placement of their Upper School, which
includes 9th through 12th grade students. The site is located in the I-Industrial zone.
The site consists of 5.46 acres total and is bounded by Mendota Heights Road to the north, Enterprise
Drive to the east, and Northland Drive to the south. The office building on the site includes a total of
56,650 square feet, which was used by Brown College through June of this year. The property
includes 270 surface parking spaces.
Minnehaha Academy has an enrollment of 350 students in grades 9-12 that would attend school at
this location. They are looking to lease this space for two years.
Staff recommended approval of the permit since the project complies with the policies and standards
of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff further recommended that the
permit be valid for up to two school year periods, starting August 24, 2017 and terminating June 30,
2019. A request for any extension of this permit beyond the expiration date of June 30, 2019, must
be submitted to the City at least sixty days prior to this date, and approved by the City Council. All
remodeling or interior work must be submitted for standard building permit review.
Comments from the public included:
Donna Harris, President of the School – introduced the school’s principal Jason Winschlag and their
contractor Mortenson Companies, which will be completing the remodeling of the building. Ms.
Harris stated the site fits Minnehaha Academy’s needs.
Councilmember Petschel expressed how happy she is that this site will fit the school’s needs and will
keep the Minnehaha Academy community together. She acknowledged the City’s Building Official
and Fire Inspector who are helping to facilitate this process.
Councilmember Duggan welcomed Minnehaha Academy and asked if the school anticipated having
evening activities at this site. Principal Winschlag stated they do not anticipate having evening
activities at this site, other than parent/teacher conferences or a few counselor/student/parent
meetings. There also may be a couple of small dances held in the cafeteria during the school year.
page 20
Councilmember Duggan asked school officials about volunteer staff helping to control traffic during
the first few days of school. President Harris stated they have had many offers from volunteers to
help the school.
Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution 2017-66 Approving an Interim Use Permit to
Minnehaha Academy for Temporary High School Use in the I-Industrial District, Located at 1340
Mendota Heights Road.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
SCHEDULE NEXT BUDGET MEETING
City Administrator McNeill presented optional dates for the next budget work session. The
Councilmembers agreed to meet on Wednesday, August 30, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.
Motion by Councilmember Petschel, seconded by Councilmember Paper, to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 21
DATE: September 5, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to State Statutes and the City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first
having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses can be granted only to clubs and
charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations. The licenses are subject to final approval by the
Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, is planning to hold their annual
reunion weekend activities on September 27 – 29, 2017. The events will take place as follows:
• Wednesday, Sept 27, Opus Sancti Thomae Major Benefactor Dinner in the Ciresi Atrium
and Sjoberg Flynn Arena.
• Thursday, Sept 28, Senior Alumni Dinner in Sjoberg Flynn Athletic Arena.
• Friday, Sept 29, Athletic Hall of Fame Ceremony and class reunion in the Sjoberg Flynn
Athletic Arena.
They have requested a temporary on-sale liquor license to allow for the sale of alcoholic
beverages at these events. St. Thomas Academy has submitted an application and a certificate of
insurance showing liquor liability coverage.
It should be noted that temporary on-sale liquor licenses have been issued in the past to St.
Thomas Academy and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with
no incidents or negative reports.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a temporary on-sale liquor license for St. Thomas
Academy for September 27th, 28th, and 29th, 2017, subject to approval of the Director of
Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
page 22
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 513 – No Parking within 10 feet of Mailboxes
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 513 amending the City Code to prohibit parking
within 10 feet of mailboxes.
BACKGROUND
The city has received complaints regarding parking in an area where new homes were
constructed in an established neighborhood. The employees building the new houses have been
parking legally, but not in a neighborly fashion, causing the owners of some established homes
to be unable to receive their mail, as mail delivery vehicles are unable to access mailboxes.
DISCUSSION
The Mendota Heights Police Department reviewed the City Code, and found that no enforcement
mechanism exists to prevent a parking in front of a mailbox. Federal rules also state that if a
mailbox is obstructed, the carrier will not deliver the mail to that box. Without a restriction in
place, a car could park in front of a mailbox daily, preventing mail service to that property.
BUDGET IMPACT
None as this would be an addition to the city code.
RECOMMENDATION
The Traffic Safety Committee recommends that Council approve Ordinance 513 amending Title
6, Chapter 2, Section 1 of the City Code to prohibit parking within 10 feet of a mailbox from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sundays and Holidays.
Notification would be made to contractors working within the City.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 513, “AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 1 OF THE CITY CODE”.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 23
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 513
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 1 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows:
The following prohibition is hereby added to Title 6, Chapter 2, Section 1, Paragraph N of the City
Code:
Parking prohibited in certain places: No person shall stop, stand or park a motor vehicle,
except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions
of a police officer or traffic control device, in any of the following places:
N. Within ten (10) feet of a clearly visible, residential mailbox which located directly adjacent
to curbside or on a public right-of-way between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except
Sundays and holidays.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 24
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Ordinance 514: No Parking on Lemay Shores Drive – West Side
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Ordinance 514 amending City Code; Title 6, Chapter 3, Section
3 prohibiting parking on the west side of Lemay Shores Drive.
BACKGROUND
The Mendota Heights Fire Marshall previously has expressed concerns regarding the street width
and parking on Lemay Shores Drive.
The street was constructed with surmountable curb and gutter at a width of 32 feet from the back
of curb to the back of curb on opposite side, leaving approximately 30 feet for driving and
parking. Given the curving nature of the street, there are times when it is difficult for opposing
traffic to pass when vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. The street has a large amount
of construction traffic as homes are still being constructed.
DISCUSSION
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) discussed this item at its July meeting, and recommends
that the west side of the street (the side with mailboxes) be signed “No Parking”. Cal-Atlantic
was also in favor of this proposed prohibition.
BUDGET IMPACT
The “No Parking” areas are required to be identified with street signs. Public Works would need
to purchase and install 10 signs at approximately $150 each (two posts, sign, and hardware).
RECOMMENDATION
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) recommends that the west side of Lemay Shores Drive be
signed “No Parking”.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Ordinance 514, “AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE”.
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 25
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 514
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows:
The following streets are hereby added to Title 6, Chapter 3, Section 3, Paragraph C of the City Code:
Parking prohibited on Certain Streets: No person shall park or leave standing any motor
vehicle on the following streets or portions thereof in the City:
Street Side Location
Lemay Shores Drive West Lemay Lake Road to End
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
___________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 26
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-75 – Calling for a Public Hearing on Hilltop Avenue Right-of-
Way Vacation
Introduction
The Council is asked to approve Resolution No. 2017-75 calling for a public hearing on a right-of-way
vacation of a small section of unused road right of way, which is located in the proposed Mendota
Heights Apartment PUD project site.
Background
The segment of Hilltop Avenue lies between the old Larson Garden Center site of 2160 Hwy 13 and the
Mendota Motel site of 2180 Hwy 13. It appears this roadway was originally platted as “Doughty Street”
under the “Adelia Taylor’s Addition to the City of St. Paul” in 1887. The street was re-platted or
dedicated later as “Hilltop Avenue” under the “Furlong Addition” of 1946 (refer to attached plat images).
Near the back edge of this right of way area, there is currently a 110-ft. long section of 10” PVC sanitary
sewer pipe, with two 4-inch laterals lines that splay out respectively towards the old garden center and
motel sites. The Developer intends to remove these lines, and install new sanitary service lines as part of
the overall redevelopment plans for this site.
Discussion
Pursuant to State Statute 412.851 Vacation of Streets: “The council may by resolution vacate any street,
alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of
the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated.
When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all
members of the council.”
Subject to the outcome of this public hearing process, this segment of unused Hilltop Avenue right of way
will essentially be added or incorporated into the new final plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”, as
proposed by Michael Development of MN, LLC (refer to attached preliminary plat map).
The developer plans to provide a 22-ft. wide drainage and utility easement starting near the new entry
point off Hwy 13, which will extend easterly into the project site by approx. 250-ft. At that point, the
easement widens out to 32 feet for approx. for approximately 170-ft. in length to the back edge of the site.
This new easement should be sufficient to meet the developer’s needs for this site, and any additional city
or private utilities that may be needed in the future.
page 27
This platted right-of-way section is unbuildable or undevelopable on its own; serves no public purpose;
and is not in the best interest of the city to retain.
The public hearing date is scheduled for the October 3, 2017 regular meeting. Notice of this hearing will
be published twice in the local newspaper, and hearing notices will be mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject site, which includes all registered property owners that may still lie within the original
Adelia Taylor’s Addition and the existing Furlong Addition.
Budget Impact
There are no budge impacts.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2017-75,
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF HILLTOP
AVENUE, GENERALLY SITUATED BETWEEN HIGHWAY 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE
WEST AND THOMAS STREET RIGHT OF WAY TO THE EAST.
Action Required
This action setting a public hearing requires a simple majority vote. Since this request was not initiated
by a petition, any future action to officially approve this street vacation requires a 4/5th vote of the
Council.
page 28
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-75
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A STREET VACATION OF
HILLTOP AVENUE LYING EASTERLY OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 13
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
THOMAS STREET (f/k/a MISSISSIPPI AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has received a request from Michael
Development of Minnesota, LLC to vacate a segment of unused Hilltop Avenue right-of-way,
lying easterly of State Trunk Highway No. 13 right-of-way and the westerly right-of-way line of
Thomas Street (f/k/a Mississippi Avenue) to the east, and described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Michael Development is seeking to incorporate this segment of Hilltop
Avenue right-of-way into the proposed final plat of Mendota Heights Apartments; and
WHEREAS, this segment of Hilltop Avenue right-of-way has been determined to be
unbuildable; serves no public purpose; and is not in the best interest of the city to retain; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §412.851, the City Council may by
resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own
motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public
grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mendota Heights City Council will
consider the vacation of such Hilltop Avenue Right-of-Way, and a public hearing shall be held
on such proposed vacation on October 3, 2017, before the City Council in the Mendota Heights
City Hall, located at 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to give published, posted, and mailed notice of such hearing as
required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 29
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Vacation of Hilltop Avenue Description:
That portion of Hilltop Avenue, as dedicated on the plats of ADELIA TAYLOR'S ADDITION
and FURLONG ADDITION, according to the recorded plats thereof, Dakota County.
Minnesota, which lies easterly of the easterly line of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 19-98 and lies westerly of the westerly line
of Thomas Street.
page 30
page 31
page 32
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commissioner Resignation/ Replacement Appointment Process
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to accept the resignation of Michael Toth from his position on the Parks and
Recreation Commission, and give direction as to the process to fill the resulting vacancy.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Toth was recently appointed to a seat on the Planning Commission. As such, he submitted a letter of
resignation from the Parks and Recreation Commission, where he had previously served.
The City Council is asked to give direction as to how the new vacancy should be filled. It may either:
• Contact the previous three remaining candidates from earlier this year for new interviews; or,
• Contact those candidates, but also advertise the vacancy so that new people who might be
interested would also have an opportunity to be considered.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council should accept the resignation of Michael Toth, and direct staff to advertise for applicants as
well as notify the previous applicants who had not been selected.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the resignation of Michael Toth from his position on
the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission, effective September 5, 2017.
It should further direct staff to advertise the Commissioner vacancy, and notify previous 2017 candidates.
Mark McNeill
City Adminsitrator
page 33
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Goals and Objectives Update
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this agenda items is to provide a quarterly update regarding the City’s 18th month
Goals and Objectives Plan
BACKGROUND
At a workshop held May 22, the Council and City staff set 8 major goals which they aim to
accomplish prior to the end of December, 2018. Staff subsequently identified action steps which
would be needed to accomplish the goals.
In June, the Council adopted the 18 month Goals and Objectives documents. So that progress
can be monitored, approximately every 90 days staff is to report back on what has been
accomplished. The progress report can be seen in the accompanying document. Future updates
will be provided quarterly.
ACTION REQUIRED
Council should receive the update.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 34
1 | Page Action Plan for 2017‐2018 City Council Goals Abbreviations: CA—City Administrator ACA—Assistant City Administrator PC—Police Chief FC—Fire Chief PWD—Public Works Director CDD—Community Development Director FD—Finance Director RC—Recreation Coordinator Goal One: Recruit and Retain a Qualified Workforce ACTION ITEM 1: Recruitment and Hiring BUDGET: $ TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Volunteer Coordinator position o Create job description and assess options for filling CA/ACA/PC 11/2017 GIS Assistant position o Develop job description for a proposed full‐time position CDD/PWD 11/2017 Communications Coordinator position o Create job description; consider joint position with potential Volunteer Coordinator ACA 11/2017 STATUS: 6/17 CA: Each of these positions will be dependent upon being included in FY 2018 budget. Communications Coordinator position was included in 2017 budget, but remained unfilled, due personnel funding needs elsewhere in the system. 9/17 CA: GIS Coordinator and Communications Coordinator proposed in preliminary FY 18 budget ACTION ITEM 2: POLICE DEPARTMENT: Recruit, hire and retain/maintain qualified Police Officer personnel to full FTE compliment BUDGET: $ STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Review McGrath Study and consider future staffing allocation models PC 9/2017 page 35
2 | Page STATUS: 6/17 PC…From the current Police Officer recruitment process three offers were extended and accepted. New members will start mid‐June to early‐July. Discussion of other police staffing needs will take place during FY 2018 budget prep. 9/17 PC: Three police officers added, and are currently undergoing FTO orientation. Two additional Police Officer Positions included in preliminary FY 2018 budget…One to start 1/1/18, and one to start 7/1/18 ACTION ITEM 3: Provide incentives for health and wellness among employees BUDGET: $ TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Develop wellness incentive program within the Police Department o Consider extending to other city staff, if feasible ACA/PC 1/2018 STATUS: Goal Two: Address City Facilities, Infrastructure and Equipment Needs ACTION ITEM 4: Complete a Facility Needs Assessment to determine future space needs and uses BUDGET: $ TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Schedule presentation of Fire Department building study at future City Council Work Session FC 11/2017 Consider and plan for long term space needs/uses for facilities o Consider “campus” concept—City Hall, Police and Fire at one location o Include community space, senior center o Renovate parking lot and sidewalks, as appropriate CA/PC/FC/RC Mid‐2018 Consider Council Chambers redesign for ADA compliance and efficient use of space CA/ACA 12/31/17 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Funding for additional architectural work for Fire Station discussion included in preliminary FY 18 budget, but funding for discussion to be started in FY 17 is needed to get a head start The Council should determine how the options should be reviewed, and by whom. page 36
3 | Page ACTION ITEM 5: Improve Building security at City Hall BUDGET: $10,000 STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Complete installation of door access and panic button systems within identified building areas CA/ACA 12/31/17 STATUS: 9/5/17 ACA: Three quotes for door access and panic button systems have been received and are under review. ACTION ITEM 6: Complete remediation of downstairs mold issues and Police Department remodel BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Bid document before City Council for approval CA 8/2017 Award contract at City Council Meeting CA 9/2017 Work start date CA 10/2017 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Plans for lower level work to be considered by Council in 9/17 ACTION ITEM 7: Upgrade audio‐visual system in Council Chambers BUDGET: $ TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Seek quote from vendor on a systems design which incorporates replacement technology for TVs, projector, overhead camera, and possibly video cameras (Coordinate with NDC4) ACA 11/2017 STATUS: page 37
4 | Page ACTION ITEM 8: PUBLIC WORKS: Consider purchase of a street sweeper BUDGET: $200,000 STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Present cost/benefit analysis of city‐owned street sweeper PWD 8/2017 STATUS: 6/17 PWD: Pricing is available. Discuss during FY 2018 Budget review. 9/17 PWD: Pricing and current contract costs researched, and discussed with Council during Budget Review. Decision made to retain current practice of contract sweeping. ACTION ITEM 9: FIRE DEPARTMENT: Establish a Rescue 10 Committee to plan for the replacement of equipment BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Determine replacement plan FC 12/31/17 STATUS: 6/17 FC: The prior Rescue 10 committee has been disbanded. A new committee should be formed to determine fire apparatus needs in the next 3‐5 years, but only after the Council sets forth parameters of the Fire Department’s long term equipment needs. Goal Three: Create an Agreed Upon Vision for Key Development/Redevelopment Areas in the City ACTION ITEM 10: Create short and long term visions for development/redevelopment areas within the city BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME City Council to discuss and examine ideas and options (e.g. The Village, Bourne Property) o Solicit property owners and community input as appropriate CDD/CA 3/2018 STATUS: 6/17 CA: Village Discussion underway soon; seeking input from local business regarding Bourn Property. 9/17 CA: Discussion of Dodd Road traffic study to Council in 9/17. Development of Village lots may be impacted by study. page 38
5 | Page ACTION ITEM 11: Ready Bourne property for sale BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Work with local companies to identify next steps in the purchase/use of the property CDD TBD Develop contingency plan/alternatives for site CDD TBD Consider relocation of storage for public works materials and opportunities to cover costs of material relocations PWD Prior to Sale STATUS: 6/17 CA: Phase One Environmental Review completed—indicated that the only issues are those expected relating to septic system removals, and need to clean up after relocation of Public Works materials. ACTION ITEM 12: Examine appropriate uses of City incentives in support of Economic Development BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Conduct business retention survey (utilize resources through DEED, Dakota County CDA) CDD 12/31/18 Facilitate/support TIF redevelopment projects CDD As needed STATUS: Goal Four: Enhance Parks and Recreation Services and Facilities ACTION ITEM 13: Create plan to bridge generational gap through community space/multigenerational facility BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME Include with Facility Needs Assessment under Action Item 4 CA 7/2018 page 39
6 | Page ACTION ITEM 14: Upgrade parks facilities‐e.g. warming house, lights at Mendakota Park BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Review and update Trail Improvement Maintenance Plan PWD 7/2018 Analyze tennis courts infrastructure and determine improvement needs and schedule PWD/RC 7/2018 Analyze need for recreational lighting at Mendakota; complete cost/benefit analysis of lighting installation. RC/ P&R Commission 7/2018 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Action seeking Council approval for Marie Parks Tennis Courts resurfacing, and lighting re‐do at Friendly Hills on for 9/17. Contract awarded in July for reconstruction of warming house at Friendly Hills Park. ACTION ITEM 15: Designate/develop additional athletic/soccer fields BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Analyze current use including user data, demand for additional fields , costs and user charges (work with MHAA) RC/ P&R Commission 7/2018 Investigate joint usage with City of West St. Paul, ISD 197 City Council/CA/RC 12/31/17 Investigate vacant properties for partnership with local non‐profits City Council/CA/RC 7/2018 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Budget discussion with Council about possible partnership on Rec programs with WSP. Determines to be not ready now, but continue in 2018. Joint meeting with WSP and ISD 197 to discuss joint facilities set for October. ACTION ITEM 16: Expand Community Engagement activities BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Inventory existing community engagement programs and activities CA/ACA/RC 9/2017 Conduct a user survey to better understand community/resident needs (senior, youth) ACA/RC 10/2017 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Deferred until Recreation Program Coordinator position filled. page 40
7 | Page Goal Five: Address Natural Resource and Environmental Sustainability ACTION ITEM 17: Consider establishment of an Environmental Review Committee BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Determine Environment Review Committee mission and role o Storm water treatment o Invasive plants o Preservation of existing resources P&R Commission/ PWD/RC 3/2018 STATUS: ACTION ITEM 18: Continue pollinator friendly policies for public property BUDGET: No funding needed STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME Educate the public regarding the benefits of pollinator friendly policies ACA/ with Master Gardeners 12/31/18 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Continued articles in Heights Highlights and Friday News. City‐sponsored giveaways of plants at 8/3/17 demonstration at Victoria and Douglas event. ACTION ITEM 19: Deal with Impending Emerald Ash Borer Infestation BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Share information with the public regarding treatment on private lands ACA/PWD 12/31/18 Provide appropriate levels of funding for treatment and eradication of publically‐owned trees in FY18 and FY 19 Budgets City Council/ CA/PWD 12/31/17 Review and implement EAB management plan PWD 5/2018 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Increased funding for EAB‐related tree removal in FY 18 proposed budget. page 41
8 | Page Goal Six: Implement the 10 year budget plan based on Ehlers work ACTION ITEM 20: Review Sanitary Utility Budget BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Review existing I/I studies and review funding sources for sewer maintenance PWD 12/2017 STATUS: 6/17 PWD: Inspection of private sewer connections from sump pumps program will be completed by 7/31/17. Follow‐ups will then start. 9/17 PWD: Final report from consultant due by the end of September. ACTION ITEM 21: Review Storm Water Utility Budget BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME Review storm water utility funding rate PWD 12/2017 Update storm water CIP including pond maintenance PWD 7/2018 STATUS: 6/17 FD: Utility billing rates to be reviewed during FY 18 budget preparation. ACTION ITEM 22: Consolidate CIPs into one document BUDGET: NA STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Create infrastructure CIP including Streets, Sanitary, Storm, Trails, Ponds PWD 7/2018 STATUS: 6/17 CA: Decide in time for FY 18 Budget Consideration. 9/17 CA: Completed for FY 18 page 42
9 | Page Goal Seven: Establish Comprehensive Communications Strategy ACTION ITEM 23: Audit City Communications efforts and tools for effectiveness and outcomes BUDGET: N/A STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Inventory City communications pieces and tools ACA/CA/PC 3/2018 Develop Communications Plan for traditional and social media ACA/CA/PC 3/2018 STATUS: 6/17 CA: If Communications Coordinator position filled as part of FY 18 budget, include in the recommendation/decision process. 9/17 CA: Communications Coordinator proposed for preliminary FY 18 budget ACTION ITEM 24: Improve timing of communications between staff and City Council regarding financial information BUDGET: N/A STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Develop and implement quarterly and monthly schedule of information FD 9/2017 STATUS: ACTION ITEM 25: Complete website redesign and content revisions BUDGET: $15,000 STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Edit and/or rewrite site content incorporating new ideas (linked with online applications and forms, e‐commerce and handouts action item) dependent on fiber availability ACA 11/2017 STATUS: 6/17 ACA…Staff continues to work with GovOffice to develop site redesign direction and templates. page 43
10 | Page ACTION ITEM 26: Connect to Dakota County Fiber Ring BUDGET: $120,000 +/‐ STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Continue to work with LOGIS and Dakota County on fiber connections to the Fire Department, Public Works, and City Hall buildings—determine timing of installation, project management and financing CA/ACA 9/2017 STATUS: 6/17 ACA…City Council approved the release of Request for Quotes, as prepared by LOGIS for installation of fiber to all three buildings, at their June 6 meeting. RFQ’s were released by LOGIS on June 8 and were due June 30. 9/17 ACA: Connection to Fire Dept. authorized by Council in July. Installation to occur this fall. Coordinating remaining work to PW Building and City Hall between LOGIS and Dakota County. ACTION ITEM 27: Enhance customer service and communication to residents and consumers BUDGET: $TBD STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Research and determine appropriate city use of e‐commerce options and other payment methods FD/ACA 3/2018 Upgrade online city applications and forms for accuracy and ease of use by residents/consumers All Department Heads 3/2018 Update various handouts (Community Development & Engineering) and increase accessibility of handouts CDD/PWD 3/2018 Research signage that informs of potential development/redevelopment of a site (communications tool consideration) CDD 9/2017 STATUS: 6/17 ACA…First two steps dependent upon connection to fiber optic. page 44
11 | Page Goal Eight: Conduct Dodd Road Traffic Analysis ACTION ITEM 28: Work with MNDOT to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on Dodd Road BUDGET: $30‐40,000 STAFF RESPONSIBLETIMEFRAME Review impact of area developments (i.e. Village lots, Vikings development) PWD/CDD 12/31/17 Seek improvements to current traffic movement issues (review Village traffic study, investigate roundabouts, etc. with MNDOT). Determine funding options. PWD/CDD 8/2018 STATUS: 9/17 CA: Recommendation for proposal for consultant to perform traffic study on Dodd Road to Council in 9/17. page 45
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Renovation of Marie Park Tennis Courts
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to consider the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation
Commission to rebuild the tennis courts at Marie Park.
Background
The tennis courts at Marie Park were originally constructed in the late 1980’s. Over time, the
courts have been resurfaced and cracks have been filled and patched multiple times. However,
weather elements and general wear and tear have resulted in the courts being in overall poor
condition.
At its August 8 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and discussed how to
proceed with the improvements to the tennis courts. Options discussed included cleaning and
resurfacing the existing court surface, rebuilding and replacing the court surface with new
asphalt, rebuilding and replacing the courts with a sport tile system, and leaving the courts in
their current condition (the “do nothing” option).
After a lengthy discussion, the Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the
courts be rebuilt and the current surface be replaced with new asphalt. It is expected that with
proper maintenance every five to seven years, the estimated life expectancy of the new courts
would be 30 years.
If the recommendation is accepted, the next step in the process would be to complete the design
work, develop specifications and construction documents, and bid the project. Construction
would then take place next year.
Budget Impact
The Commission had planned for and budgeted $15,000 for improvements to the tennis courts in
2017 from the Parks Special Fund. If the City Council accepts the recommendation of the
Commission for the complete rebuild the estimated cost of replacement is $60,000 to $70,000.
page 46
Assistance with the costs of renovation may be available through a grant opportunity provided by
the United States Tennis Association. Staff is working on assembling the required information
in order to submit a grant application for the renovation of the Marie Park tennis courts.
The funds for the project which aren’t covered by grants will come from the Special Parks Fund.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the acceptance of the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation to
renovate the Marie Park Tennis Courts with the installation of new asphalt and authorize staff to
begin the design process.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, accept the Parks and Recreation Commission’s
recommendation to rebuild the Marie Park tennis courts and authorize staff to begin the design
process.
page 47
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Recreation Program Coordinator Job Description Revision
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve revisions to the Recreation Program Coordinator job
description.
Background
Staff has reviewed the Recreation Program Coordinator position description and updated the
description to more accurately reflect the essential functions of the position. The Recreation
Program Coordinator performs a variety of professional and administrative duties related to
parks and recreation programming and facility use. The position is responsible for the day-to-
day operations of the Mendota Heights Par 3 golf course and for the overall planning,
development, coordination, implementation and management of youth and adult park and
recreation programs, activates and special events.
The Recreation Program Coordinator position is assigned to pay grade 17 on the 2017 Pay
Classification Plan scale. The 2017 pay range for the position is $51,770 - $62,926. The
revisions to the description do not impact the placement within the current pay scale.
If approved, staff will move forward with the position posting and the recruitment process which
was previously authorized.
Budget Impact
The revisions to the job description do not impact the budget.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that city council approve the updated Recreation Program Coordinator
position description.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the revisions to the Recreation Program
Coordinator job description.
page 48
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TITLE: RECREATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR
Department:
Parks and Recreation
Accountable To:
Assistant City Administrator
Class Code: Exempt
Pay Grade: 17
Primary Location:
City Hall
Normal Hours:
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.*
Date of Last Revision:
July, 2017
*This position will be required to occasionally work nights, weekends and holidays.
Job Purpose:
Performs a variety of professional and administrative duties related to Parks and Recreation
programming and facilities use. The Recreation Program Coordinator is responsible for the day‐to‐
day operations of the Mendota Heights Par 3 golf course and the overall planning, development,
coordination, implementation and management of youth and adult park and recreation programs,
activities and special events.
Essential Duties
1. Plan and coordinate park and recreation programs and activities including creating program
plans, program budgets, allocating and organizing resources, developing schedules and
calendars. Evaluates programs and activities to ensure that they are achieving goals and
objectives.
2. Coordinate the use and scheduling of park facilities such as baseball fields, park shelters,
tennis courts and soccer fields by the general public, youth athletic associations, schools,
special event groups, community groups and city programs. Coordinate preparation, set up
and maintenance of facilities and fields with other city departments.
3. Manage day‐to‐day operations of the Par 3 golf course, including maintenance, clubhouse
and league functions. Establish work and maintenance schedules, manage vendor contracts
and ensure coverage of clubhouse duties including cleaning, handling of guest payments
and cash receipts, scheduling of tee‐times, answering phones and greeting customers.
4. Develop and implement policies, guidelines and procedures for recreation programs and
Par 3 operations.
5. Administer the park and recreation online registration system and coordinate the
registration process for recreation programs.
6. Assist in coordinating park renovation and improvement projects. Identify needed park and
facility improvements, develop recommendations on the upkeep, upgrade, construction
and renovation. Participate in the development of request for proposals or cost estimates.
Prepare budget recommendations, monitor expenditures and provide project management,
as needed.
page 49
2
7. Assist the Assistant City Administrator in the preparation and administration of recreation
program and Par 3 budgets. Track revenue, expenses and inventory. Provide financial
reports, as requested.
8. Manage and supervise seasonal recreation and Par 3 staff including hiring, providing work
direction, developing work schedules and performance management.
9. Act as staff liaison and programming advisor to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Prepare reports, monthly meeting agendas, minutes, and recommendations.
10. Assist the Assistant City Administrator in the development and implementation of
marketing, promotions and public relations materials for Par 3 and recreation programs and
activities.
11. Perform community outreach related to community events and activities. Coordinate city’s
involvement in community events.
12. Serve as a liaison between the City and youth athletic associations, ISD 197, and other
organizations. Attend meetings of the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Commission,
and various other boards and represent the city on issues relating to parks and recreation.
Minimum Qualifications
A Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college in Parks and Recreation Administration,
Public Administration, Recreation Management, Sports Management or closely related
field.
Two (2) years of increasingly responsible experience in a variety of recreation related
programs preferably in a municipal setting, including 1 year supervisory experience.
A combination of education and five (5) years of experience may be substituted.
Valid Driver’s License.
First Aid/CPR Certified (or ability to obtain certification within the first six months).
Desired Qualifications
Certified Parks and Recreation Professional (CPRP).
Two (2) years of experience in managing and programming a golf course
Two (2) years of experience in a service industry setting.
page 50
3
Knowledge/Skills/Abilities Required
A. Thorough knowledge of the principles, practices, organizational purposes and
administration of parks and recreational programming for all ages and abilities.
B. Knowledge in developing and administering recreation and youth programs.
C. Ability to develop, coordinate and direct varied activities involved in a community
recreation program.
D. Knowledge of principles and processes for providing customer service.
E. Ability to effectively communicate verbally and in writing to diverse populations.
F. Ability to establish and maintain positive and effective working relationships with the
general public, other employees, community groups, athletic associations and school
officials and public officials.
G. Knowledge of the rules and etiquette of golf.
H. Knowledge of league scheduling (e.g. softball, golf).
I. Knowledge of business and management principles
J. Ability to build effective work teams committed to organizational goals.
K. Ability and willingness to work evenings, weekends and holidays as needed.
L. Strong organizational skills.
Core Competencies of Position
Knowledge of work rules. Develops and maintains a thorough working knowledge of all
city and applicable jurisdictional policies and procedures in order to facilitate compliance
with such policies and procedures by all staff members.
Commitment to customer service. Demonstrates by personal example the service quality
and integrity expected from all staff members. Represents Mendota Heights in a
professional manner to the general public, employees and to other outside
contact/constituencies in a manner that helps maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’
reputation as well‐managed and citizen‐oriented.
Communication. Confers regularly with and keeps immediate supervisor informed of all
important matters pertaining to those functions and job responsibilities for which the
employee is accountable.
Productivity and work organization. Demonstrate ability to plan, organize and accomplish
work in a timely and efficient manner.
Problem solving and decision making. Exercise good judgment, analytical thinking, and
independent thinking as it relates to departmental and city procedures, problems and
policy interpretations.
Safety rules and procedures. Develop knowledge of and observe the safety policies and
procedures of the city. Perform tasks in a safe and efficient manner while using appropriate
safety equipment, clothing and devices.
Physical Activities/Requirements
Positions in this class typically require: sitting, walking, feeling, manual dexterity, grasping,
talking, hearing and seeing. There is sustained exposure to computer keyboards and video
page 51
4
screens. Employee is occasionally required to climb or balance; stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl.
Sedentary work: The employee must occasionally lift, carry, and/or move up to 50 pounds.
Environmental Conditions‐Work is performed in a well‐lit, well ventilated and temperature
controlled office. Noise level is at a minimum while in the office. Noise level is moderately loud
when in the field.
While performing duties of this job, the employee occasionally works in outside weather
conditions.
Equipment and Tools‐Computer, cash register, calculator, copy and fax machine, phone,
automobile, other basic office machines and various sports equipment used in recreation
programs.
Safety Policy
It is the responsibility of every employee of the City of Mendota Heights to know and observe
the safety policies and procedures of the city. Each employee is expected to perform their
tasks in a safe and efficient manner while using appropriate safety equipment, clothing and
devices.
Miscellaneous Information
Final candidate must satisfactorily pass a criminal background investigation and reference
verification. Individual will be required to submit to and pass a drug and/or alcohol screen.
The above description is intended to describe the general functions, skills and knowledge of
the person assigned to this job. These examples are intended only as illustrative of various
types of work performed, and are not all inclusive. The employee may be required to perform
other related duties as assigned. The job description is subject to change as the needs of the
employer and requirements of the job change.
page 52
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2017 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: Out of State Travel – 2017 Firehouse Expo
COMMENT:
INTRODUCION:
The Council is asked to authorize the Assistant Fire Chief to attend the 2017 Firehouse Expo in
Nashville, Tennessee.
DISCUSSION:
City Resolution No. 98-04 requires that all out of state travel for city council and city employees
be approved by the city council in advance.
The 2017 Firehouse Expo is being held October 17 to October 21, 2017, in Nashville, TN. This
is a great experience for firefighters and offers all the behind-the-scenes tools, training,
equipment and exposure to the ideas and inspiration firefighters need to be the best. There are
32 hands-on training programs, hybrid workshops, and 150 main conference sessions. I am
requesting permission to attend this out-of-town conference.
I would take time off from my regular job to attend this conference.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The total (hotel, airfare, meals and registration) is approximately $1,800. There is currently
$5,900 in the 2017 fire training budget for conferences and schools.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Fire Chief and City Administrator recommend my out of state travel to the Firehouse Expo
October 17-21, 2017, in Nashville, TN.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council agrees, it should pass a motion authorizing me to attend the Firehouse Expo in
Nashville, TN, October 17-21, 2017.
page 53
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements –Change Order #2
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Change Order #2 for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington
Street Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
Mendota Heights awarded a contract to Stantec for the design, surveying and inspection of the
Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement Project and awarded a construction
contract to Valley Paving for the installation of these improvements.
Due to unforeseen conditions and the inclusion of additional tasks, the existing will need to be
modified.
DISCUSSION
Change Order # 2 includes additional tasks to install the sanitary sewer and additional street
quantities as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
• Revised Sanitary Sewer design ($46,039.70)
• Storm Sewer Modifications ($21,747)
• Street typical section due to poor soils ($62,100)
The total of Change Order #2 is $129,886.70.
BUDGET IMPACT
The estimated project cost for the Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvements
was $2,111,564, the contract with Valley Paving is $1,650,939.72. The current project estimate
including Change Order #2 is $1,804,585.00. The tables below include the breakdown of costs
as compared to the March 28, 2017 update.
page 54
PROJECT COSTS – PRE-BID
ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT TOTAL
STREET REHABILITATION (Single Family) $227,697 $45,539 $273,236
STREET REHABILITATION (Multi Family) $693,398 $138,680 $832,078
STREET REHABILITATION (MHR) $832,372 $166,474 $998,846
STREET REHABILITATION (CONDON CT) $120,672 $24,134 $144,806
SANITARY SEWER (CONDON CT) $237,426 $47,485 $284,911
Totals $2,111,564 $422,312 $2,533,877
PROJECT COSTS - CURRENT
ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT TOTAL
STREET REHABILITATION (Single Family) $188,950 $37,790 $226,740
STREET REHABILITATION (Multi Family) $537,756 $107,551 $645,307
STREET REHABILITATION (MHR) $741,285 $148,257 $889,542
STREET REHABILITATION (CONDON CT) $141,909 $28,382 $170,291
SANITARY SEWER (CONDON CT) $194,685 $38,937 $233,622
Totals $1,804,585
$2,165,502
FUNDING SOURCES – PRE-BID
ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT
MUNICIPAL
BONDS
MSA
FUNDS
UTILITY
FUNDS
Kensington Multi-Family $832,078 $336,594 $471,076
24,408
Kensington Single Family $273,236 $118,546 $154,690
Mendota Heights Road $998,846 $311,434 $311,350 300,000 76,062
Condon Court Street $144,806 $23,700 $111,326 9,780
Sanitary Sewer $284,911 $284,911
Totals $2,533,877 $1,075,185 $1,048,342 $300,000 $110,250
FUNDING SOURCES - CURRENT
ITEM COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT
MUNICIPAL
BONDS
MSA
FUNDS
UTILITY
FUNDS
Kensington Multi-Family $645,307 $250,577 $369,104
25,626
Kensington Single Family $226,740 $86,750 $120,446
19,544
Mendota Heights Road $889,542 $311,434 $189,555 300,000 88,553
Condon Court Street $170,291 $23,700 $128,255 18,336
Sanitary Sewer $233,622 $233,622
Totals $2,165,502 $906,083 $807,360 $300,000 $152,059
Funding for the change orders is not expected to have a major impact to the overall project costs.
The following tables show an estimated update to the special assessments:
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – MULTI FAMILY HOME
Assessable Costs $501,156
Assessment $250,577 50%
Assessable Units 288
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $870.06 $250,577 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment in Feasibility Report $1,318.92
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – SINGLE FAMILY HOME
Assessable Costs $173,500
Assessment $86,750
50%
Assessable Units 33
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $2,630 $86,750 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment in Feasibility Report $3,950.00
page 55
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
Assessable Costs $634,930
Assessment $317,465 50%
Assessable Units 5727 FT
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $55.43/FT $311,434.00 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $54.38/FT $311,434.00 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment in Feasibility Report $102.28/FT $585,778.50 50%
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – CONDON COURT
Assessable Costs $130,571
Assessment $65,285.4
50%
Assessable Units 6
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $10,881 $60,472.02 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $3,950.00 $23,700.00 20%
Proposed Unit Assessment in Feasibility Report $3,950.00 $23,700.00 20%
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS – SANITARY SEWER – CONDON COURT
Assessable Costs $233,622
Assessment $233,622
100%
Assessable Units 6
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $38,937 $233,622 100%
Proposed Unit Assessment in Feasibility Report $47,156.77 $282,940.62 100%
A portion of the storm sewer modification could potentially be charges to the sanitary sewer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve Change Order #2.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion authorizing Change Order #2 for the
Mendota Heights Road & Kensington Street Improvement project. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 56
Date August 29, 2017
Bond No: 2257986
Description of Work
A).
B).
Contract Unit Total
No.Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
PART A
1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $6,566.00 $6,566.00
2 BID SANITARY DESIGN DIRECTIONAL
DRILL BORE HOLE
LUMP SUM 1 $15,996.75 $15,996.75
3 EXCAVATION OF BID DESIGN MH-2
WHICH UNCOVERED THE SATURATED
SOFT SOILS. MAINTAIN PUMPS AND
EXCAVATION DAILEY SINCE SOIL
ENCOUNTERED
LUMP SUM 1 $24,728.55 $24,728.55
4 BLAKE WELL DRILLING SOIL BORINGS
TAKEN AUGUST 2, 2017
LUMP SUM 1 $1,093.31 $1,093.31
5 REMOVE AND REPLACE 6' CHAIN LINK
FENCE FABRIC, SALVAGE AND
REINSTALL FENCE TOP BAR
LIN FT 20 $62.00 $1,240.00
6 REMOVE 30" RCP FLARED END EACH 1 $1,320.00 $1,320.00
7 REMOVE 30" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 10 $26.00 $260.00
8 BULKHEAD STORM SEWER PIPE EACH 3 $844.00 $2,532.00
9 CLEAR AND GRUB TREES AND
DEADFALL
LUMP SUM 1 $4,785.00 $4,785.00
10 DITCH GRADING NORTH AND SOUTH
OF CATTLE PASS
LUMP SUM 1 $9,240.00 $9,240.00
11 FERTILIZER TYPE 1 POUND 250 $0.60 $150.00
12 SEEDING ACRE 0.3 $310.00 $93.00
13 SEED MIXTURE 36-711 POUND 60 $19.20 $1,152.00
14 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET,
CATEGORY 3
SQ YD 500 $1.95 $975.00
15 ADJUST BUILD OF MH-1 LUMP SUM 1 ($451.71)($451.71)
16 ADJUST BUILD OF MH-2 LUMP SUM 1 ($450.00)($450.00)
17 8" HDPE PIPE SEWER-DIRECTIONAL
DRILLED
LIN FT 82 $53.70 $4,403.40
18 8" PVC PIPE SEWER LIN FT -82 $71.30 ($5,846.60)
SUBTOTAL PART A $67,786.70
Soil corrective work on Mendota Heights Road due to soft soils within the trench zone
Redesign of the sanitary sewer within Mendota Heights Road from MH-6 to MH-1 to avoid a
historic water body encountered beneth the roadway fill placed at the original construction of
Mendota Heights Road
Owner: City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Contractor: Valley Paving, Inc., 8800 13th Ave. E., Shakopee, MN 55380
Bond Co: North American Specialty Insurance
This Contract Change Order provides for the following:
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD AND KENSINGTON STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. MH2014009 AND MH201616
STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193803763
193803763-CHO2.xlsm
page 57
Contract Unit Total
No.Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
PART B
3" CLEAR ROCK TON 1500 $37.35 $56,025.00
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SQ YD 4500 $1.35 $6,075.00
SUBTOTAL PART B $62,100.00
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER 2 $129,886.70
193803763-CHO2.xlsm
page 58
Original Contract Amount $1,650,939.72
Previous Change Orders $42,345.45
This Change Order $129,886.70
Revised Contract Amount (including this change order)$1,823,171.87
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES
Original Contract Times:
Milestone Completion (MHR Base Pavement):September 1, 2017
Substantial Completion:November 15, 2017
Ready for final Payment:June 15, 2018
Time change for this Change Order:
Milestone Completion (MHR Base Pavement):
September 22, 2017
Substantial Completion:
Ready for final Payment:
Contract Time with all approved Change Orders:
Milestone Completion (MHR Base Pavement):September 1, 2017
September 22, 2017
September 1, 2017
Substantial Completion:November 15, 2017
Ready for final Payment:June 15, 2018
Recommended for Approval by:
STANTEC
Date:
Approved by Contractor:Approved by Owner:
VALLEY PAVING, INC.CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Date Date
cc: Owner, Contractor, Bonding Company, Stantec
Milestone Completion (Base Pavement on Stockbridge Road
and Whitfield Drive):
Milestone Completion (Base Pavement on Stockbridge Road
and Whitfield Drive):
Milestone Completion (MHR Base Pavement Between MH-6
and MH-2):
Milestone Completion (MHR Base Pavement Between MH-6
and MH-2):
193803763-CHO2.xlsm
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-62 –Public Hearing on an Easement Vacation at 950 Mendota
Heights Road - St. Thomas Ice Arena
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve Resolution 2017-62 for a public hearing on a utility easement
vacation started by a petition of abutting land owners. In this case, the only abutting land owner
is St. Thomas Ice Arena.
BACKGROUND
An easement was platted over a private water service line with the construction of the St.
Thomas Ice Arena. Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) has stated that the utility
easement is unnecessary as the water service is only serving the Ice Arena and is not required to
be in a utility easement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Ice Arena is proposing an addition to the west of the existing building. The proposed
addition encroaches upon a platted utility easement for a private water main. SPRWS has
reviewed the plan is has no objections to the project as proposed and has recommended for the
vacation of the utility easement.
BUDGET IMPACT
The petitioners submitted the required $250 fee to cover the advertising, mailing and staff time
for this request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve the resolution 2017-62 vacating the public utility
easement over the water service line.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends that the city council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2017-62,
“RESOLUTION APPROVING A UTILITY EASMENT VACATION”. This action requires
a simple majority vote.
page 77
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2017-62
RESOLUTION APPROVING A UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION
WHEREAS, A platted easement described as follows is requested to be vacated:
The 30 foot wide utility easement as dedicated over a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, ST. THOMAS ACADEMY
ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. The centerline of said easement is described as follows.
Commencing at the most easterly corner on the north line of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of
South 89 degrees 53 minutes 07 seconds West along said north line a distance of 277.50 feet; thence
South 00 degrees 01 minute 06 seconds West a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of beginning of the
centerline to be described; thence continuing South 00 degrees 01 minute 06 seconds West a distance of
510.29 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 54 seconds East a distance of 53.50 feet and said
centerline there terminating.
WHEREAS, a petition signed by a majority of property owners abutting the Utility Easement was
received by the City Clerk on the 27th day of July 2017 requesting this Utility Easement be vacated; and
WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted twice, more than
two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable
statutes; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on September 5, 2017 at the City Hall of
Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all
persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said petition.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. That the vacation of the Utility Easement described above is in the best interest of the public and the
City, and it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. That the above described utility easement be and the same is hereby vacated.
3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the proper
Dakota County officials notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with
the applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
BY___________________________ BY________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk Neil Garlock, Mayor
page 78
page 79
page 80
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) – Annual Public Hearing
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to preside over a public hearing outlining the city storm water requirements
for compliance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s storm water permit.
BACKGROUND
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is a federally mandated
program established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement and maintain
pollution prevention practices for storm water discharges by permits issued to regulated entities
by the federal authority granted under this program. Storm water discharges associated with
MS4s are regulated by these NPDES permits.
Mendota Heights, as an MS4 owner, was required to develop a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP) that incorporates best management practices that reduce pollutant
discharges. The SWPPP was developed in 2003. In 2006 the City adopted the Local Surface
Water Management Plan (LSWMP) that outlined how the requirements of our SWPPP are to be
met and established requirements for land disturbing activities. Currently the city has contracted
with WSB and Associates on updating its Local Surface Water Management Plan for permit
compliance.
DISCUSSION
There are six required components in each SWPPP, termed “minimum control measures” for
each permit authorizing storm water discharges under the NPDES program:
1. Public Education and Outreach
2. Public Participation/Involvement
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
4. Construction Site Runoff and Control
5. Post-Construction Runoff Control
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
page 81
As part of our SWPPP and LSWMP, the City has adopted various “best management practices”
to address the six components listed above. These practices include:
1. Public Education and Outreach – Including articles in the Heights Highlights, brochures
in the lobby and city website, providing information and guidance as part of the City
Building Permit Program, and conducting “Blue Thumb” seminars in conjunction with
local Watershed Management Organizations (WMO) and Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District. In addition, local cable has run a “Keep it Clean” video multiple
times on local cable access channels.
2. Public Participation/Involvement – Providing avenues for storm water complaints and
concerns (e-mail contact), active participation in the Lower Mississippi River WMO.
Working with neighborhood groups on installing native plantings.
3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination – Inspection of storm water outfalls, ponds,
and wetlands and participation in the Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Program
(WHEP). Passing of the Storm water Ordinance (2009), Citizen Assisted Monitoring
Program (CAMP).
4. Construction Site Runoff and Control – Passing of a Storm water Ordinance (2009) and
establishment of land disturbance activity regulatory requirements. Establishing a storm
water permit as part of the Building Permit process (by Ordinance).
5. Post-Construction Runoff Control – Construction of rain gardens, passing of the Storm
water Ordinance (2009), and reviewing building permit and development applications for
compliance with established requirements.
6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping – mapping of the City storm sewer system,
annual cleaning of sump manholes, annual inspection of storm water discharge points,
and stream bank stabilization projects, initiating a pond management program.
The MPCA has recently adopted a second generation storm water permit for MS4’s. Mendota
Heights is required to be compliant with the new permit and is working towards this goal. The
new permit will require the city to update its SWPPP, LSWMP as well as local ordinances which
is underway.
BUDGET IMPACT
None, meeting the goals for the annual permit coverage from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency are covered separately under the storm water utility. Projects are presented to council
individually as required.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council preside over the required annual public meeting which will
summarize the six minimum required control measures and report on the progress made in
meeting the goals identified in the Mendota Heights Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
over the past year.
ACTION REQUIRED
After a brief presentation, the Council should open the hearing for Public comment and accept,
or convey any input received from the public on this subject.
page 82
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-17
Conditional Use Permit for Alltech Engineering – 2515 Pilot Knob Road
Introduction
Alltech Engineering is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to install an eight-foot high
security fence on a portion of their industrial based property. The property is located at 2515 Piot Knob
Road.
Background
The subject property is generally located at the southwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot
Knob Road, and is situated in the city’s Industrial Park area, which is all zoned I-Industrial district. Title
12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code requires a conditional use permit for fences over six (6) feet in the business
and industrial districts.
The applicant is proposing to erect an eight foot (8’) high steel framed fence around the back loading
dock area on the south side of the main building for added security measures.
At the August 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Staff Report was presented on this
item (attached hereto); whereby the Applicant was present to answer questions. The Planning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at this meeting; with no comments or objections
from the public (refer to 08/22/17 PC meeting minutes - attached hereto).
Discussion
The City of Mendota Heights is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on general
zoning and land use requests such as this application presented herein, and has limited discretion. A
determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
At the August 22, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the
conditional use permit request for the property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road, with certain conditions
and findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to implement this
recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2017-67 APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLTECH ENGINEERING - LOCATED AT 2515 PILOT KNOB
ROAD.
Action Required
page 83
This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 84
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-67
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLTECH
ENGINEERING CORP. TO INSTALL AN EIGHT-FOOT HIGH
SECURITY FENCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(LOCATED AT 2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD)
WHEREAS, Alltech Engineering Corporation (the “Applicant”) applied for a conditional
use permit to install an eight foot (8’) high security fence on their property, as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2017-17, and which property is located within the I-Industrial District and
addressed as 2515 Pilot Knob Road, and described in the attached Exhibit A; and
, WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this planning item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received
by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted
for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous
approval of the conditional use permit request for the property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road,
with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the conditional use permit to install an eight foot (8’) high security fence on their property, as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-17, for the property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road,
is hereby approved with the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by
screening the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing
additional security for the property owner.
B. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional
use permit and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. The existing mature vegetation along Pilot Knob Road right-of-way increases the
screening/buffering of the subject property from this adjacent roadway; and any
visual impacts experienced form Northland Drive along the north side will be
reduced by the physical screening offered by the existing building.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit to install an eight foot (8’) high security fence on their property, as
proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-17, for the property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road is
hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
page 85
2. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
3. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be
allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute
a nuisance, public or private.
4. The Applicant agrees to install a Montage Commercial® classic style fence on the
property, as presented in Planning Staff Report - Case No. 2017-17.
5. The Applicant agrees to work with the Community Development Director to
locate and install additional landscaping adjacent to the fence area.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 86
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 2515 Pilot Knob Road, Mendota Heights MN
PID: 27-03300-79-020
Legal Description: NORTH 330 FT OF SOUTH 1320 FT OF EAST 660 FT OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 1 & 2, EXCEPT THE NORTH 40 FT TO VILL;
IN SECTION 33 TOWNSHIP 28 RANGE 23, DAKOTA COUNTY,
MINNESOTA
page 87
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-17
Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Alltech Engineering
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2515 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial
ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Alltech Engineering is seeking a conditional use permit to erect an eight-foot tall security fence on a portion
of their industrial based property. Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code requires a conditional use permit for
fences over six (6) feet in the Business and Industrial Districts.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. Notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments have been received.
BACKGROUND
Alltech Engineering has been serving customers as an industrial contractor since 1973. Alltech’s home
office is located in Mendota Heights, with separate office located in Arlington, TX. Alltech serves over
1,200 clients in 39 states and nations, including Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico. The company primarily
utilizes members of the Millwright Trade to accomplish its projects. The company is active in all types of
industrial construction that have machinery installation or maintenance included in the project scope.
The subject parcel consists of 4.34 acres (189,067 square feet) and contains an existing 32,106 sf.
office/warehouse building located on the southwest corner of the Pilot Knob Road/Mendota Heights Road
intersection. The Northland Drive Business Center building is located to the immediate west; and Pilot
Knob Business Center to the immediate south. The parcel is zoned and guided I-Industrial.
The applicant is proposing to erect an eight foot (8’) high steel framed fence around the back loading dock
area on the south side of the main building, due in large part for security reasons. There are two access
points leading to the back parking and loading areas, with one access onto Mendota Heights Road and the
other off Pilot Knob Road.
page 88
Alltech Engineering stated in their letter of intent: “….a 6’ fence does not serve as a proper deterrent for
the types of criminal activity that have taken place on our property over the last few years. Alltech
Engineering has had numerous thefts on our property at night when no employees are present. These thefts
include; scrap steel, equipment, tires, tailgates, and most recently an employee’s truck. These thefts are
costly to our company, not only in terms of replacement costs, but also employee and management time.
Our fence will be a high-end fence, in terms of quality. This will help us preserve our well maintained
property’s presence on Pilot Knob Road and in the city of Mendota Heights.”
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
Fencing Standards
According to Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code, regarding fences in Business and Industrial Districts:
Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and with
a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.
The proposed fence does not include the security arm for barbed wire, but will exceed the 6-foot standard.
A horizontal mechanical rolling gate, with a low (passenger vehicles) and high (semi-truck) level security
access pads planned for each driveway entrance into this back loading area. These gates will be left open
during the day, and closed and secured after normal business hours.
According to Title 12-1D-13-2-E of the City Code, regarding screening and buffering in the Business and
Industrial Districts:
External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from
contiguous properties and adjacent streets, except at access points.
Types Of Screening Or Buffering; Opacity: Required screening or buffering may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. The screen shall provide a
minimum opacity of ninety percent (90%) during all seasons.
As indicated in the aerial and Google Street photos below, the existing loading dock area is not entirely
screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, as is the case with numerous properties in the
Industrial District developed prior to the above-referenced standards being adopted.
The existing loading dock area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets,
as is the case with numerous properties in the Industrial District developed prior to the above-referenced
standards being adopted. As shown in the attached photos, the loading dock area is screened by existing
page 89
vegetation from Pilot Knob Road. While not “completely screened,” it certainly provides some significant
screening/buffering from this adjacent roadway.
.
Looking West into the Site – from Pilot Knob Road
As shown in this photo below, the rear loading dock area is not entirely screened or visible from Mendota
Heights Road, but is screened effectively by the building itself.
Looking South into the Site – from Mendota Hts. Road
Applicant Proposal
The applicant is proposing the very open “Classic” picket rail fence style as shown in the image below.
This fence provides very little screening as called for under the City Code. Because the current site has
been without any vegetative or structural measures (i.e. up to 90%) for a long time, it must be determined
if the proposed fence would be acceptable, and the screening measures per City Code can be waived or not
made part of this application.
page 90
If the Planning Commission feels that a screen of 90% or more must be attained, then the Applicant will
have to adjust or offer to provide a new version or style of security fence that meets this standard. The
fence could be modified with tighter (narrower) spindles; or some type of fabric screen or metal mesh screen
could be added, but these added features would likely take away from the overall nice appearance and
quality of the new fence, and is not recommended by Staff.
The Applicant stated this 8-ft. high fence style was chosen not only for their need in protecting their property
and added security measures, but more for the high quality finish and appearance, which Planning Staff
wholeheartedly agrees. Screening can also be attained in the form of berms, landscaping and vegetation,
such as evergreen trees or similar varieties that provide year-round coverage. However, it will take a lot of
trees on this site to make this 90% screen effective.
For all intents and purposes, the loading dock area that they are seeking to fence off is not visible or adjacent
to any residential areas (either single family or multi-family); and the only adjoining properties are all
similar industrial and/or office/warehouse uses that have unscreened loading or storage areas. Staff would
tend to believe or surmise that these surrounding uses should not be too concerned of the higher screening
opacity screening on the new fence; and therefore Staff is inclined to support the proposed security fence
presented, without added measures or meeting the complete 90% opacity standard.
CUP Standards
According to Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code, the following are to be taken into consideration upon
review of a conditional use permit request:
• The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands;
• existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
• the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, the following standards must be met:
• The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
• will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
• will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
• the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
In staff’s opinion, both the applicant’s proposal and staff’s recommendation meet the applicable standards
for granting a conditional use permit and would improve the overall appearance of the industrial property
while providing the desired security and screening.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approval of the conditional use permit request, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions;
2. Denial of the conditional use permit request, based on the finding of fact that the request is not
compliant with the applicable City Code standards; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in
compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
page 91
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed 8-foot high security fence, based
on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
2. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
3. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become
and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private.
Attachments
1. Applicant Letter of Intent
2. Site Plan / Fence Layout
3. General Fence Information
page 92
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit
2515 Pilot Knob Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the conditional use permit request in this
case:
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening the
loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the property
owner.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The existing mature vegetation along Pilot Knob Road right-of-way increases the
screening/buffering of the subject property from this adjacent roadway; and any visual impacts
experienced form Northland Drive along the north side will be reduced by the physical screening
offered by the existing building.
page 93
2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD – SITE PHOTOS
Looking West – from Pilot Knob Rd.
From Pilot Knob Rd. Entrance
Looking West – from Pilot Knob
Loading Area
Back Lot Line w/ Berm & Pavilion (to be removed) Looking southerly – neighbor’s loading area/berm
page 94
Loading Area Looking southeasterly – back pond
Looking Easterly – Side Entrance of Business
Looking Easterly – Side Entrance of Business
page 95
page 96
July 27, 2017
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Letter of Intent – 8’ Fence
Attn: Planning Commission and City Council,
Alltech Engineering is asking for a conditional use permit in order to install an 8’ high fence, as
opposed to a 6’ high fence that is allowed in city code. It is our belief that a 6’ fence does not
serve as a proper deterrent for the types of criminal activity that have taken place on our
property over the last few years.
Alltech Engineering has had numerous thefts on our property, at night when no employees are
present. These thefts include; scrap steel, equipment, tires, tailgates, and most recently an
employee’s truck. These thefts are costly to our company, not only in terms of replacement
costs, but also employee and management time. We have filled out multiple police reports
documenting those thefts.
Our fence will be a high end fence, in terms of quality. This will help us preserve our well
maintained property’s presence on Pilot Knob Road and in the city of Mendota Heights.
Thank you for your consideration,
Chris Lawrence
Operations Manager
Alltech Engineering Corp
Main: 651-452-7893
Direct: 651-675-4846
Fax: 651-452-5592
Cell: 612-812-6503
www.alltechengineering.com
2515 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 452-7893 Fax (651) 452-5592
www.alltechengineering.com
page 97
www.ameristarfence.com
WELDED COMMERCIAL ORNAMENTAL STEEL FENCE
page 98
INVINCIBLE™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
j
j
j
GENESIS™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
4" Standard or 3" Pet, Pool & Play Picket Air-Space
j
j
j
j
MAJESTIC ™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
4" Standard or 3" Pet, Pool & Play Picket Air-Space
j
j
j
j
CLASSIC™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
4" Standard or 3" Pet, Pool & Play Picket Air-Space
j
j
j
j
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® | Welded Commercial Ornamental Steel Fence page 99
GATE OPTIONS
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® SWING GATES
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® ARCHED GATES
ESTATE ® STEEL ENTRY GATES
TRANSPORT ® CANTILEVER GATES
PASSPORT ®ROLL GATES
j
j
j
j
j
POOL, PET & PLAY ™
Improved Panel Strength & Durability
Increased Safety & Security for Children & Pets
j
j
COLOR OPTIONS ADORNMENTS
BLACK BRONZE QUAD FLARE ROYALTY BUTTERFLY SCROLL DOUBLE RINGSBALL CAPTRIAD
PICKETS RAILS POSTS
¾"sq. x 14 ga.1½" x 1½" x 14 ga.2½" x 14 ga.
Learn more online at ameristarfence.com or by calling 888-333-3422MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® | Welded Commercial Ornamental Steel Fence
Montage Commercial is manufactured
from nearly 96% recycled steel
20 Year Warranty backed by proven
excellence for over 30 years
CLASSIC ™MAJESTIC ™GENESIS ™
page 100
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® | Welded Commercial Ornamental Steel Fence
www.ameristarfence.com | 888-333-3422
1555 N. Mingo Rd. | Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116
Part #9821 | Revised 05/2013
Acrylic Topcoat
Epoxy Primer
Zinc Phosphate
Galvanic Zinc
Fully rakeable panelsStair-stepping panels
Ameristar's world headquarters, manufacturing & coil processing facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.LEGEND
★ Ameristar Headquarters
● Sales & Service Centers
PROFUSION WELDING
ECOAT FINISH
Superior Strength
No Visible Rivets or Screws
Design Allows Panels to Follow the Grade
Protection Inside and Out
Maintenance-Free Finish
Long-Term Durability
j
j
j
j
j
j
page 101
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 22, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
22, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
Call to Order
Vice-Chair Doug Hennes called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Vice-Chair
Doug Hennes were present. Chair Litton Field, Jr. was absent/excused.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of July 25, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (Toth)
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-17
ALLTECH ENGINEERING, 2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE IN THE
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Alltech Engineering was seeking a
conditional use permit to erect an eight-foot tall security fence on a portion of their industrial based
property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road. He also noted that a public hearing notice had been sent
out on this application and no comments or objections have been received.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob and Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in relation to its location to surrounding streets and
properties. The site is 4.34 acres, just under 190,000 square feet, contains an existing 32,106 square
foot office/warehouse building, and is zoned and guided as I-Industrial.
page 102
Alltech Engineering has experienced a rash of thefts and vandalism on the back of their property,
in the storage areas. They are looking to erect something to keep out unwelcome guests and to
provide for some type of security measures.
Mr. Benetti shared an image showing the current driveway coming off of Pilot Knob Road, storage
and parking area, and a curved entrance off of Mendota Heights Road. The access points would
be blocked off with a horizontal rolling gate system, controlled by a keypad. The gates would be
open throughout the day and closed at night. City Code requires that screening of approximately
90% or more opacity be installed; however, the fence design request is a classic style, 8-foot high,
picket rail fence style with fleurs-de-lis on top. This style of fencing was chosen by the applicant
not only for their need in protecting their property and added security measures, but more for the
high quality finish and appearance.
If the Planning Commission feels that a screen of 90% or more must be attained, then the applicant
would have to adjust or offer to provide a new version or style of security fence that would meet
this standard. However, because the current site has been without any vegetative or structural
measures for a long time, due to the overall nice appearance and quality of the new fence, and the
fact that the adjacent properties are not residential but similar industrial and/or office/warehouse
uses with their own unscreened loading or storage areas, staff recommended support of the
proposed security fence presented, without added measures or meeting the complete 90% opacity
standard.
Mr. Benetti explained the standards that must be met to approve a conditional use permit and how
this request satisfies those standards.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the site under consideration is currently not
fenced, screened, or buffered; so the back of the property is open to the view to the extent that it
is viewable from Mendota Heights Road or from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Noonan continued by noting that the request is not for a chain-link fence nor a
wood fence, which would show the test of time. Again, Mr. Benetti confirmed. It was then asked
if that wouldn’t offset the notion – the improved fence, is that a reason why the Commission could
say that it enhances or addresses the screen situation because there is nothing there now. Mr.
Benetti wholeheartedly agreed with that statement and said that the proposed fence would be a
much better improvement than a chain-link fence with the slats or anything else, especially
anything with a barbed-wire security arm on the top. A wood fence weathers over time and would
not be as appealing, per staff, as this fence would be.
Commissioner Noonan stated that it was represented to the Commission that the applicant was
proposing this classic style of fence; however, when looking at the conditions – it’s not a condition.
He expressed his concern that if the Commission gave the approval for the 8-foot but do not
condition it to this fence, there could be a substitution. He then asked if it would be appropriate to
include, as a condition, that the applicant install and staff can identify the appropriate type. Mr.
Benetti replied that he would recommend that amendment.
Commissioner Petschel noted that just a few months ago the Commission approved a fence just
down the road at the Liquor Distributor, which the Commission required 90% opacity and with
page 103
barbed-wire at the top. He then asked that, if the Commissioner were to approve this, how would
it not just throw this rule out the window. Mr. Benetti replied that the easiest way to do this is to
consider, now that they Comprehensive Plan is under amendment consideration, tweaking or
upgrading the zoning ordinance comprehensively as well. This could be something that staff could
look at very closely. He would be willing to see what other communities do; he does not see an
opacity rule of 90% as being really effective in an industrial zone as it is not really needed from a
planning perspective. The screening measures really come into play when there are residential
areas next door or when it is highly visible. The property under consideration is dead center in the
industrial park so there would not be any negative connotations with having this fence.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if Mr. Benetti had any conversations with the owner about using
some vegetation to provide some sort of buffer. When out looking at the site she would agree that
completely surrounding that fence in vegetative material would require a lot; however, it seemed
to her that there are a few key places where a couple of nicely placed pine trees or something
would really solve the problem. It probably would not get it to 90% but it would get the it to the
point of paying lip service to the language of the code rather than just not dealing with it. Mr.
Benetti agreed and said that when staff walked the site a suggestion was made to put the some
trees within the open edge; however, putting trees in the berm area would be difficult. Hopefully
the applicant would have the budget for a few trees if the Commission felt it was warranted.
Acting Chair Hennes asked how hard and fast is the 90% rule and, if it is hard and fast, does the
Commission need to consider a variance. Mr. Benetti replied that his past experience working with
Conditional Use Permits, a City Attorney once told him that if a condition under a Conditional
Use Permit if being asked to be waived or reduced/limited, a variance does not really need to be
applied in that case. The Commission could request a modification under the general broad
category of the Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Toth, referencing the statement in the staff report that the pavilion would be
removed, asked what the timeline would be for the removal – would it be removed prior to the
installation of the fence if this were to be approved. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would
like to remove the pavilion no matter the decision; the concrete pad would remain. He also noted
that this would be inside the fence line.
Commissioner Toth asked if the 8-foot fence would be installed on top of the already existing 4-
foot berm, thus making that stretch of the fenced area 12 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that the plan
calls for an 8-foot fence around the whole blue-lined area in the photograph provided, including
the berm.
Mr. Chris Lawrence, Operations Manager at Alltech Engineering Corp. shared images of the
property in question, which had been included in the staff report. He then noted the location of the
day-to-day operational parking lot, the loading area where they sometimes leave vehicles parked
overnight – the area of most security concern – and the location of the berms or buffer areas. He
also shared an image of the property from Pilot Knob Road indicating that the view from there
would probably only be 4 feet of the installed fence.
page 104
Commissioner Magnuson agreed that when going down Mendota Heights Road the neighbor’s
loading dock is more visible than Alltech’s. She then asked if they would be open to putting in a
few evergreens here and there. Mr. Lawrence stated that he would be open to that suggestion. The
one concern he would have is as the back of the property is approached there are potential blind
spots for their drivers; however, he would be open to it.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the representation is that it was the classic fence that would be
installed, so if a condition were added that it had to be this classic fence, would that be acceptable.
Mr. Lawrence replied that this would be acceptable.
Acting Chair Hennes asked, since this is the first time they would be installing a fence, would two
feet make that much of a difference in terms of security. Mr. Lawrence replied that to him, as well
as other management, it would be more of a deterrent. He recalled scaling four foot fences when
he was younger to go to football games.
Commissioner Toth asked if the fence was metal and would it be powder-coat paint or painted
with an industrial black paint – what would be seen in the next five, ten, or fifteen years as far as
peeling, rust, etc. Mr. Lawrence replied that he believed this to be a dipped product and of nice
quality; made to stand the test of time.
Acting Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening
the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the
property owner.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The existing mature vegetation along Pilot Knob Road right-of-way increases the
screening/buffering of the subject property from this adjacent roadway; and any visual
impacts experienced form Northland Drive along the north side will be reduced by the
physical screening offered by the existing building.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
page 105
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
2. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
3. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed
to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public
or private.
AND THE ADDED FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4. The applicant agrees to install a Montage Commercial® classic fence on the property
5. The applicant work with the City Planner to site and install additional landscaping adjacent
to the fence area
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5,
2017 meeting.
page 106
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-18
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit - 1275 Knollwood Lane
Introduction
Peter and Jennifer Eisenhuth are requesting approval of a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use
Permit, which would allow the removal of an existing single family dwelling, and further permit the
construction of a new residence on a parcel they recently acquired. The property is located at 1275
Knollwood Lane.
Background
The subject property is located in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district, and situated within the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. For properties located in the critical overlay area, any new
construction, including demolition, vegetation removal or replanting, and/or grading work requires
approval of these permits prior any grading or building permit being issued by the city.
At the August 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Staff Report was presented on this
item (attached hereto); whereby the homeowners, their architects and landscape consultant were present
to answer questions. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at this meeting;
with one comment from a neighboring resident (refer to 08/22/17 PC meeting minutes - attached hereto).
Due to some questions by the Commission, the homeowners have submitted for additional Council
consideration a revised landscape plan and updated architectural renderings of the new home.
Discussion
The City of Mendota Heights is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on general
zoning and land use requests such as these applications presented herein, and has limited discretion. A
determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Critical Area Permit & Conditional
Use Permit for the property located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, with certain conditions and findings of fact
to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion
adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2017-68 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO PETER AND JENNIFER EISENHUTH, LOCATED AT 1275 KNOLLWOOD
LANE.
Action Required
page 107
This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 108
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-68
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PETER & JENNIFER EISENHUTH
WHICH WOULD ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
(LOCATED AT 1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE)
WHEREAS, Peter and Jennifer Eisenhuth (the “Applicant”) applied for a critical area
permit and conditional use permit to allow certain construction activities in the Critical Area
Overlay District, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-18, located at 1275 Knollwood
Lane, and legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
planning item at the regular meeting of August 22, 2017; whereby a planning staff report was
presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public
were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended unanimous approval of the conditional use permit request for the property located
at 2515 Pilot Knob Road, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-18
are hereby approved with the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development of the property with a new single-family residential
structure meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay
District, including the additional conditional use permit standards.
C. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of
any significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of
invasive and harmful planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural
environment and native plant growth in this area; and provides a condition to help
replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees.
D. The proximity of the new home from the bluff line, along with all new [proposed]
grades for this site, will ensure that no stormwater drainage will negatively impact
neighboring residents; and help lessen any erosion or future degradation of the
nearby bluff and critical corridor area.
E. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the
Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit as proposed under Planning Case 2017-18 are hereby
approved with the following conditions:
page 109
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any
demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of
any new dwelling on each lot.
2. All grading and construction activity will 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.
3. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by
the City Engineer.
4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree and/or vegetation replacement plan
that provides a reasonable and equitable replacement of trees to be removed under
this new development plan.
5. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable
vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm.
Removal of vegetation is primarily confined to the areas identified on the “Tree
Removal Plan” as submitted under this joint application.
6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities.
7. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional
contractor and/or landscape company.
8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00
pm.
9. The final design and location of the new (relocated) driveway must be approved
by the City Engineer; and any portion of the existing driveway that is removed
within the Knollwood Lane right-of-way and inside the subject property must
repaired and restored accordingly.
10. The exterior finishes of the dwelling shall incorporate natural and/or native
materials, subject to approval of the Community Dev. Director and City Engineer.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 110
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description – 1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE
PID: 27-37676-01-090
Lot 9, Block 1, IVY FALLS WEST 2nd ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota
page 111
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-18
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Landscape Architecture, Inc.
(on behalf of Peter & Jennifer Eisenhuth Property Owner)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1275 Knollwood Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the removal
of an existing single family dwelling currently situated on the lot, and further allow the construction of a
new single family residence on the lot. The subject property is located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, which is
located partly within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires approval of the proposed
project before any building permit can be issued.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No objections have been received by the city.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a large 1.73 acre parcel, with a 4,037 sq. ft. single family residence. The site contains
a single access, curved driveway from Knollwood Lane, which is scheduled to be relocated. The property
owners intend to remove the existing residential dwelling, and replace with a new, modern-style
architectural home (as illustrated on the attached architectural plans).
Related to this dwelling removal and replacement, additional grading work and tree removal will take place,
with some grading work in and around the bluff-line setbacks areas, and some grading and removal work
outside the critical area overlay district boundaries. Any parcel that lies within the critical area district,
whether partial or whole, is subject to the rules and standards established under Title 12-3-1 of City Code.
page 112
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Owners will replace the older home with new, modern style home as shown in the site plan below, and
the architectural image on the next page.
page 113
Based on the applicable City Code requirements, the proposed project requires the following requests:
1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities.
2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%.
Approval of this critical area permit would allow the developer to remove the older dwelling, commence
grading and tree removal work; and allow the construction of the new home on the lot. There are areas in
and around the new house pad sites that contain slopes greater than 18%, which will be affected by this
new construction work. According to Title 12-3-14-B of the City Code, any work in sloped area between
18% and up to 40% requires a conditional use permit approval.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Under the 2030 Plan’s Future Land Use section, there is a sub-section dedicated to “Infill Sites” – which
although this property is not an infill site per se’, there are a number of objectives and policies for
consideration of development in identifiable sensitive areas, noted as follows:
• Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision
regulations.
• Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties.
• Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing
environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors.
• Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing.
• Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect
a “spot-zoning” pattern.
It is Staff’s belief the Applicant’s request to construct a new single family dwelling is consistent with the
2030 Comp Plan and the related future land use plan for this area.
page 114
Critical Area Permit
The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay
District.
Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
• Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource
• Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public
areas; and
• Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential
element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements:
No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for
any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared
and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required
Title 12-3-8: Development Standards:
The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment
of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance
the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to
prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground
water.
• Setbacks.
No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river.
The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic
reasons. The plans indicate a “Bluff-Line Setback” line, which appears to be offset by 40 feet from the
established bluff line. The new house is setback an additional 30-feet +/- from the 40-ft. bluff setback
line. The house also has an approx. 61 foot setback from Knollwood Lane (at its closest point with
attached garage corner).
• Height limits.
• R-1 District: 12-1-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2)
stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height….”
• Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8.C: “All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet…”
The Owner/Applicants have provided very detailed plans of the new home, which illustrate the home will
be built at 24’- 10” – which would meet the underlying R-1 zone standard of the 25-foot height limitations.
• Retaining Wall
The existing home has two separate retaining walls situated on each side of the tuck-under garage; and
smaller wing walls leading up towards the back yard area. The home also has a large stepped or terraced
features made of large stone and rocks along the front elevation, which are used to contain a garden
plantings.
page 115
The proposed development plan does not include any retaining walls at this time; instead, the plans show
newly graded yards that complete a gradual sloped yard connections between the front and side yard areas
to the rear yard, which would accommodate the walk out portion of the home (see image below).
The Commission should also be aware the plans identify a “Building/Ruin Wall” structure near the south
edge of the property (along Knollwood Lane). These brick and concrete block ruins appear to be from
either an old dwelling or barn foundation, and are slated to be left alone under this new home project.
page 116
Title 12-3-14: Process for Construction on Property within the Critical Area:
Critical Area Permit: The construction of any building or structure, or the alteration of any land
consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or excavation, shall require a critical
area permit from the city council.”
The grading and land alteration to accommodate these two new dwelling structures are likely to consist of
more than 100 cubic yards; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required.
Title 12-3-9-F Vegetation Management
The Applicant also provided a detailed Tree Removal Plan for review. The plan identifies three areas for
tree and vegetation removals. The first area is near the back edge of the bluff line, which is inside the
critical area boundary line, and includes 3 green ash; a boxelder; 2 blue spruce; an elm; 2 concolor firs; and
a hackberry tree, along with some buckthorn. Near the upper north side of the lot, 3 Colorado spruces will
be removed, which are also identified by the certified arborist/landscape architect s being in “poor health”.
The third area is identified near the south edge along Knollwood Lane, which includes 2 blue spruces;
lilacs, and elm, 2 ash, 2 boxelders, and some more buckthorn. This third area is targeted due to the location
of the new driveway the owners wish to have installed under this plan. The middle of the site includes the
removal of an 18” blue spruce; a 13” maple; and a 34” basswood, which must be removed for the location
of the new dwelling. The two large majestic oak trees near the north area of the home are to be saved.
Only one tree, an Autumn Gold Ginkgo tree is planned for the site (in the new driveway circle); along with
some new shrubs and planting around the outer edges of the new home.
The removal of over 24 mature trees (regardless of species or health), and plans to install just one single
replacement tree (the 2.5” Ginkgo) does not seem equitable under this proposed development plan.
Therefore, Staff would recommend the Applicant provide an updated and more reasonable tree replacement
plan, which can be considered part of the conditions of approval, which would meet the spirit and intent of
vegetation management within this critical area. Staff would suggest the Planning Commission provide
feedback and comments to the Applicant/Owners on what this replacement plan should include, and ensure
any updated plan will meet your satisfaction.
Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management:
The subject lot appears to have 10-foot dedicated drainage and utility easement along the north and west
edges of the lot, but nothing along the south or east lines.
The most-outer edges of the lot should not be affected by much grading work, with most the new drainage
ways being created under the installation of the new circular driveway near the front of the house; and the
two uniform sloped areas leading away from the south and west sides of the new home. The plan calls for
the westerly one-half of the site to drain naturally back towards the bluff line area; while the remaining
easterly one half is planned to drain outward towards Knollwood Lane. IN both cases, the areas where
surface water is intended to drain is or will remain heavily vegetated, and should be able to withstand any
new stormwater drainage to these areas.
Public Works/Engineering has reviewed the application and does not foresee this new grading plan being
an issue or cause of problems to any neighboring properties or any negative or damaging effect to the nearby
critical area.
Conditional Use Permit
As noted on the Grading Plan, there are some areas that will be replaced with grades ranging from 2:1 up
to 4:1 in some places. Pursuant to Title 12-3-14-B:
page 117
Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but
less than forty percent (40%) shall require a conditional use permit, and shall be required to meet the
procedural and performance requirements of this section. Conditional use permits under this chapter
shall be considered as follows:
2. On lots where a principal building was present as of September 1, 2006, only accessory or
incidental structures shall be allowed under this clause on slopes greater than eighteen percent
(18%). Examples of such structures include fences, retaining walls, landscape elements, decks
and patios, or similar structures.
The proposed project will disturb slopes between 18% and 40% and the existing principal building was
present prior to 2006. Therefore, a conditional use permit is required for construction of the proposed home
and associated soil disturbance activities.
This same chapter identifies specific and required standards that must be met in order to allow said grades
and work in these areas under Title 12-3-16, which are noted as follows:
A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to
those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the city's comprehensive
plan;
B. The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and
C. The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights.
D. Any request for a conditional use permit shall include, in addition to other required public notice,
a notification to the appropriate Minnesota department of natural resources staff for review and
comment.
For all intents and purposes, the grading plan as presented appears to be generally consistent with the rules
and standards established under the critical area district and comprehensive plan; and the proposed use will
be consistent and compatible with other single family uses in the area.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no comments.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the
property located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property
located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet
certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the
site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an
additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
page 118
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property
located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, based on the attached findings of fact, and with the following conditions:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or removal of
any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on each lot.
2. All grading and construction activity will 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.
3. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree and/or vegetation replacement plan that provides a
reasonable and equitable replacement of trees to be removed under this new development plan.
5. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be
performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation is primarily
confined to the areas identified on the “Tree Removal Plan” as submitted under this joint
application.
6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
7. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor and/or
landscape company.
8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
9. The final design and location of the new (relocated) driveway must be approved by the City
Engineer; and any portion of the existing driveway that is removed within the Knollwood Lane
right-of-way and inside the subject property must repaired and restored accordingly.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent
2. Aerial/Location map
3. Full Site & Grading Plans
4. Architectural Plans
page 119
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
1275 Knollwood Lane
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed development of the property with two a new single-family residential structure meets
the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including
the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any significant
trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful planting provides
a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant growth in this area; and
provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees.
4. The proximity of the new home from the bluff line, along with all new [proposed] grades for this
site, will ensure that no stormwater drainage will negatively impact neighboring residents; and help
lessen any erosion or future degradation of the nearby bluff and critical corridor area.
5. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if
done carefully and professionally.
page 120
WACHTLER AVE1ST AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYEMERSON AVE
MEDORA RDKNOLLWOOD LNCLEMENT STCASCADE
LN
WOODRIDGE DR
MAPLE PARK CT
SYLV
A
N
D
A
L
E
C
T
MEDORA C
T
SYLVANDALE C
T
S
KNOL
LWOOD
LN
Dakota County GIS
1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE(Eisenhuth Residence)City ofMendotaHeights0400
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/15/2017
page 121
2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM
JULY 28, 2017
Property Address: 1275 Knollwood Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
LETTER OF INTENT & REPORT: Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
Intent:
Remove existing home and replace with new home per drawings attached.
Report Summary:
Plant Community Analysis: Flora & Fauna on-site is comprised average woodland
typical of this area comprised of mostly non-native and native early successional
ruderals - A ruderal species refers to any plant that is the first to colonize land
after a disturbance removing competition. A few nice older growth trees with
some oaks exist on-site and those trees will be preserved.
Existing Structures: The existing home to be removed to make way for new home.
The existing barn/shed foundation in the wooded area to be left with no
enhancements at this time.
Soils Analysis: Soils are defined as Loam / Silt Loam – per site visit observations
and our experience working in this part of Medota Heights with similar
topography, plant material and proximity to the river.
Loam – A soil texture with moderate amounts of sand, silt, and clay, sometimes in
nearly equal proportions. Good texture for farming and gardening.
Silt – Soil particles in between sand and clay in size. Silt feels like flour (smooth and
velvety). Also refers to a soil texture that consists of at least 80% silt particles.
Summary of Stormwater Management: Drainage patterns are consistent to what
currently exists on-site. The big change from is that our proposed home and
hardcover has been greatly reduced to about 70% of hardcover that exists on-
site at the current time.
SINCERELY,
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, LEED AP
page 122
Lilydale
SomersetElementarySchool DODD RD!(4
ASPEN WAYBIRCH CTRIV
E
R
S
I
D
E
L
N
WACHTLER AVE3RD AVESYLVANDALE RDLAURA STIV
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
VANDALL STMEDORA RDIVY FALLS AVE
WOODRIDGE DR
C
H
E
R
R
Y
H
I
L
L
R
D
FARMDALE RDKNOLLWOOD LNMAPLE PARK DRARCADIA DRCLEMENT STIVY FALLS CT
LAURA CT
MAPLE PARK CT
BUTLER AVE
SUNSET LN
K
N
O
L
L
W
O
O
D
L
N
2ND AVE
1ST AVE
BROOKSID
E
L
N
BROOKSID
E
L
N
BROOKSID
E
L
N
CLEMENT STCASCADE LNCASCADE LNBROMPTON
P
L
SYLVANDALE CTFALLS VIEW CTKN
O
L
L
W
O
O
D
C
T
SOMERSET CTMEDORA C
T
SYLVANDALE
C
T
S
IVY LNVALLEY LN
EMERSON AVE
.
City of Mendota Heights
CRITICAL AREA MAP
Minnesota
PUBLIC BUILDING
SCHOOL
SECTION LINE
CITY BOUNDARY
LAKE/RIVER
CRITICAL AREA
OTHER MUNICIPALITY
Last updated November 2006City of Mendota Heights Engineering Departmentx:\gis\criticalarea\criticalarea.mxd
^`
!(
Sources:City of Mendota HeightsDakota County Surveying &Land Information Department
page 123
page 124
page 125
page 126
08.25.17
01
Material Selections: Precedent Images
NA
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
page 127
08.25.17
02
Material Selections: Precedent Images
NA
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
page 128
08.25.17
03
Material Selections: Precedent Images
NA
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
page 129
08.25.17
04
NA
Material Selections: Southeast View
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
page 130
08.25.17
05
NA
Material Selections: Southwest View
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
page 131
page 132
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-18
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC. AND PETER & JEN EISENHUTH, 1275
KNOLLWOOD LANE
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CERTAIN
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this application was to help facilitate
the removal of an existing single-family dwelling and replace it with a new one. As part of any
properties that are within or partially within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area, any
work, construction activity, grading work all has to be approved with a Critical Area Permit. This
application was being presented as a public hearing and notices were published and mailed out to
all residences within 350 feet. One comment was received by an adjacent neighbor and once he
understood the scope and scale of the project he had no objections.
Almost three-quarters of the subject property is located within the Critical Area. The property is a
1.73 acre parcel and contains a single-family dwelling of just over 4,000 square feet. There is
currently an access point on the south corner of the lot which swings into a circular driveway. The
property is zoned R-1 Residential and there are no plans to change that zoning.
The plan is to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new one in the same place. The only
difference is they would be going lower than the existing house. According to their grading and
foundation plans, they will be a little lower than what is seen at this time. Grading would take
place along Knollwood Lane and along the back side. They would be tying in some of the grades
into the existing contours in the bluff line. This has been reviewed by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and they have determined that the grade, so far, is adequate.
The owners plan to construct a new, modern style home. Mr. Benetti shared architectural images
of the front and rear of the planned dwelling, with a rear walkout and gentle slopes to the backyard
areas. The reason for the grading work as shown on the plan would be to accommodate the
walkout.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards and provisions as noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 –
Critical Area Overlay District, which included the site planning requirements, development
standards, setbacks, height limits, retaining wall, process for construction on property within the
critical area, vegetation management, and surface water runoff management.
The report indicated that there are some retaining walls on the site; however, they are not planning
any new retaining walls; only natural graded berms. There is an old foundation on site, believed
to be an old barn or outbuilding structure, believed to be constructed of a running brick pattern or
concrete block; there are no plans to remove that foundation.
The Conditional Use Permit is needed for any areas affected between 18% and 40% grades. In this
case, it is almost the entire site. The grading plan as presented meets the identified and required
standards that must be met in order to allow said grades and work in these areas.
page 133
Commissioner Noonan noted, generally speaking, that the footprint where this new home is to be
built is more or less identical to the footprint of the existing home. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this
was true. Commissioner Noonan observed that the height of the proposed home is more or less
consistent with the height of the current residence. Again, Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner
Noonan observed then that there is no change in the structure’s impact on this area; it is just new
and therefore it is triggered because of where it is. Mr. Benetti replied that the new structure would
actually be lower than the existing structure; but is probably close to the 25-foot standard.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the drainage map, noted that the site is draining in two
halves; a portion goes down the slope and a portion goes down to Knollwood. He then asked if
anyone knew the drainage pattern on the existing site. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked, if this home were not in the critical area, would there be any other
planning reason for it to be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative.
Mr. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. came forward representing the applicant asked
to hear Commissioner Mazzitello’s question regarding drainage. Commissioner Mazzitello asked
if there were any significant changes between the existing drainage pattern and the new planned
drainage pattern. Mr. Mastey replied in the affirmative and explained that the only different is they
would reduce the impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 30% so there would be less
runoff, less storm water leaving the site, and more greenspace.
Acting Chair Hennes asked if the homeowners would be comfortable with working with the City
Planner a more reasonable tree replacement plan. Mr. Mastey agreed that they would be and as the
site plan evolves and they start to site the house and discover what the critical screenings are, they
have had some discussions already about wanting to add some additional screen trees, especially
where some of the diseased trees are proposed to be removed and where the existing driveway is.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that one of the conditions of constructing in the critical area is that
the materials used have to be of natural quality and color and blend into the environment so it does
not create some sort of eye-sore. In looking at the diagrams, the house appears to be stark white
and she was sure that was for purposes of review. She asked if they had considered the color of
the structure. Mr. Mastey replied that what they are proposing to do is to drop the structure a little
bit and they would adjust the grade so the site would be lower. The second part regarding materials
he deferred to Mr. Charles Simmons and Ms. Marcy Townsend of Charlie & Co. Design.
Mr. Charles Simmons, 356 – 3rd Avenue N, Minneapolis, in reference to the color pallet, replied
that at this point in the conceptual design it is intended to be white for diagram purposes. In all of
the images that the homeowner has shared with them, all of the materials are incredibly warm,
natural color pallets. There will be some stone on the outside for the chimney and the base. This
would not be a white modern home by any stretch of the imagination.
Acting Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ken Hayes, 1291 Knollwood Lane, stated that he called Mr. Benetti on August 14th but
received no reply and his questions could have been answered that way. However, many of his
page 134
questions were answered during the presentation. He is the neighbor where the circular driveways
come together and from the vegetation diagrams it is hard tell what is going to be replaced or not
in the green buffer between the properties. There is a lot of invasive species in there and he
requested that they be removed and replaced by appropriate vegetation.
He noted that the driveway is going to be moved; however, he would like the three USPS mailbox
to stay where it is currently. If the owner would like to install his own mailbox near his own
driveway, that would be fine. If the current mailbox straddles the property lines, he would like to
see an easement put in place to keep it where it is.
Mr. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. returned and, in reference to the evasive
species, stated that he is recommending the removal and doing some eco-system management to
clean that area and create a clean slate for something better. Typically they try to plant trees that
would be there for 100 years. There have also been discussions, once the driveway is moved, of
adding some additional screening and other vegetation specifically in that area. He said he would
be willing to work with Mr. Benetti and suggested Mr. Benetti keep Mr. Hayes updated.
As for the mailbox, typically they are in the right-of-way so he does not believe an easement or
anything like that is needed.
Acting Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-18 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1275
KNOLLWOOD LANE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed development of the property with two a new single-family residential
structure meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District,
including the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any
significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful
planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant
growth in this area; and provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some
significant trees.
4. The proximity of the new home from the bluff line, along with all new [proposed] grades
for this site, will ensure that no stormwater drainage will negatively impact neighboring
page 135
residents; and help lessen any erosion or future degradation of the nearby bluff and critical
corridor area.
5. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical
Area, if done carefully and professionally.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or
removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on
each lot.
2. All grading and construction activity will 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.
3. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree and/or vegetation replacement plan that
provides a reasonable and equitable replacement of trees to be removed under this new
development plan.
5. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must
be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation
is primarily confined to the areas identified on the “Tree Removal Plan” as submitted under
this joint application.
6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
7. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor
and/or landscape company.
8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
9. The final design and location of the new (relocated) driveway must be approved by the
City Engineer; and any portion of the existing driveway that is removed within the
Knollwood Lane right-of-way and inside the subject property must repaired and restored
accordingly.
AND THE ADDED FOLLOWING CONDITION:
10. The exterior finishes shall be natural and naturist subject to approval by the City Planner
and engineer
Commissioner Magnuson noted that Findings of Fact #1 had a typographical error in it and
suggested that the word ‘two’ be stricken. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the edit as a friendly
amendment to his motion as did the second, Commissioner Noonan.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5,
2017 meeting.
page 136
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-19
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for
New Mendota Heights Apartment Development – Michael Development of MN,
LLC
Introduction
Mr. Mike Swenson, owner of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC requests approval of a rezoning,
preliminary plat, conditional use permit and wetlands permit for the new Mendota Heights Apartment
Development, to be located at 2180 and 2160 Highway 13. The project proposes to unify two
commercial zoned sites, which are currently occupied by the Mendota Motel and the closed Larsen
Garden Center, and redevelop the site with two 70-unit market rate apartment complexes.
Background
The subject property is generally located on the east side of Highway 13, between Acacia Boulevard to
the north and Victoria Avenue to the south.
On June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-43, which approved an amendment to the
2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the subject site’s future land use from existing “B - Business” to
“HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development.” On August 21, 2017, the Community
Development Committee of the Metropolitan Council met and approved the proposed land use change.
The properties are currently zoned B-3 General Business; and the application for rezoning requests to
change this targeted redevelopment sites from the B-3 to HR-PUD – High Density Residential Planned
Unit Development. The requests also include a preliminary plat titled “Mendota Heights Apartments”; a
conditional use permit for the establishment of the PUD and development of the proposed multi-family
type buildings; and wetlands permit due to construction work adjacent to Lake Lemay.
At the August 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Staff Report was presented on this
item (attached hereto); whereby the Applicant and his consultants were present to answer questions. The
Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, with a few general comments and
questions from neighboring residents (refer to 08/22/17 PC meeting minutes - attached hereto).
Discussion
The City of Mendota Heights is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on general
zoning and land use requests such as these applications presented herein, and has limited discretion. A
determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
page 137
Recommendation
At the August 22, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit and wetlands permit for the new Mendota Heights
Apartment Development, located at 2180 and 2160 Highway 13, with certain conditions and findings of
fact to support said approvals.
If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION
NO. 2017-69 APPROVING THE REZONING FROM B-3 GENERAL BUSINESS TO HR-PUD –
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF “MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS”; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND WETLANDS
PERMIT ALL FOR THE NEW MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED
AT 2180 AND 2160 HIGHWAY 13.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 138
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-69
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS
TO MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MINNESOTA, LLC FOR THE
NEW MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
(LOCATED AT 2160 AND 2180 HIGHWAY 13)
WHEREAS, Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC (the “Applicant” and/or
“Developer”) applied for a Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands
Permit Applications for New Mendota Heights Apartment Development, as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2017-1, located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13 (the “Subject Property”), and
legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-43, which
approved an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the subject site’s future
land use from existing “B - Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit
Development”; and on August 21, 2017, the Metropolitan Council officially accepted and
approved said land use change related to this project; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2017, the City Council approved the establishment of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 2, a redevelopment district within the city’s existing Municipal
Development District No. 1, in order to financially assist the Developer with specific and eligible
costs to help construct these new market rate apartment building on the site, and;
WHEREAS, the Developer is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property from
existing “B-3 General Business District” to a new “HR-PUD High Density Residential – Planned
Unit Development”, a new Preliminary Plat to be titled “Mendota Heights Apartments”, which is
the replatting of certain identified and legal parcels generally located east of Highway 13,
between Acacia Boulevard to the north and Victoria Avenue to the south; and the Conditional
Use Permit is for the establishment of the new Planned Unit Development district and related
development plan of the new multi-family apartment buildings; and the Wetlands Permit is
needed due to the proximity of work adjacent to Lake Lemay; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this planning item; whereby a planning staff report was presented and received
by the commission, comments from the Applicant and general public were received and noted
for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous
approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
Applications for New Mendota Heights Apartment Development, as proposed under Planning
Case No. 2017-20, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit Applications for
the new Mendota Heights Apartment Development, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-
20, located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13, are all hereby approved with the following findings of
fact:
page 139
A. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan, both preliminary and final plans,
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code
requirements for such a planned development in this area.
B. The proposed PUD should be approved the higher density, because:
i. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
ii. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities;
iii. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which
is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the
PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and
iv. the PUD can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any
existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
C. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning
flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting
surrounding land uses and natural resources.
D. The reduced setback and building separation 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.
E. 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 would require.
F. 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.
G. The proposed project is specifically designed to minimize impacts on the nearby
wetland areas (Lemay Lake) and will meet all requirements of the Wetlands
Overlay Ordinances.
H. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed
project will facilitate recreational opportunities.
I. High Density Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding
properties and the existing vegetation and adjacent commercial uses, due to the
added setbacks and natural buffering between the proposed high-density housing
and nearby low-density residential housing.
J. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban
communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed
development.
K. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking
in the City and would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
page 140
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit Applications for the
new Mendota Heights Apartment Development, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-20,
located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13, are all hereby approved with the following conditions:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of
Mendota Heights.
2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as
determined by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water
Services.
3. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site
plans 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.
4. 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.
5. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with
city pollinator friendly ordinance policy.
6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility
areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be
reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the
building permit review process.
7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an
amount equal to at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the value of such
screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the
Development Agreement.
8. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally
responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a
healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and
ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which
have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All
landscape areas must be irrigated.
9. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access
onto State Highway 13, as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval.
10. Provide outlet velocity from underground infiltration area (energy dissipation)
11. Rainfall intensity shall be by Atlas 14.
page 141
12. Provide water quality model.
13. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul
Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the
design layout prior to final City Council approval.
14. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as
found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code.
18. The Developer with work with the fire department personnel in determining final
design, location and specifications to the fire safety access road to the rear
sections of the new buildings.
19. That a right-of-way vacation process is executed for Hilltop Avenue, formally
known as Deli Street, prior to the recording of the final plat.
20. The Developer will revise the planned five foot (5’) concrete walk along Highway
13 to an eight-foot (8’) bituminous trail with a minimum of a 5’ boulevard. This
trail should extend south to Victory Avenue, with ADA compliant ramps and
crosswalks including on Acacia Drive. This would also include any necessary
easements or right-of-ways.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 142
EXHIBIT A
PID Nos. 277520005240 and 277520005110:
Lots Eight (8), Nine (9), Ten ( 10), Eleven ( 11); the South Sixty- five (65) feet of Lots
Thirty-nine (39), Forty (40), Forty-one (41) and Forty- Two (42), all in block Five ( 5) of
Adelia Taylor's Addition to the City of St. Paul.
PID Nos. 277520005380 and 277520005160:
Lots Twelve (12), Thirteen (13), Fourteen (14), Fifteen (15), Sixteen (16); and
The South Sixty-five (65) feet of Lots Thirty-four (34), Thirty-five (35), Thirty-six (36),
Thirty-seven (37) and Thirty-eight (38).
PID Nos. 277520005020, 277520005060, 277520005070
Lots 1 through 7 inclusive, and lots 34 through 42 inclusive, except the south 65 feet of said
Lots 34 through 42, all in Block 5, Adelia Taylor’s Addition to the City of St. Paul, except
that part thereof shown as Parcel 269 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of
Way Plat No. 19-98
PID No. 272840001080
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Furlong Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property
page 143
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-19
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
Applications for New Mendota Heights Apartment Development
APPLICANT: Michael Swenson, Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2180 and 2160-2164 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Hwy.)
[Mendota Motel and Larson Garden Center sites]
ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2017
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Mike Swenson, owner of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC (hereinafter the “Developer”)
proposes the development of two, 70-unit apartment buildings at 2180 and 2160 Highway 13 in Mendota
Heights, Minnesota. The project proposes to unify two commercial zoned sites, which are currently
occupied by the Mendota Motel and the now closed Larsen Garden Center. The structures on both sites
will be removed or relocated; cleaned-up (as necessary); and cleared to make room for the proposed multi-
family development.
The applications include a rezoning from B-3 General Business to new HR-PUD – High Density Residential
Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; a conditional use permit
for the establishment of the PUD and development of the proposed multi-family type buildings; and
wetlands permit due to the proximity of work adjacent to Lake Lemay.
Pursuant to Title 12-1K-1 [Planned Unit Developments] of City Code, the provisions noted therein specify
a Developer presenting a new PUD is supposed to present a “Concept Plan”, followed by a separate
“Preliminary Development Plan and “Final Development Plan” for review and consideration. This report
will indicate the “Concept Plan” was already presented at the previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment
review back in May/June of this year; and since the plans under this combined (and comprehensive)
applications are very complete and thorough, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider both the
Preliminary and Final Development plans at this time as one complete submittal.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. Notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
property owners within 1,500 feet or more of the development sites (even though 350-ft. is normally
required) to ensure a large segment of the surrounding neighborhoods were made aware of this new multi-
family housing project.
page 144
BACKGROUND
In November 2015, the Developer sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70-unit apartment
building, and began the entitlement process for redeveloping the site by applying for a similar
comprehensive plan amendment. This application was later withdrawn and no official action was taken.
In February 2017, the Developer informed the city that he secured the development rights on the Mendota
Motel located at 2180 Hwy. 13, and shortly thereafter secured the rights to acquire (once again) the adjacent
Larson Garden site located at 2160 Hwy 13.
On May 23, 2017, the Planning Commission received and considered an application from the Developer
requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the current land use of “B - Business” to a
proposed “HR - High Density Residential” or “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit
Development. The Planning Commission adopted a favorable recommendation to amend the land use to
“HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development”.
On June 6, 2017, the City Council received this recommendation, and later adopted Resolution No. 2017-
43, which approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to re-guide Future Land Use from existing
“B - Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development” on the subject
properties.
On June 20, 2017, the City Council approved the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2,
a redevelopment district within the city’s existing Municipal Development District No. 1. The impetus for
the creation of the TIF District was for the City to financially assist Michael Development with the
acquisition of real property located at 2180 Highway 13, and assist in the funding (of certain eligible costs)
to construct a new market rate apartment building on the site, with surface and underground parking. It
should be noted that the initial TIF funding that was recently approved is only for the first of two phases
planned for this project, with Phase 1 being the “motel site” and Phase 2 the former “greenhouse site”.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The combined subject site is approximately 5.45 acres (total) in size. The site is bounded by Highways 13
and Hwy. 55 to the west, Acacia Boulevard to the north, wooded shoreline along Lemay Lake to the east,
and Victoria Avenue / Furlong Addition to the south. The former Larson Garden Center has been shuttered
for a number of years, while the one-story, Mendota Motel site continues to operate.
Each commercial site has a primary, single access opening directly on to the abutting Hwy. 13 roadway
system to the west. The Larson Center also appears to have an “unofficial” access point off Acacia
Boulevard to the north, but is no longer used. A secondary access or driveway opening was installed on
the north side of Victoria Lane into the motel site, but no driveway extension was ever made or needed by
the motel, so it too remains unused.
The redevelopment site is generally flat along its western border, with slopes increasing steeply moving
east toward Lemay Lake. The site is visually screened from the lake and from homes north of Lemay Lake
Road by thick tree cover.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject site is surrounded by predominantly residential land uses. The Augusta Shores development
northeast of the site is guided as Low Density Residential and comprises 23 duplexes (46 units) zoned R-1
One Family Residential. South of the motel site is the Furlong Addition, which is guided Low Density
Residential and zoned R-1 One Family Residential. All other land uses are separated from the site by a
physical roadway (highway) or Lemay Lake Road.
page 145
West of Highways 55 and 13, land use is primarily guided Industrial, with the exception being land guided
Nature Preserve or Cemetery. An industrial park, the Acacia Park Cemetery, and the Pilot Knob
Preservation Site are the dominant land uses that operate immediately west of the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The overall description of this new development entails the construction of two, twin 70-unit market rate
apartment buildings. The new apartments are planned to have dedicated underground parking areas, as
well as outdoor surface parking spaces.
The two existing access points off Highway 13 for the existing commercial sites will be removed, and the
development will provide a new, divided access driveway at the mid-point area of the combined apartment
development site.
As indicated earlier, the construction of this development will take place under two phases. Phase 1 will
involve the complete demolition and removal of the motel facilities, with construction work on this
southerly apartment building to begin immediately thereafter. The Developer states they hope to have most
of this apartment completed by mid to late summer 2018. When the Developer reaches the 80-90%
completion threshold of this first phase, he intends to begin the demolition and removal of the old garden
center site (Phase 2), and complete the other remaining apartment building by the following year 2019.
Prior to beginning this Phase 2 work, the Developer may request additional TIF funding for similar
construction or clean-up costs that he should be eligible for under the establishment of TIF District #2 in
this area, which would be considered separate funds from the first phase already approved.
The two apartment buildings are essentially twin structures that will face each other, with an internal and
shared surface parking area between both facilities. The buildings are each 3-story, 70-unit structures with
a symmetrical “L-shaped” design. The overall height of the new buildings, measured from the front
elevations is approx. 37 feet (which includes an approx. 2-ft. high parapet wall feature).
Each building measures approx. 245’ x 225’ (longest dimensions) and approx. 72-ft. at the end caps
(narrowest dimension). The footprint (Level 1) of each building is noted as 26,254 sq. ft., with a total
building area of 105,327 sq. ft. on four levels. The four levels include 3 levels of living space and one
lower level for underground parking.
The 70 living units will be a various mix and sizes of 1 bedroom apartments (37 units); 1 bedroom + den
apartments (16 units) and 2-bedroom apartments (17 units). The sizes of these new living units begin at
771 sf. up to 1,329 sf. The layout and details on these living spaces are found under the “Floor Plan” sheets
of the attached plan sets.
The underground parking for each apartment building includes an area for 79 vehicles, which includes
handicap parking and trash enclosure. The surface parking area will contain 56 spaces, or 135 spaces for
each building and 270 spaces total.
The new apartment site also includes new stormwater infiltration ponds along the north, west and south
sides of the site.
ANALYSIS
REZONING from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High Density Residential PUD
As indicated previously, on June 6, 2017, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re-guide the subject development site from “B - Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned
Unit Development.” The site remains under the B-3 General Business zone, and is being considered for
rezoning to a new HR-PUD High Density Residential – Planned Unit Development district in order to
accommodate this new multi-family housing project.
page 146
Pursuant to Title 12-1K-1, the purpose of the PUD is noted as follows:
A. This article establishes provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to provide for a planned
unit development project. 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 of zoning district requirements, but
nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain
and surrounding land uses.
B. A planned unit development may be created as a base zoning district. The purpose of the planned unit
development district is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land in order to
promote its appropriate use; to facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to
preserve the natural and scenic qualities for open areas; to encourage a diversity of housing types
within a given development and within the community as a whole; and to limit development to a scale
appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. For such PUD districts, the ten (10)
acre minimum area requirement may be waived at the discretion of the city. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
One of the key provisions of this statement is “…to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land…” which is why most 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. When Staff began working with Mr. Swenson, it was
determined early on that the preliminary design of his housing development may need certain allowances
or “flexibility” in order to make this development succeed; and instead of applying for a number of
variances, the PUD was the logical (and recommended) process to pursue.
Under Title 12-1K-2, a new development site is required to have 10-acres or more of land to be considered
under the PUD process, but a reduction the 10-acre requirement can be made based on the following:
1. The council may reduce the ten (10) acre requirement for a planned unit development, but to no
less than five (5) acres, and only if it finds that the planned unit development, in addition to meeting
all of the standards and objectives of section 12-1K-5 of this article:
a. Is determined by the council to be "infill type development" that would be difficult to develop
under the zoning district or districts comprising the project area.
b. Will not require any wetlands permit.
c. Will not require any critical area variance.
d. Will not increase traffic or parking estimates for the project area above the level reasonably
estimated for a permitted use for the project area's size in the zoning district in which it is
situated.
e. Provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area unless expressly
waived by the council.
2. The council shall be conservative in exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development
of less than ten (10) acres. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
As noted herein, the development site is 5.45 acres, which can be considered under this code section. Staff
will note however, that although the statement “Will not require any wetlands permit” – this particular
application does include a wetlands permit, due to the proximity of the project to nearby Lemay Lake. This
project is not expected to impact any part of Lemay, so the consideration of allowing this reduced PUD
size, regardless of the Wetlands Permit is recommended by City Staff to continue.
Under Title 12-1K-3, and new HR-PUD District is recommended to comply with the following:
page 147
A. HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development District: The HR-PUD district is
intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development of a nature and intensity
equivalent to the R-3 zoning district. The permitted, conditional, and accessory uses in this district
are the same as those for the R-3 district.
Title 12-1K-5: PUD APPROVAL AND ADMINISTRATION provides the following:
A. 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.
The guiding R-3 Multiple Family Residential District provides a standard of 8.54 units/acre. Based on this
R-3 standard, only 46 units on this 5.45 acre site would be allowed. However, the benefit of the PUD
process is it allows the developer to request or present a higher density allowance than normally prescribed
under straight R-3 zoning, in this case the density recalculates to 25.7, or 26 units per acres. The allowance
of the higher density is something the Planning Commission needs to consider very closely. Overall, the
size of the development on the planned site seems reasonable, and Staff has indicated in previous
discussions with the Commission that the 8.54 units/acre may be a bit too low for similar or typical “high
density residential” zoned areas in other metro communities. Some cities have densities up or near the 20
– 30 units per acre, and some do not place limits, provided the overall development and/or buildings work
for setbacks, parking, open-space, landscaping, etc.
Statements on Density
This section was made part of the comprehensive plan report at the May 23, 2017 meeting. Again, this
information is important to provide reasoning or justification for allowing the Developer a reasonable
request to increase the density under this new PUD.
As stated earlier, the High Density residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan only allows
a maximum density of 8.5 units per acre. This designation is very low compared to many other suburban
cities in the region. The following table depicts guided densities in peer communities’ highest density land
use designations:
Eagan 12+ units/acre
Richfield 24 units/acre
Edina 12-30 units/acre
Roseville 12+ units/acre
New Brighton 12+ units/acre
Burnsville 9-14 units/acre
Woodbury 10-15 units/acre
Maplewood 10.1-25 units/acre
page 148
The trend in this metro area and most other cities in the U.S. is towards higher density in appropriate
locations. Such sites would include good access and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The subject
site meets those criteria. The maximum densities in the table above – 25-30 units/acre – are typical of
suburban maximum and can readily be achieved with three- or four-story construction. These densities do
not approach what the central cities see in high density projects – 100 units/acre or more.
It was noted in the land use amendment application, that the existing commercial use is struggling at this
location; and replacing it with a multi-family residential use would not need the same level of access and
visibility that a commercial use needs. Multi-family uses typically need to be buffered from lower intensity
residential uses and this site makes that relatively easy.
In 2016, the City approved a PUD Amendment for the At Homes Apartment development inside the
Mendota Mall properties near Hwy. 110 and Dodd Road. This development consisted of 139 market rate
rental units on a 2.2 acre site, which equates to a density of almost 63 units/acre.
Under Title 12-1K-3: Specific Planned Unit Development Districts, the City possesses the right to create
certain planned unit development districts for specific developments. The PUD Ordinance is meant to
provide greater flexibility to the developer with certain aspects of the development, including site design,
reduced setbacks, reduced parking spaces, and even higher (housing) density allotments. The PUD also
provides a wide range of autonomy and latitude to the City to allow these reduced standards and/or approve
higher density numbers, if it so chooses.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code, the “number of Dwelling Units” is allowed under the
following standard:
“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. Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the
standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council.”
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3 of the City Code, the Planning Commission may determine the approved
density under the following provision:
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.
For all intents and purposes, Staff believes this PUD may be allowed and approved with the higher density
proposed, because it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; the development plan
includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities; 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 under the TIF District No. 2 consideration, which was heavily vetted by the city’s financial
page 149
consultants with Ehlers; the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and the PUD can be and will
be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding
the project site.
PRELIMINARY/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – SITE PLAN & SPECIFICS REVIEW
Living Area: The proposed high-density residential apartments will have 70 units per building.
Each building contains a centralized lobby area, fitness center, club room and office area. Virtually
all units will have private at-grade patio or upper balconies
Unit Size: All units meet the R-3 area per unit minimum standard of 750 sf. per unit. The single,
1-bedroom units are all at 771 sq. ft. in size. The 1-bedroom + den range in size from 876 sf. to
988 sf.; and the 2-bedroom units range in size from 1,131 sf. to 1,329 sf.
Levels: Each building consists of 3 stories of living space, with one underground level dedicated
to parking. The lower level consists of 26,722 sf.; the 1st floor (apartments and general areas) is
26,254 sf, the 2nd level is 26,178 sf. and the 3rd level is 26,173 sf., for an area of 105,327 total sf.
Height: the building height is estimated at approximately 37-feet in height (at the front elevation).
The R-3 Zone does not place a limit on the height of buildings in this district.
Setbacks Standards: The R-3 District requires the following setback standards:
o Front Yard: 50-ft. + 1 ft. per each foot of building height over 60-ft.
o Side/Rear Yards: 40-ft. + 1 ft. per each foot of building height over 75-ft.
o No principal building shall be less than 60 feet from each other.
o Minimum Lot Width shall be 150-feet.
Phase 1 (south building) is shown with a front yard setback of 44.9 feet; 75 ft. from the side (south)
line; 88.1 feet from the rear (east) line; and 30-ft. from the north side yard line.
Phase 2 (north building) is shown with a front yard setback of 30 ft.; 30-ft. from the north line;
90.5 ft. from the rear (east) line; and approx. 17 ft. from the south side line.
The two buildings are separated by approximately 47 feet between both principal buildings.
Once again, the PUD can be used to provide some flexibility to allowing or accepting these
reduced setbacks in this development plan. The front yard setbacks along Hwy. 13 are reduced
by 5.1-ft. and 20-ft. respectively. The reduction of these setbacks along this highway (frontage
road system) should cause minimal if any impacts to the area, and does not pose any threat to the
general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties, and is of no concern to city staff.
The reduced setback from 40 feet to 30 feet along Acacia Blvd. is also of no concern due to the
large excess right-of-way and buffer space along the north edge of the development site, and again,
this reduced setback does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding properties, and is of no concern to city staff.
The reduced separation between buildings is also of no concern, as the 47 foot spacing seems and
appears appropriate, and this separation, and all reduced setbacks as proposed under this
development plan, are acceptable and recommended for approval by city staff.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The R-3 District does not require or include a standard for FAR; however
the Developer has provided a calculation showing the FAR for this site as follows:
o 157,210 sf. of total living space / 237,453 sf. of lot area = 0.66 percent
page 150
Site Data Calculations: The Site Plan data includes existing vs. proposed site area calculations:
Site Area Calculations Existing Proposed
Bldg. Coverage 44,571 sf. 18.8% 53,301 sf. 22.4%
All Pavements 40,765 sf 17.2% 64,638 sf. 27.2%
All Non Pavement 152,125 sf. 64.1% 119,513 sf. 50.3%
TOTAL SITE AREA 237,452 sf 100% 237,452 sf. 100%
Impervious Surface
Existing Condition 85,327 sf. 35.9%
Proposed Conditions 117,939 sf. 49.7%
Difference + 32,612 sf. + 13.7%
Design: The building architectural design and materials call for a varying mix of earth tone colors,
with brick, decorative rock-face CMU (concrete masonry units) stone lintels and stone sills, and
prefinished aluminum deck railings. Other wall treatments include a variety of different colored
cement fiber board panels and siding materials.
The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible, but should be reviewed against the
standards for similar-zoned uses. While the development is being considered under the HR-PUD,
the proposed plans are being reviewed under the R-3 High Density Residential District standards.
The Planning Commission and City Council has the discretion to recommend increased (but
reasonable) standards and adopt any conditions as deemed necessary.
Parking: The proposed residential development includes 79 spaces underneath each building or
158 total. Each site will also have 56 outdoor surface parking or 112 total. The combined total
number of spaces for both sites is 270 spaces.
The R-3 District also provides a setback standard for parking areas of at least 40-feet from any public
roadway; and at least 10-feet from any principal building. The parking on the site plans indicate the
parking lot for the north building will meet the 40-ft. setback, but the south parking lot (at its closest
point) is approximately 35 feet from Hwy 13 frontage road.
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 140 units, strict application of the Code
standard would require a minimum of 350 parking spaces.
It is Planning Staff’s professional 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.
page 151
When At Homes/Paster Properties presented the 149 unit (now 139 unit) “The Reserves of Mendota
Plaza” market rate apartment development in the Mendota Plaza center in 2016, the issue of 2.5
spaces/unit was discussed, and a professional analysis was performed by the city’s planning
consultants from Stantec, 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 1.10-1.37 spaces
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: 140 units x 1.6 = 224 spaces
Parking at 1.2/bedroom: 53 one bedroom units @ 1.2 = 63.6
17 two bedroom units @ 1.2 = 20.4
TOTAL 84 per building, or 168 total
It is the professional opinion of planning staff that the 270 spaces proposed under this developments
plan is more than adequate, and is based on the previous analysis performed on the Reserves of MH
development just one year ago; and should be supported due to the strong desire to preserve or
encourage more open space on this site, and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional
parking would require. The slight reduction of the 35-ft. setback on the corner of the south building
parking lot is of little or no concern, and can be recommend for approval.
Sidewalk/Trail: The plans call for a five foot (5’) concrete walk along Highway 13. Staff is
recommending this walkway be revised to an eight-foot (8’) bituminous trail with a minimum of a 5’
boulevard. This should extend south to Victory Avenue, with ADA complaint ramps and crosswalks
including on Acacia Drive. All private walkway connections into the PUD site may be left as concrete
surfaces.
page 152
Signage: The development plans and elevation plans identify a freestanding monument sign near the
front entrance. The plans are absent of any details or specific, but staff wishes to provide the following
standard and recommendations:
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-15, by conditional use permit, a use in a residential zoning district which is
allowed either as a permitted or conditional use may qualify for a wall sign in addition to a nameplate
sign, provided that each of the following requirements are met:
a. The parcel on which such a sign is proposed may be no less than five (5) acres in size.
b. The sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area.
c. The sign may be illuminated, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right
of way or adjacent residential district.
By definition, a Nameplate Sign is “any sign which states the name or address, or both, of the business
or occupant of the lot where the sign is placed or may be a directory listing the names, addresses, and
business of occupants.”
The sign standards for “institutional uses” located in the R-1 and R-2 zones provide an allowance of
one large freestanding electronic message board sign up to 100 sq. ft. and 9 feet in height. Staff is not
advocating or suggesting an electronic sign for this use, but would recommend this development be
afforded the right to install a 100-sq. ft. sign, not to exceed 9-ft. in height. The final location of the sign
would need to meet the 10-foot setback standard and located outside of any easements. The City will
also give favorable consideration if the sign is able to be installed in the center island (as illustrated on
the Elevation Plans SD601 and 602), provided it does not impact or impair the nearby easement rights
being platted under the plat.
Landscaping Plans: The development plans include a well-designed and very detailed landscape and
planting plan for the outside areas of this housing development.
The plans call for a number of deciduous trees consisting of Northwood maples, white oaks, lindens,
and honey locusts. Ornamental tress consisting of flowering crabs and river birches will also be
included. Evergreen trees consisting of Black Hill spruces and Colorado spruce will also be provided.
Shrubs consisting of junipers, sumacs, boxwoods, chokeberries and dogwoods will be added along with
a number of perennial plantings such as hostas, daylilies and blue and white asters.
The removal plans show that a large number of trees will be removed inside the garden center site, and
only a few trees on the motel site (since this site is absent of many trees and landscaping). Under the
first phase, the plan includes a number of new and various types of trees along the south and west edges
of the property. The central parking areas are designed with wide islands to accommodate various trees
and shrubs and plantings in these areas as well. The pans do not show or provide any new plantings
along the east side of the building next to the Lemay Lake frontage. Staff assumes since most of this
tree-line buffered area will remain intact, it does not seem necessary to place a number of new trees in
this area.
The Phase 2 (garden center) site is also similarly planted with a variety of new trees and plantings, and
does include additional trees along the back side (east side) of the new building. This area is planned
to have some extensive re-grading due the severe sloped area in the existing site.
Because the City has begun to embrace and support “pollinator friendly” plantings in the community,
Staff is recommending the Developer meet with or share this plan with the Master Gardener consultants
from the Univ. of MN Extension Services, whom will provide helpful advice and input in identifying
and selecting varieties of materials that encourage and support the city-wide initiative and re-pollination
efforts in this area.
For all intents and purposes, this landscape and planting plan again meets the satisfaction of City Staff,
and should be recommended for approval.
page 153
Public Safety Review: The city’s fire department suggested the Developer attempt to provide a safety
access or fire lane access road to the rear sections of the new apartment buildings. At this time, the fire
personnel have not provided planning staff with details or specifications on what they require, such as
paved/unpaved surface, weight loads, width, locations, etc. The Developer was made aware of this
recommendation, and indicated he will work in full cooperation with the fire department and provide
whatever fire safety measures or improvements they recommend.
WETLANDS PERMIT
According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to:
1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-
related areas;
2. Maintain the natural drainage system;
3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss
of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or
from excessive sedimentation;
4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
5. Ensure safety from floods.
The proposed project includes grading and construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water
resource-related area, which in this case is Lemay Lake. As indicated on the Grading Plans (Sheet 3.0), the
Developer is making a concerted effort not to grade this area near Lemay Lake, and is limiting most of the
new construction work in and near the building site only, which will help avoid any impacts or disturbance
in this lakeshore area. The stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) indicate the extraordinary
measures of protecting this area with double row of silt fence and bio-rolls.
Staff is confident the Developer will provide adequate protection and safeguards throughout the duration of
the project, and will ensure these and all other environmental and habitat protection measures are maintained.
AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION
Pursuant to Title 12-4-1, the City finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by
aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses
of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate
aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or
inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate
aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this
chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
Review of the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s Noise Contour Map – 2016 indicates the subject PUD
site appears to be partially inside the established “60 DNL” noise contour line. The DNL is defined as:
“The day-night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time
averaged A-weighted sound level) from twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight to twelve o'clock (12:00)
midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from ten o'clock (10:00)
P.M. to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M.”
Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise
zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such
permit. In this particular case, any “Multiplex/apartment with a shared entrance” must attain a 25 lesser
or more reading from the established Leq factor of 60-70. The Leq is defined as follows: “The
equivalent continuous sound level which, over the period of one hour, has the same A-weighted sound
energy as the time varying sound.”
page 154
What this means is that all plans and specification for new buildings in this aircraft noise zone must
comply with the following [additional] standards:
a. All applicants for a building or occupancy permit shall include with the application all plans,
specifications or other information required by this chapter. The plans and specifications shall
describe in sufficient detail all pertinent features of the building, building materials, heating and
ventilation systems, including, but not limited to, the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, walls,
windows, and doors; and other pertinent data as may be requested by the city to indicate
conformance with the applicable noise reduction level requirements as specified in the noise
compatibility tables. To assure the elimination of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall
demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
(1) A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the minimum air circulation
and fresh air supply requirements as provided in the state and uniform building code for the
proposed occupancy without the need to open any exterior doors or windows.
(2) The perimeter of all exterior windows and doorframes shall be sealed airtight to the exterior
wall construction.
(3) Fireplaces shall be equipped with well fitted chimney closing devices.
(4) All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space to outdoors shall be
provided with a bend such that no direct line of sight exists from exterior to interior through
the vent duct.
(5) Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close fitting. Weather stripping seals
shall be incorporated to eliminate all edge gaps.
(6) All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and the like shall be caulked
airtight to the exterior construction.
b. The city shall require that plans and specifications be certified by a recognized acoustical
specialist for compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 420, 1-20-2009
These standards are typically reviewed for full compliance by the City’s Building Official, who is well-
versed and experienced in working with architects, engineers, contractors, residents and developers in
making sure their plans reflect or incorporate these additional noise standards if needed.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of a new subdivision to be titled “Mendota Heights
Apartments”. This plat will provide two separate parcels - Lot 1 and Lot 2, which will be used to develop
this housing project site into the two separate phases noted previously.
This subdivision will involve the re-platting of the singular (but combined) Mendota Motel property; along
with the old Larson Garden Center property, which consists of a number of separated parcels of record that
were never combined. This plat also includes a segment of unused/undeveloped platted road right-of-way
situated between the motel and garden center sites, identified as Hilltop Avenue, f/k/a Doughty Street. This
platted section of Hilltop Avenue must be officially vacated by the City and then allowed to be conveyed
or added into the plat before the future final plat is approved.
The plat will help greatly resolve and “clean-up” a number of parcel line encroachments and parcel areas
that extend out into the Highway 13 roadway system, and provide for drainage and utility easements as
required by the Subdivision Code.
page 155
The preliminary plat as presented is acceptable to city staff; and staff will work with the Developer in
processing the street vacation needed for this plat.
MnDOT Review
In conjunction with the previous land use amendment process, the Developer submitted the concept
development plans to MnDOT for their review and consideration. On or around June 29, 2017, the city
received a preliminary review letter of the proposed PUD site.
The Developer will be required to apply for and obtain MnDOT right-of-way permits for any work in their
roadway systems, which will include the removal and replacement of the two driveways to the motel and
garden center sties; the new shared single access drive off Hwy 13 into the PUD; and the recommended
right turn lane, that is currently shown on these updated plans. This letter is appended to this report for the
commissioner’s review.
Park Dedication
If this PUD is approved, the Developer is required to contribute either 10% of final plat gross area for
dedication to a public use (typically park space or open space), or contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount
established by the city.
The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not identify any park space or needs in this PUD site area,
therefore Staff is recommending the Developer pay a park dedication fee instead of dedicating public land.
In accordance with current Fee Schedule, the applicable fees are as follows:
• Single and Multi-Family Residential: $4,000/dwelling unit
• Commercial/Industrial: 10% of assessed value of unimproved land
Payment of the required park dedication fees is included as a condition of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat, and wetlands permit
requests, including drainage and utility easement vacations, based on the attached finding of fact,
with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat, and wetlands permit
requests, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City
Council; or
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
applications for New Mendota Heights Apartment Development, based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), along with the following suggested conditions of approval:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights.
2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the
Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
page 156
3. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans 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.
4. 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.
5. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with city pollinator
friendly ordinance.
6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not
obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire
Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process.
7. 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.
8. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance
and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site
or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions
allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated.
9. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access onto State
Highway 13, as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval.
10. Provide outlet velocity from underground infiltration area (energy dissipation)
11. Rainfall intensity shall be by Atlas 14.
12. Provide water quality model.
13. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City Council
approval.
14. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title
12-4-1 of City Code.
18. The Developer with work with the fire department personnel in determining final design, location
and specifications to the fire safety access road to the rear sections of the new buildings.
page 157
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
For the
Mendota Heights Apartment PUD
2160 – 2180 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan, both preliminary and final plans, are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a planned
development in this area.
2. The proposed PUD should be approved the higher density, because:
a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities;
c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient
to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the
comprehensive plan; and
d. the PUD can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
3. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance
development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural
resources.
4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety
and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development
of this property.
5. The 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
would require.
6. 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.
7. The proposed project is specifically designed to minimize impacts on the nearby wetland areas
(Lemay Lake) and will meet all requirements of the Wetlands Overlay Ordinances.
8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will
facilitate recreational opportunities.
9. High Density Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and
the existing vegetation and adjacent commercial uses, due to the added setbacks and natural
buffering between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing.
10. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would
allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
11. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and
would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
page 158
Page 1 of 2
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd. East,Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
ProjectProjectProjectProject NNNNaaaarrrrrrrraaaattttiiiivvvveeee
Date: Date: Date: Date:
July 31, 2017
Reference: Reference: Reference: Reference:
Mendota Heights Apartments
Attention: Attention: Attention: Attention:
Tim Benetti – City of Mendota Heights
Mark McNeill – City of Mendota Heights
Summary:Summary:Summary:Summary:
The Mendota Heights apartment project proposes two, 70 Unit, market rate apartment buildings constructed
at 2180 and 2160 Highway 13, between Acacia Drive and Victory Ave. The proposal seeks to demolish the
existing buildings to make way for the construction of the new apartment buildings. The current business
located on the site that are proposed to be demolished are the Larson Green House and Mendota Heights
Motel. The Green house has been closed for a number of the years and is in disrepair. The Mendota heights
motel is in operation but the property of generates a high volume of police calls annually.
Rezoning:Rezoning:Rezoning:Rezoning:
The existing site is zoned Business B-3, and it is proposed to change it to High Density Residential R-3
SetbackSetbackSetbackSetbackssss::::
Both Buildings are setback from the property line a minimum of 30’-0” which is consistent with the existing
buildings on the site. However, the majority of each building is set back much further. Additionally, the South,
Phase I Building is completely outside the Transmission easement.
Size of the Proposed Development:Size of the Proposed Development:Size of the Proposed Development:Size of the Proposed Development:
Each apartment building contains 70 market-rate apartment units, or 140 total when both buildings are
constructed. The buildings shall be 3 stories above grade with an underground garage. From the level 1
entry, the buildings will be approximately 36’-0” Tall to the top of the Parapet. Each building has a footprint
of 26,722 SF, and an overall building area of 105,327 SF including the underground Garage. The two
phases combined have a Floor Area Ratio of .66, with 157,210 total square feet of above ground housing on
237,453 square feet of site.
TimingTimingTimingTiming of Developmentof Developmentof Developmentof Development::::
This project includes two separate, but similar buildings and it is being proposed that the two buildings be built
in two phases - the Phase I building is scheduled to begin construction and the Phase II is estimated to begin
construction in August 2017.
page 159
Page 2 of 2
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd. East,Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
Parking:Parking:Parking:Parking:
Each apartment building contains 70 market-rate units, with 140 total when both buildings are constructed.
Each 70 Unit building would have approximately 135 dedicated parking stalls - 79 below grade garage
stalls, and 56 on the surface lot. Giving the final parking ratio of 1.93 Stalls per unit. This is slightly below the
city code which specifies 2.0 Stalls per unit. However, given the high number of 1 bedroom units (64/140)
and 1BR + Dens, (32/140), the proposed parking is adequate for both residents and guests.
Similar Market Rate Apartment Projects done recently by our office also indicate a trend for less parking being
needed than 2.0 Stalls Per Unit for Example:
• Villages of Frost English Apartments – Maplewood, MN – Currently Under construction
o 107 Units, 122 Stalls (1.14 Stalls Per Unit)
• Elevate Apartments – Eden Prairie, MN – In for HUD Financing Review
o 220 Units, 345 Stalls (1.57 Stalls Per Unit)
• Axis Apartments – Plymouth, MN – Construction completed Winter 2017
o 155 Units, 345 Stalls (1.57 Stalls Per Unit)
• Urban Park Apartments Phase II – St. Louis Park, MN – Preliminary Design
o 90 Units, 118 Stalls (1.31 Stalls Per Unit)
City Requires 1 stall per bedroom, plus 10% of that for guests
Additionally, we have room on the site to provide proof of parking concept to get to the required 2.0 Stalls
per unit if parking issues arise after the project is built and occupied.
BuiBuiBuiBuilding Design/Materialslding Design/Materialslding Design/Materialslding Design/Materials::::
The two phases both include an aesthetic of high-quality, modern building materials. A variety of brick and
cement fiber board lap and panel siding cover the facades. A concentration of brick has been focused on the
more public faces of the building, looking out on Highway 13 with a mix of lap and panel siding on the more
wooded, less visible sides. Colored, rockface concrete masonry units cover the visible areas of the below-
grade garage. Most apartments units also have access to balconies, overlooking Highway 13 and the
surrounding lakes, Lemay and Augusta.
BuiBuiBuiBuilding lding lding lding Amenities:Amenities:Amenities:Amenities:
Each building also includes a full package of amenities, available to all residents. A large, open lobby with
direct access to resident mail as you walk in as well as offices and management support being immediately
accessible. A fitness center with plenty of equipment and club room perfect for entertaining guests. A
secondary club room sits on the third floor, accompanied by an outdoor deck overlooking the Lemay and
Augusta Lakes.
page 160
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
June 29, 2017
Mr. Tim Benetti
Community Development Director, Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
SUBJECT: Michael Development
MnDOT Review CPA17-005
SE Quad MN 13 and Acacia Drive
Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Control Section 1902
Dear Mr. Benetti,
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced comprehensive plan
amendment. Before any further development, please address the following issues:
Planning:
It appears that the plan will eliminate an access (existing hotel access) to MN 13, however it is difficult to tell if
the remaining access (existing garden center access) will stay in its current location or is being moved. Please
provide clarification regarding whether the development in question is proposing to remove both accesses and
develop a new access to the property, or use an existing access.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Jennifer Wiltgen at (651) 234-7788 or
jennifer.wiltgen@state.mn.us
Permits:
This development involves a change of use, therefore MnDOT requires a new access permit. In addition, any use
of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit.
Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s utility website at
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/maintenance/permits.html
Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please submit/send all
permit applications and 11X17plan sets to: metropermitapps.dot@state.mn.us. Please direct any questions
regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section.
Right of way:
This development is considered a change of use and would need a new access permit to allow access from MN13.
As stated above please provide clarification regarding whether the development in question is proposing to
remove both accesses and develop a new access to the property, or use an existing access.
As the development progresses, contact from the developer should be made with the MnDOT Surveys Contact,
Matt Wernet (651) 366-4345, or matt.wernet@state.mn.us. This will ensure that the developer is using MnDOT’s
right of way in the correct location.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Matt Aguirre at (651) 234-7599, or
matt.aguirre@state.mn.us
page 161
Traffic:
Per the ITE trip generation manual, the proposed development will generate approximately 1,000 daily trips. This
is over the 100 daily trips that warrants a right turn lane per the MnDOT Access Management Manual guidelines.
MnDOT will require a right turn lane as a part of the permitting process.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Merlin Kent at (651) 234-7825, or
merlin.kent@state.mn.us
Design:
Construction drawings will need to be submitted for review. Please make sure the following items are included in
the construction plans:
MnDOT right of way
TH 13 highway
Profile grade of the new access
Pavement section
Drainage features
Show all proposed grading
Dimensions
The detail accompanying this letter will provide access guidance. For questions regarding these comments please
contact Nancy Jacobson at (651) 234-7647, or nancy.l.jacobson@state.mn.us
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 are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to
prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of
the land use would result in violations of established noise standards.
MnDOT’s policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway
funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and
take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
If you have any questions regarding MnDOT’s noise policy please contact Natalie Ries in our Noise/Air Quality
section at (651) 234-7681.
Review Submittal Options:
MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be
turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the
review process. Plans can be sent to:
page 162
MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disc.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site. Please send files to:
ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning
Internet Explorer doesn’t work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My
Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans
have been submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review please contact me at (651) 234-7788.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Wiltgen
Senior Planner
Copy sent via E-Mail:
Molly Kline, Area Engineer
Matt Wernet, Surveys
Clare Lackey, Traffic
Merlin Kent, Traffic
Buck Craig, Permits
Matt Aguirre, Right of way
Alan Rindels, Water Resources
Natalie Ries, Noise/Air Quality
Nancy Jacobson, Design
page 163
STANDARD
PLATE
NO.
SPECIFICATION
REFERENCE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
R/W LINE
30’
0’ TO 1.5’32’
1
HIGHW AY <
HIGHW AY <
CULVERT IF NECESSARY
VAR.
VAR.
3
3
APPROACHES AND ENTRANCES
9000E
CROSS SECTIONS
FILL SECTION
CUT SECTION
1
2
3 8% M AXIM UM COMMERCIAL; 15% MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL.
R/W LINE
30’
35’ R.
0’ TO 1.5’
24’1
HIGHWAY LC
LOW VOLUME ROAD40’12’ TURN LANE
NOTE: USE 1:6 SIDE SLOPES
NOTE: USE 1:6 SIDE SLOPES
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
16’16’
COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - FARM ENTRANCES
R/W LINE
74’
HIGHWAY <
25’ R.
24’1
37’
RURAL RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE
R/W LINE
80’
HIGHWAY LC
20’ R.20’
1
FIELD ENTRANCES
2
40’SHOULDER
VARIABLE
25’ R.
RECOMM ENDED STANDARDS
0’ TO 1.5’
SURFACING
BITUMINOUS
SURFACING
BITUMINOUS
142’
71’
4
4
4
30’
SURFACING TO R/W LINE.
IS NO SURFACING, PLACE GRAVEL BEYOND BITUMINOUS
SURFACING TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. WHERE THERE
25’ RECOMM ENDED FOR ENTRANCES - ( 15’ M IN. )
50’ RECOMMENDED FOR ROADS - ( 25’ MIN. )
SHOULDER
VARIABLE
SHOULDER
VARIABLE
HIGHW AY <
0.5’ MIN.
0.5’ MIN.
BY ENGINEER.
PLACE 2 FT. WIDE BITUM INOUS SURFACING AS DIRECTED
VARIABLE SHOULDER
IN PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR SOM E RESIDENCES - AS SHOWN
THE USE OF PAVING SIM ILAR TO COMMERCIAL ENTRANCES
STATE DESIGN ENGINEER
APPROVED SEPT. 27, 2012
page 164
page 165
kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD010Existing Site Planpage 166
MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2180 Highway 13, Mendota, MN
GRAPHIC SITE PLAN
page 167
MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2180 Highway 13, Mendota, MN
VIEW FROM NORTH
PHASE II
3-STORY - 70 UNITS
PHASE I
3-STORY - 70 UNITS
page 168
MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2180 Highway 13, Mendota, MN
page 169
190 ft²STAIR25,818 ft²Underground Garage227 ft²STAIRColor LegendCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003TrashCL7'-0"Elev.EquipmentElev. LobbyA5012SD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD300Garage Level Floor Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level -1 - PHASE II SIM.Parking Schedule (Both Phases)CommentsCountPhase 1 - Garage 79Phase 1 - Surface 56Phase 2 - Garage 79Phase 2 - Surface 56Grand total: 270Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D11,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D31,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D41,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)LevelAreaLevel -126,722 ft²Level 126,254 ft²Level 226,178 ft²Level 326,173 ft²105,327 ft²page 170
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²FitnessColor Legend1BR1BR + Den2BRCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003CL150 ft²Office200 ft²Conf. Rm.1,051 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3177 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech71 ft²Elec./LV179 ft²Office250 ft²Work Rm.A5012771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ASD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD310Level 1 Floor PlanParking Schedule (Both Phases)CommentsCountPhase 1 - Garage 79Phase 1 - Surface 56Phase 2 - Garage 79Phase 2 - Surface 56Grand total: 270Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D11,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D31,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D41,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level 1 - PHASE II SIM.Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)Level AreaLevel -126,722 ft²Level 126,254 ft²Level 226,178 ft²Level 326,173 ft²105,327 ft²page 171
Color Legend1BR1BR + Den2BRCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1CL280 ft²STAIR276 ft²STAIR958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,131 ft²Unit D1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LVA5012876 ft²Unit C2771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1SD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD320Level 2 Floor Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level 2 - PHASE II SIM.Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D11,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D31,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D41,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)Level AreaLevel -126,722 ft²Level 126,254 ft²Level 226,178 ft²Level 326,173 ft²105,327 ft²page 172
Color Legend1BR1BR + Den2BRCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003CL276 ft²STAIR276 ft²STAIR958 ft²Unit C1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,131 ft²Unit D1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV719 ft²Club Room517 ft²Outdoor DeckA5012771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C2771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1988 ft²Unit C4SD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD330Level 3 Floor Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level 3 - PHASE II SIM.Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D11,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D31,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D41,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)LevelAreaLevel -126,722 ft²Level 126,254 ft²Level 226,178 ft²Level 326,173 ft²105,327 ft²page 173
Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"7.47.24.27.97.94.67.14.17.57.17.105.95.34.64.75.5Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"4.37.1CFB PANEL - COLOR 1: TBDEXTERIOR MATERIALS TAG KEY5.3ALUMINUM BALCONY - COLOR: TBD5.5METAL ENTRY CANOPY - COLOR: TBD4.1BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:BUTTERNUT VELOUR4.3COLORED CMU - ROCK FACE - COLOR: EXPRESSO4.6PRECAST STONE LINTEL4.7STONE SILL4.2BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:CASTILE GRAY7.2CFB PANEL - COLOR 2: TBD7.3CFB PANEL - COLOR 3: TBD7.4CFB LAP - COLOR 1: TBD7.5CFB LAP - COLOR 2: TBD7.6CFB LAP - COLOR 3: TBD7.7CFB LAP - COLOR 4: TBD7.8CFB LAP - COLOR 5: TBD7.9CFB TRIM - COLOR 1: TBD7.10CFB TRIM - COLOR 2: TBDkaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD500Exterior Elevations 1/8" = 1'-0"1Elevation 2 - a Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2Elevation 2 - d Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"3Elevation 6 - a Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"4Elevation 3 - a Copy 1page 174
Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"4.27.47.27.97.97.57.87.37.107.77.67.54.37.14.64.24.77.17.1CFB PANEL - COLOR 1: TBDEXTERIOR MATERIALS TAG KEY5.3ALUMINUM BALCONY - COLOR: TBD5.5METAL ENTRY CANOPY - COLOR: TBD4.1BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:BUTTERNUT VELOUR4.3COLORED CMU - ROCK FACE - COLOR: EXPRESSO4.6PRECAST STONE LINTEL4.7STONE SILL4.2BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:CASTILE GRAY7.2CFB PANEL - COLOR 2: TBD7.3CFB PANEL - COLOR 3: TBD7.4CFB LAP - COLOR 1: TBD7.5CFB LAP - COLOR 2: TBD7.6CFB LAP - COLOR 3: TBD7.7CFB LAP - COLOR 4: TBD7.8CFB LAP - COLOR 5: TBD7.9CFB TRIM - COLOR 1: TBD7.10CFB TRIM - COLOR 2: TBDkaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD501Exterior Elevations 1/8" = 1'-0"1Elevation 4 - a Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2Elevation 5 - a Copy 1page 175
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/17REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC0.0TITLE SHEET. .. .. .. .. .. .MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLEC0.0 TITLE SHEETSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION MAPNSITE SURVEYC0.1UTILITY PLANC4.0ISSUED FOR: CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETMASTER LEGEND:EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALCURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB (GUTTER TOP)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALLSOIL BORING LOCATIONSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALLEMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED MANHOLE STORMPROPOSED GATE VALVEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING LIGHTEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING ELECTRIC BOXEXISTING STOPBOXPROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARYPROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORMDYH
PROPOSED SIGNEXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATIONINLET PROTECTIONSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEDRAINAGE ARROWDEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER:MICHAEL PROPERTIES971 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY #300ST. PAUL, MN 55118651-698-3452ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL SITE GROUP4931 W 35TH STREETSUITE 200ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416612-615-0060SURVEYOR:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW1.0GRADING PLANC3.0C5.0C5.1L1.0DETAILSLANDSCAPE PLANSWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSW2.0SWPPP - DETAILSSW3.0C2.0 SITE PLANSWPPP - NARRATIVESW4.0DETAILSC1.0 REMOVALS PLANC5.2 DETAILSCLARK ENGINEERING12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE 100MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422763-545-9196GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALSWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW5.0SWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW5.1TBDL1.1NORTH LANDSCAPE PLANEOF=1135.52SB-1TOPROPOSED LIGHTEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATER MAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSILT FENCE / BIOROLL - GRADING LIMITARCHITECT:KAAS WILSON ARCHITECTS1301 AMERICAN BOULEVARD EASTBLOOMINGTON, MN 55425612-879-6000C1.1NORTH REMOVALS PLANC1.2 SOUTH REMOVALS PLANC2.1 NORTH SITE PLANC2.2 SOUTH SITE PLANC3.1 NORTH GRADING PLANC3.2 SOUTH GRADING PLANC4.1 NORTH UTILITY PLANC4.2 SOUTH UTILITY PLANL1.2SOUTH LANDSCAPE PLANL1.3LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES & DETAILSSW1.1 NORTH SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW1.2 SOUTH SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW2.1 NORTH SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSW2.2 SOUTH SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSITE SURVEYC0.2PRELIMINARY PLATC0.3page 176
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTYLINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTERCOMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFFOOTING MATERIALS.5.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITEIMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THEOWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.8.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.9.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENTMARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.10.CURB AND GUTTER TYPE SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS-TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.11.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.13.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.14.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.15.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.16.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.17.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROWSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLYISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE AREA TABLE:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK)PROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOSHEET C2.1SHEET C2.2page 177
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION, EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTINGSHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILSENGINEER.3.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THENATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS &PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.4.PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.5.GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5% MAX. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1% MIN. AND2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS.MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:17.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPESGREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED RETAININGWALL ENGINEER. DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES.9.IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALLEXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORTSUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE.10.EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE INAREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FORRESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENTAREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLSUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREADTOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.11.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREASWITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTHFINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPESBETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTINGGRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENTCONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOMERUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALLAREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL ORBETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK.12.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THESTREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADEDTANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THEDIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THESOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET ORPARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. NO TEST ROLL SHALL OCCURWITHIN 10' OF ANY UNDERGROUND STORM RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEMS.13. TOLERANCES13.1.THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHEREMEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.2.THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARYBY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OFANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.3.AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE ORBELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.13.4.TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.14.MAINTENANCE14.1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION,AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.14.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTEDAREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURINGTHE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BERESEEDED AND MULCHED.14.3.WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTIONOPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE,AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL GRADING NOTES:1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS GRADING NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES.SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW5.1EROSION CONTROL NOTES:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.0GRADING PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOSHEET C3.1SHEET C3.2page 178
1,215 ft²Unit D3771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ACONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 1BOTTOM EL.=888.50OE=890.00EOF=890.00100-YR HWL=889.65INFIL. VOL (888.50-890.00)=1,230CFINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL.=877.00OE=878.00EOF=878.00100-YR HWL=878.25INFIL. VOL (877.00-878.00)=267CFNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.1NORTH GRADINGPLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOpage 179
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²
Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A1,215 ft²Unit D3CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 3BOTTOM EL.=887.50OE=889.50EOF=889.50100-YR HWL=888.76INFIL. VOL (887.50-889.50)=8,172CFNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.2SOUTH GRADINGPLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOpage 180
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ANDTOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELYNOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONECALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILTIES THAT AREDAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.4. UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION" AND "SANITARY SEWER ANDSTORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OFMINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THEPROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.5. CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT THEDIRECTION OF THE OWNER.6. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 26 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.8. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HDPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.9. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLAREDEND SECTION.10. UTILTIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THECONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES.COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS.11. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCHBASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THISPLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS.12. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.13. HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL.14. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICALSEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS INCIDENTAL.15. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATIONIS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.16. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS ANDCOORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.17.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCUTRES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED.18. COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICALDRAWINGS.19. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITHADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF.20. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THECITY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BEPROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THISSHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS ASNEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURESSHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY.21. ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHEREREQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEINGRESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL CORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES.23. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES.COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACTINSTALLATION OF UTILITIES.24. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMITTHESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK.25.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT.APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TOMANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES.26.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING ORWATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714,SECTION 1109.0.GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:UTILITY LEGEND:CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS UTILITY NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES.ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.0UTILITY PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .INSET ASEE INSET AGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAPSHEET C4.1SHEET C4.2page 181
1,215 ft²Unit D3771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ACONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 1BOTTOM EL.=888.50OE=890.00EOF=890.00100-YR HWL=889.65INFIL. VOL (888.50-890.00)=1,230CFINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL.=877.00OE=878.00EOF=878.00100-YR HWL=878.25INFIL. VOL (877.00-878.00)=267CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVEREXIST SANITARY SEWERSAN MH 1RIM=857.00EX IE(E/W)=850.17PROP IE (N)=850.27COORD. W/ CITYSAN MH 2RIM=871.20IE(W/S)=855.15244 LF 8" PVC SDR 26@2.00%30 LF 8" PVC SDR 26@2.00%STUB SANITARY TO 5'FROM BLDG.STUB IE=855.75BLDG IE=855.85COORD. W/ MECH'LRE-USE EXISTING 10" PVC SANITARYSERVICE. STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.STUB IE=865.57BLDG IE=866.58COORD. W/ MECH'LEXISTING 76 LF 10"PVC SANITARY@20.20%6"X6" TEEMAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTINGWATER STUB. FIELD VERIFY SIZEAND LOCATION PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. COORD. W/ CITY6" DIP COMBINE FIRE ANDDOMESTIC WATER SERVICE.STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.COORD. W/ MECH'LFIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONHYDRANT AND GV,TYP.6"X6" TEEUNDERGROUND STORMWATERINFILTRATION SYSTEM 172" PERF. AND NON-PERF. CMPWITH BAFFLE WALLS BETWEEN(SOLID HEADER ON WEST)12" SIDE & END STONE, 36" STONEPIPE SEPARATION, 6" STONECOVER AND BASEFOOTPRINT=54.0' X 17.0'TOP BAFFLE WALLS=874.00IE STONE=871.50IE 72" CMP=872.00TOP 72" CMP=878.00TOP STONE=878.50100-YR HWL=877.85VARYING OUTLETS, SEEOUTLET NOTECB 13RIM=889.47IE=885.47113 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 2.00%112 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 3.31%106 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 3.50%CB 1RIM=884.97IE=879.50SUMP=876.50CB 11RIM=884.97IE=879.50SUMP=876.50CB 12RIM=889.18IE=883.21CB 20RIM=879.52IE=876.22SUMP=873.22MH/OS 31RIM=871.20IE 6"=868.00IE 12"=866.60IE 21"=866.00IE 24" (E)=865.8058 LF 21" HDPESTORM @ 16.81%24 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.58%ACCESS RISER,TYP. (2)DRAWDOWN RISER25 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.00%INLET IE=876.00TOP OF WEIRWALL=874.0058 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 10.00%6" OE=872.2512" OE=872.4021" OE=875.75INLET IE=876.0022 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 1.00%58 LF 6" PVC SDR26STORM @ 7.33%28 LF 24" HDPESTORM @ 10.71%FES 30IE=±862.00PROVIDE RIPRAP &TRASH GUARD ATOUTLETUTILITY LEGEND:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.1NORTH UTILITY PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAPpage 182
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²
Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A1,215 ft²Unit D3CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 3BOTTOM EL.=887.50OE=889.50EOF=889.50100-YR HWL=888.76INFIL. VOL (887.50-889.50)=8,172CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVEREXIST SANITARY SEWERSAN MH 1RIM=857.00EX IE(E/W)=850.17PROP IE (N)=850.27COORD. W/ CITYRE-USE EXISTING 10" PVC SANITARYSERVICE. STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.STUB IE=865.57BLDG IE=866.58COORD. W/ MECH'LEXISTING 76 LF 10"PVC SANITARY@20.20%6"X6" TEEMAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTINGWATER STUB. FIELD VERIFY SIZEAND LOCATION PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. COORD. W/ CITY6" DIP COMBINE FIRE ANDDOMESTIC WATER SERVICE.STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.COORD. W/ MECH'LFIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONHYDRANT AND GV,TYP.6"X6" TEE100-YR HWL=877.85VARYING OUTLETS, SEEOUTLET NOTE113 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 2.00%106 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 3.50%CB 1RIM=884.97IE=879.50SUMP=876.50CB 2RIM=889.18IE=883.21CB 2RIM=889.47IE=885.47CB 20RIM=879.52IE=876.22SUMP=873.22MH/OS 31RIM=871.20IE 6"=868.00IE 12"=866.60IE 21"=866.00IE 24" (E)=865.8058 LF 21" HDPESTORM @ 16.81%24 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.58%ACCESS RISER,TYP. (2)DRAWDOWN RISER25 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.00%INLET IE=876.00TOP OF WEIRWALL=874.0058 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 10.00%6" OE=872.2512" OE=872.4021" OE=875.75INLET IE=876.0022 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 1.00%58 LF 6" PVC SDR26STORM @ 7.33%28 LF 24" HDPESTORM @ 10.71%FES 30IE=±862.00PROVIDE RIPRAP &TRASH GUARD ATOUTLETUTILITY LEGEND:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.2SOUTH UTILITY PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAPpage 183
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S REP SHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TOINSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL.2.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN AMINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.3.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE ANDDISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.4.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.5.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACTSHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.6.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYER LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.7.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINALLOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.8.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.9.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.10.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.LANDSCAPE NOTES:01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITESYMQUANT.COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTCOMMENTSDECIDUOUS TREESNRM11NORTHWOOD RED MAPLEAcer rubrum 'Northwood'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMWO15WHITE OAKQuercus alba2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMGSL12GREENSPIRE LINDENTilia cordata 'Greenspire'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHL11SKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMORNAMENTAL TREESPFC8PRAIRIEFIRE FLOWERING CRABMalus 'Prairiefire'1.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSSRB11SHILOH SPLASH RIVER BIRCHBetula nigra 'Shiloh Splash'1.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMEVERGREEN TREESBHS11BLACK HILLS SPRUCEPicea glauca 'Densata'6' ht.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMCBS11COLORADO SPRUCEPicea pungens6' ht.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHRUBS - CONIFEROUS & EVERGREENMJ14MEDORA JUNIPERJuniperus scopulorum 'Medora'36" HT.CONT.GLS88GRO-LOW SUMACRhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'24" HT.CONT.NCB72NORTHERN CHARM BOXWOODBuxus 'Wilson'24" HT.CONT.BCB21BLACK CHOKEBERRYAronia melanocarpa 'Morton'24" HT.CONT.AFD20ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOODCornus sericea 'Farrow'24" HT.CONT.PERENNIALS & GRASSESBAH16BLUE ANGEL HOSTAHosta 'Blue Angel'#1CONT.HGVG52HAKONECHLOA GOLDEN VARIEGATED GRASSHakonechloa macra 'Aureola'#1CONT.RA34RHEINLAND ASTILBEAstilbe japonica 'Rheinland'#1CONT.SSD348STELLA SUPREME DAYLILYHemerocallis 'Stella Supreme'#1CONT.WBA36WOODS BLUE ASTERAster 'Woods Blue'#1CONT.YWA40YOUNIQUE WHITE ASTILBEAstilbe 'Verswhite'#1CONT.LEGENDPROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESSODDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/31/17SHEET L1.1SHEET L1.2SEED TYPE 2 - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL, PERMNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)SEED TYPE 1 - MNDOT 34-262 WET PRAIRIE, PER MNDOTSEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)page 184
1,215 ft²Unit D3771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ACONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 1BOTTOM EL.=888.50OE=890.00EOF=890.00100-YR HWL=889.65INFIL. VOL (888.50-890.00)=1,230CFINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL.=877.00OE=878.00EOF=878.00100-YR HWL=878.25INFIL. VOL (877.00-878.00)=267CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGLAWNLAWNLAWNLAWNLAWNEDGING, TYP.DECORATIVE BOULDER, TYP.DECORATIVE BOULDER, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP,TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.37 - NCB35 - NCB6 - GLS3 - GLS3 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS10 - GLS12 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLSSEED TYPE 2SEED TYPE 11 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL6 - SSRB5 - SSRB11 - BCB11 - AFD9 - AFD15 - WBA3 - WBA1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL2 - GSL2 - GSLSEED TYPE 1SEED TYPE 24 - NRM4 - NRM7 - CBS4 - BHS2 - WO3 - WO3 - WO2 - WO3 - NRM26 - HGVG17 - RA3 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS8 - BAH20 - YWA3 - PFC2 - PFC3 - PFC124 - SSD92 - SSD132 - SSD14 - MJ01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.1NORTH LANDSCAPEPLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/31/17LEGENDSOD1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSEED TYPE 2 - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL, PERMNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)SEED TYPE 1 - MNDOT 34-262 WET PRAIRIE, PER MNDOTSEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)page 185
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²
Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A1,215 ft²Unit D3CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 3BOTTOM EL.=887.50OE=889.50EOF=889.50100-YR HWL=888.76INFIL. VOL (887.50-889.50)=8,172CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGLAWNLAWNLAWNEDGING, TYP.DECORATIVE BOULDER, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP,TYP.37 - NCB35 - NCB6 - GLS6 - GLS10 - GLS12 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS3 - GLS3 - GLSSEED TYPE 1SEED TYPE 2SEED TYPE 21 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL5 - SSRB10 - BCB11 - AFD12 - WBA6 - WBA1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL2 - GSL2 - GSL4 - NRM7 - BHS4 - CBS2 - WO3 - WO3 - SHL3 - WO26 - HGVG17 - RA3 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS8 - BAH20 - YWA3 - PFC2 - PFC3 - PFC124 - SSD92 - SSD132 - SSD14 - MJ01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.2SOUTH LANDSCAPEPLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17 CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/31/17LEGENDSOD1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSEED TYPE 2 - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL, PERMNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)SEED TYPE 1 - MNDOT 34-262 WET PRAIRIE, PER MNDOTSEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)page 186
PAGE 1 OF 1Drawn By: SANDYDate:7/26/2017Scale: AS NOTEDRevisions# Date CommentsA. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION ORCOMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERALLIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES.GENERAL NOTES:B. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERFORMANCEOF THE PRODUCT.C. ALL READINGS/CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ONOBJECTS/SURFACES.MENDOTA HEIGHTS APTSChecked By: ROSSLuminaire ScheduleLuminaire Location SummaryLumNoLabelXYZOrientCalculation SummarySymbolQtyLabelLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinArrangementLLFDescriptionArr. WattsLum. LumensTilt24AA2540082247718.122Avg/MinMax/MinPROPERTY LINEIlluminanceFc0.040.20.00025AA2540082247826.86AA2BACK-BACK0.900LUMARK PRV-A40-D-UNV-T5-BZ MOUNT ON 20FT POLE WITH 2FT BASE28615697220N.A.026AA2N.A.SITE GROUNDIlluminanceFc540082247945221.6310.30.12BBSINGLE0.900LUMARK XTOR3B MOUNT AT 10FT25.500275127AA2539995247717.4220028AA2539993.1247943.4220029AA2539994.6247826.916.30220030BB540184.9247805.8103.00PARKING10900IlluminanceFc2.223.30.82.784.1331BB540184.2247858102700Plan ViewScale: 1 inch= 40 Ft.BBBBAA2AA2AA2AA2AA2AA21.73.1 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.00.1 0.2 0.3 0.52.91.33.02.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.81.10.80.23.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.63.10.13.00.3 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.02.61.01.90.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.92.92.01.22.0 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.70.2 0.3 0.4 0.52.02.72.3 1.9 1.4 0.90.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.70.22.60.82.5 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.62.92.12.30.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.43.12.31.12.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.90.1 0.22.32.11.0 0.80.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.50.12.00.82.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.30.61.82.30.32.6 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.01.82.71.41.9 1.4 1.00.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.6 2.81.13.02.62.90.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.52.32.40.42.9 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.90.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.92.51.10.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.00.41.11.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.50.7 0.91.01.61.31.10.31.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.80.20.21.50.61.01.21.41.61.61.60.12.2 1.1 0.72.7 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.00.10.20.1 0.13.20.1 0.30.20.83.00.30.4 0.60.50.40.9 1.4 2.03.22.82.93.13.23.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.12.50.31.10.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.10.1 0.10.70.21.60.4 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.90.22.82.30.13.20.9 1.4 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.20.43.30.63.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.23.32.51.9 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.60.72.60.82.7 2.92.12.42.71.7 1.42.02.60.72.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.61.61.01.20.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.60.11.30.63.2 3.1 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.01.00.52.93.8 10.3 1.7 0.2 0.10.1 0.1 0.10.72.20.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.93.01.82.92.6 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.90.11.30.92.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.62.21.12.10.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.01.40.83.01.5 1.3 0.90.1 0.1 0.2 0.32.20.62.21.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.21.50.41.81.10.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.60.31.80.21.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.41.81.82.51.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.90.41.81.31.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.80.1 0.11.80.80.2 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.31.80.60.71.21.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.60.42.83.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.10.43.00.82.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.52.73.12.62.60.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.70.12.40.12.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.62.00.63.02.6 2.8 3.12.52.51.41.70.21.02.70.5 0.6 2.6 4.5 1.1 0.2 0.10.11.42.83.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.10.33.02.72.5 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.60.1 0.10.93.10.12.8 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.93.00.12.90.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.40.50.62.30.60.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.80.21.82.22.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.11.33.20.8 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.11.03.21.63.2 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.72.73.21.61.00.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.92.61.41.41.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.81.21.41.30.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.01.21.31.31.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.41.91.21.61.92.5 2.1 1.70.1 0.2 0.3 0.52.31.22.22.0 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.63.10.71.62.61.7 1.40.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.72.51.42.02.0 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.21.02.11.92.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.22.32.21.32.0 1.8 1.61.20.70.1 0.1 0.12.20.13.12.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.91.70.11.50.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.40.70.80.20.9 0.70.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.31.40.61.61.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.40.42.22.40.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.01.22.20.32.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.92.22.62.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.92.43.02.42.1 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.60.1 0.1 0.23.10.22.43.0 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.63.10.12.90.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.00.60.11.40.30.70.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.61.31.11.61.6 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.40.82.53.10.8 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.71.02.50.42.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.92.60.00.00.10.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.20.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.00.20.00.10.10.20.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fcPREVAIL SERIESCROSSTOUR SERIESpage 187
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-19
MIKE SWENSON – MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MN, LLC, 2160 & 2180 HWY 13
REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS
PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this was a request from Mr. Michael
Swenson – Michael Development of MN, LLC asking for a rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional
use permit, and wetlands permit for the new Mendota Heights Apartments, PUD complex. The
original plan was to build two 69-unit apartment complexes; however, they were able to squeeze
in one more so now this is two 70-unit apartment complexes for a total of 140 units. This would
entail the redevelopment of the Mendota Motel site and the former Larson Greenhouse Center site.
The rezoning request would be from B-3 General Business to a new HR-PUD High Density
Residential Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; a
conditional use permit for the establishment of the PUD and the development of the proposed
multi-family type buildings; and wetlands permit due to the proximity of work adjacent to Lemay
Lake.
As part of a PUD process, it starts off with a concept plan. As the staff report indicated, staff
believes they have already presented the concept plan at the initial land use amendment stage a
few months. The concept plan has not changed very much so staff requested the Planning
Commission to consider both the Preliminary and Final Development plans at this time as one
complete submittal.
This item being be presented as a public hearing item, notices were mailed to residents within
1,500 feet or more of the development site and published in the local South-West Review
newspaper. These same residents had been included in the notices for the public information
meeting and the comprehensive plan review meeting.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the background, site description and present use, surrounding properties and
neighborhood, and project description; all included in the staff report to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Benetti also presented staff’s analysis on the rezoning from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD
High Density Residential PUD, preliminary/final development plan – site plan & specifics review,
wetlands permit, aircraft noise attenuation, and preliminary plat.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the concept plan for the development, no more than three stories;
front sign; layout of the underground parking with 79 spaces; layouts of the units, conference
rooms, office, open concept lobby, club room, and fitness room. Each building would have 37 one-
bedroom apartments, 16 one-bedroom plus den apartments, and 17 two-bedroom apartments.
The overall grading plan not only showed the overall grading, but the north and south which is
effective for review as this is being looked at in two phases. Phase 1 is on the Mendota Motel site
in the south and Phase 2 will take place a little bit later on the north site.
page 188
Mr. Benetti stated that the landscaping plans is probably one of the better ones he has ever seen
with very numerous and varieties of plantings; staff was very pleased to see this variety. They were
also very happy to see that they are not planning on a lot of work in the rear setback area as it has
existing screening with a great highway buffer screening view.
During the rezoning analysis, Mr. Benetti indicated that the one of the key provisions of the
purpose of a PUD is “. . . to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land . . .” He
then listed the basis a council may consider the reduction of the 10-acre requirement for a PUD,
one of them being that it would not require any wetlands permit. This application does include a
wetlands permit; however, this is only due to the proximity of Lemay Lake. Staff is very confident
that they are not going to be affecting any part of Lemay Lake so they feel that the wetland permit
provision should not really be a factor in the Commissions’ decision of making a recommendation.
Mr. Benetti then shared the standards that need to be met for a PUD approval and explained how
this request meets those standards. In terms of the density, Mr. Benetti explained that the High
Density residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan only allows a maximum density
of 8.5 units per acre, which is very low compared to many other suburban cities in the region. The
trend in the local areas is towards higher density in appropriate locations; said locations would
include good access and compatibility with surrounding land uses, which the subject property does.
The Planning Commission determines the number of dwelling units which may be constructed
within the PUD.
Under the Preliminary/Final Development Plan – Site Plan & Specifics Review, Mr. Benetti
reviewed the living area, unit size, levels, height, setback standards, floor area ratio, site data
calculations, design, parking, sidewalk/trail, signage, landscape plan, and public safety review.
While reviewing the setbacks standards, Mr. Benetti explained that the PUD can be used to provide
flexibility to allowing or accepting the reduced setbacks in this development plan and why these
reduced setbacks are no cause for concern and are acceptable by city staff.
As for the wetland permit, as indicated earlier the proposed project includes grading and
construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource-related area; however, staff is
confident the developer will provide adequate protection and safeguards throughout the duration
of the project, and will ensure these and all other environmental and habitat protection measures
are maintained.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the protection of Lemay Lake, asked if the stormwater
pollution prevention plan, erosion and sediment control plan, and stormwater model for the
proposed condition are all yet to come. The only item under consideration this evening is simply
the rezoning of the property to allow the PUD to progress. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was
correct. The applicant has already submitted some stormwater reports and their SWPPP but Mr.
Benetti did not add them to the information packet. However, they are available should anyone
wish to review them.
Commissioner Toth asked if there were any safety concerns with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) using Highway 13 coming out onto Highway 110 and the uses of
Mendota Heights Road; would Highway 13 / Mendota Heights Road see any major impacts or
page 189
how would that be mitigated if problems arise in the future. Mr. Benetti indicated that this was a
good question. MnDOT has reviewed this and they have indicated that there would be the obvious
spike in local traffic from what was before. It has been pretty quiet in the last few years with the
shutting of the old garden center site and motel did not have a lot of traffic in and out. However,
with the new development, yes there would be an increase in traffic seen. The benefit is they are
eliminating access on one point and Highway 13 currently serves as more of a high collector
frontage road system. He did not believe that MnDOT had any issues or concerns and did not see
any need for a traffic study at this point. They believe the highway can handle this uptick in traffic.
There was a concern raised by a resident about any decreasing in posted speeds along Highway
13; again, it’s a State Highway and the City cannot recommend or authorize any reduction in speed.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the issues in MnDOT’s response been addressed as it appeared
they were asking for a number of things to be addressed. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT still has
the opportunity to review this as the project goes along; however, the applicant has been made
aware of their comments as far any permitting and right-of-way work – all of that has to be
approved beforehand. There are still some issues they have to address directly with MnDOT. If
they would not be in support of it, they would have indicated that early on.
Commissioner Magnuson indicated that on one of the designs there is a picture of Highway 13 and
it looks substantially wider than what currently exists with the center turn lane and asked if this
was part of the project. Mr. Benetti replied that there will be a proposed right-hand turn lane into
the site, which a recommendation was made by MnDOT. So there will be some additional work at
that right-of-way for that turn lane.
Acting Chair Hennes, looking at the main map for the site plan, asked if the northern apartment
building would be visible from the Augusta Shores property or, given the drop off and all of the
trees if it would be invisible. Mr. Benetti replied that it was possible but indicated that with the
heavy grove of woods and a variety of trees he did not believe much of the site would be visible.
Commissioner Toth asked if the area would be disturbed – the large trees down the embankment
area to protect those residents on the Augusta Shores side. Mr. Benetti replied that currently all of
the work being done is within their own property limits and that is where it is desired to be kept.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that between the existing greenhouse property and the motel
property there is a city right-of-way that is undeveloped. This would need to be vacated for the
plat to move forward and he asked this to be addressed. Mr. Benetti answered that there is an old
unused section called Hilltop and that would need to go through the official vacation process. The
City Engineer and Mr. Benetti would be setting up a public hearing process for that as it would
need to be vacated officially by the Council as it is a city road system. Also, all drainage utility
easements will also be dedicated as part of this new plat.
Mr. Mike Swenson of Michael Development of MN, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan stated
this idea has been presented for the last 6 or 8 months and he hopes that it is accepted. He believes
it to be an improvement to the area and he would build a livable, acceptable, and attractive building.
He would also do his best to rent to qualified people. Michael Development screens all of their
tenants as far as being good people and this is who would be invited to the community.
page 190
Acting Chair Hennes asked if he had to guess as the typical age of tenants, would they be baby
boomers, millennials, or gen X’s or what. Mr. Swenson replied that when a building like this is
constructed, the rent is hefty so the people that could afford the rent are probably a little bit more
established in life; usually 30 to 45 years in age.
Mr. Ben Delwiche of Kass Wilson Architects located at 1301 American Boulevard E, Bloomington
came forward to address the Commission and to answer questions. He stated that the front of the
building would be heavily clad in brick and the color scheme would include four different colors,
including the accent piece and would be pretty neutral. They would also use a hearty flat panel and
lap siding combination.
Acting Chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
Mr. Harold Fotsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, lives right next to this place. He expressed his
appreciation to the developer for coming forward with a plan as they have been waiting for
something for some time and are anxious for this to be developed.
In regards to the underground parking, he asked where the exit would be from that area. His next
question was in regards to the site lines on the exit from Augusta Shores on Highway 13. The only
exit Augusta Shores has is onto Highway 13 and it is a challenge to do that safely, primarily due
to the lack of a sight line coming from the south. He was also concerned about the amount of traffic
that would be generated from the development to the extent that he wondered if Victoria could be
used as an exit from the underground parking area.
His next comment pertained to the northern border of this development. Apparently there is a
platted street on the northern border of this property, between this and Augusta Shores. This has
been a point of contention as Augusta Shores has not been able to make any improvements to the
entrance to their development. He asked if this new development could remove that paving and
put in foliage of some sort.
His final comment was that the apartment buildings look like boxes. He suggested the addition of
some kind of interesting roof line instead of plain old boxes to look at.
Mr. Greg Langan, 2101 Lake Augusta Drive, had five points or questions:
1. He observed that he lives on the north side facing the pond. Everything that he sees from
his deck is the Larson property. There is a huge swale between Augusta Shores property
and Larson greenhouse. If the grading that he heard about happens they are most likely to
lose some of that tree buffer that would potentially block his view of the new apartment
complex. This is a concern to him.
2. It was mentioned that on the north side of the property the set back from Acacia Drive is
proposed to be 30 feet, which would be less than what it is supposed to be. That would
only be 1.5 cars away from the property line.
3. He agreed with Mr. Fotsch and stated that there are days they cannot get out of their
development – and that is without the extra cars this development would add.
page 191
4. The lovely stonework was mentioned on the front with some siding materials. Augusta
Shores would be looking at the backside of this complex. He asked if the developer or the
architect could tell him what would be on the backside of the building that he gets to look
at, especially if the trees are removed when they do the grading.
5. He was not sure if this was appropriate to ask but did anyway – He asked Mr. Swenson to
provide the projected range of rents for the new complex.
Acting Chair Hennes asked the applicant or architect to come forward and address some of the
concerns raised. Mr. Ben Delwiche of Kass Wilson Architects replied as follows:
• Access from the underground garage – both garages would be entered from Highway 13,
residents would drive down the hill to the space between the two buildings to the entrances
to the underground garages.
• Sight line at the corner and the set back of the building – the building on the north side
would be 30 feet away from the property line, the property line – especially at the far corner
– is set back an additional 15 to 20 feet from Highway 13. Additionally, this phase 2
building is within the existing setbacks on the site – they are not requesting more setback
on any of the buildings at any portion that currently exist on the site.
• Tree removal plan – they plan to remove a heavy amount of trees from the area between
the Phase 2 building and Highway 13, which would greatly increase the sight lines. They
do plan on replacing two large trees and they would be happy to have the landscape
designer remove those or any visual impediments on this portion of the site.
• Traffic – looking at the MnDOT report the received initially, MnDOT deemed that the road
could handle the amount of traffic. Within that they did request that they add the proposed
right turn lane to help mitigate any slowing down along that route to Acacia Boulevard.
• The platted street on the north - according to the survey, there is an existing paved area.
They currently have plans to remove all of that paving.
• Design on the outside – it is architectural style and they have worked on the renderings and
what they have currently is not significantly different but it is making steady improvements
to get where they want to be
• Where this development is located is kind of a buffer between the small-scale residential
community [Augusta Shores] and the depot facility [Restaurant Technologies]. Based on
the location and proximity to the highway, they are an intermediate buffer or transition.
They did a flat roof design to be an intermediary between those two things. The flat roof
also helps with the overall building height, which was a concern from residents who could
view the building from Augusta Shores.
• Grading and elimination of the buffer to the Augusta Shores neighborhood – he assured
everyone that they are only removing a handful of very small trees along the whole area.
They are also going through and giving more of an effort to preserve a number of trees in
the area. The removal plans are available for anyone to review and he would be happy to
talk to the residents after the meeting. He indicated on the plan the location of the two
significant trees to be removed from the site. Overall, the area should be more guarded then
it was previously.
• Design on the rear of the building – there is a very heavy buffer of trees on the entire site.
Strategically they placed brick on the ends on all visible spots that can be seen from
Highway 13, along the interior side, and then switch on the rear side to the hearty board
siding in a color to mimic the brick.
page 192
Commissioner Magnuson asked if he had done much of an analysis of the buffer being mostly
comprised of deciduous trees, which in the summer is great with the foliage. However, in the
winter those types of trees are bare. She was able to see that there are some pine trees; however,
the buffer may go away in the winter. Mr. Delwiche replied that he has not looked at the specific
species of trees. He also clarified that just because they are removing the brick from the bottom
two layers from the back of the building, they are not compromising the aesthetic. The look on the
backside, even without any trees, would remain the same as the front of the building.
Commissioner Toth asked if he was living on the east side of the complex would he be able to see
the roof line of the apartment complex from his home at any given time. Mr. Delwiche replied that
they have modeled this project and put it into Google Earth and their building came down within
the three strands of trees, well below the top of the tree line. Although he could not say with
certainty, his assumption would be that this development would have very limited visibility from
the Augusta Shores neighborhood.
Commissioner Toth asked what type of surveys had been done and could he guarantee that this
building roof line would be below the top of the trees. Mr. Delwiche replied that he did not have
that answer currently; however, he could get that answer and get very accurate drawings to depict
what exactly those views would be down there. However, whether or not the roof line could be
seen, a three story development, 70 apartment units is far less than what is typically asked for.
Usually, the economy to scale numbers push it up to a four story building. Here, given the heights
of the buildings at only three stories, plus the costly transition to a flat roof and the means to
mitigate what that roof line might do, he would hope that would serve the neighbors well.
Commissioner Toth noted that many times on apartments and commercial buildings air
conditioning units and other mechanical elements are seen. He then asked if there would be a
number of those units on top of this building. Mr. Delwiche replied that they would have a very
limited amount of roof top units; basically one adjacent to elevator overrun, which goes above the
roof by four or five feet. That unit would serve the corridor. One thing that they do as a strategy,
to eliminate the look of those mechanical units on the outside of the building, is that they are
recessed them back into the deck area and are basically hidden from the main front face of the
building. They also added roof line projections to break up the roof line.
Commissioner Petschel suggested the developer provide a simulated drop street view onto Augusta
Shores, which Mr. Delwiche agreed to do.
The last item Mr. Delwiche addressed concerned the estimated rent dollars. He could not speak
specifically; however, based on apartment buildings in the Twin Cities he would estimate
approximately $1.60 per square foot. The smallest units in this building are 771 square feet; which
would equate to approximately $1,400 for a one bedroom unit.
Ms. Kathryn Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive, stated that she was confused. She and her husband have
been very supportive of this project and have been to several meetings regarding it. She received
the notice that this was regarding two 69-unit apartment buildings; however, at this meeting she is
hearing about two 70-unit apartment buildings.
page 193
She also commented that the schematics about Highway 13 are a little bit deceiving because there
really is quite a curve as you drive around the motel site and come by Acacia Drive as it comes
into Augusta Shores. Anyone exiting Augusta Shores onto Highway 13 and they look right, left,
right and start to make the turn, there could be a car coming around that curve. Drivers do exceed
the 40 MPH speed limit; in fact, the Mendota Heights Police sit in the paved area there and watch
for speeders. She expressed her concerns about the safety on the corner, even if the trees were
moved back. She suggested they be very cautious about the types of trees or plantings installed
there.
Mr. Greg Langan returned and referenced the 30-foot setback. He clarified his point that by the
time a driver were to reach the northeast corner they would be deep into the swale with the large
trees that are affecting providing blockage of the Larson property. He expressed his concern that
if there were to be extensive grading and they lose those trees he would get an unobstructed view
of the hearty siding rather than brick.
Mr. Delwiche returned and shared an image of the removal plan with X’s showing the removal of
trees and O’s showing the trees that would be protected or remain. Again, he noted that the two
largest trees being removed are in the middle of the site, between the Larson greenhouse and the
Mendota Heights Motel.
He reiterated the landscape plan for the corner and that they would work with the landscapers
adjust to create as much visual clearance as possible.
In reference to the transition from 69 units to 70 units, Mr. Delwiche noted that what they had
done on level three was to have an outdoor deck and a level three clubroom. Currently, they had
two one-bedroom units, one was the clubroom and the other one was the outdoor deck. They
realized that wasn’t really adequate for space and they did not want too many people out on the
deck anyway; so they took a two bedroom unit, combined those two uses into the two bedroom
unit and then added the two one-bedrooms back. So they have the same number of bedrooms in
the project, it just happened to switch the unit count based on a little bit further design
investigation.
Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the plan Mr. Delwiche shared showed the
removal and the protection of the trees on the backside; however, the landscaping plan also showed
some additional plantings. Mr. Delwiche confirmed.
Acting Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
page 194
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-19 REZONING,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICATIONS FOR NEW MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT BASED
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan, both preliminary and final plans, are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a
planned development in this area.
2. The proposed PUD should be approved the higher density, because:
a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural
amenities;
c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is
sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is
consistent with the comprehensive plan; and
d. the PUD can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing
or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
3. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to
enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses
and natural resources.
4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health,
safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned
development of this property.
5. The 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 would require.
6. 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.
7. The proposed project is specifically designed to minimize impacts on the nearby wetland
areas (Lemay Lake) and will meet all requirements of the Wetlands Overlay Ordinances.
8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will
facilitate recreational opportunities.
9. High Density Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties
and the existing vegetation and adjacent commercial uses, due to the added setbacks and
natural buffering between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density
residential housing.
10. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and
would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
11. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the
City and would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota
Heights.
2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined
by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
page 195
3. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans
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.
4. 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.
5. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with city
pollinator friendly ordinance policy.
6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but
shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning
and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process.
7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal
to at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
8. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for
the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly
appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required
by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as
seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated.
9. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access onto
State Highway 13, as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval.
10. Provide outlet velocity from underground infiltration area (energy dissipation)
11. Rainfall intensity shall be by Atlas 14.
12. Provide water quality model.
13. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water
Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final
City Council approval.
14. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found
under Title 12-4-1 of City Code.
18. The Developer with work with the fire department personnel in determining final design,
location and specifications to the fire safety access road to the rear sections of the new
buildings.
Commissioner Mazzitello proposed adding Condition 19 as:
19. That a right-of-way vacation process is executed for Hilltop Avenue, formally known as
Deli Street, prior to the recording of the final plat.
page 196
Commissioner Noonan accepted that as a friendly amendment to his motion.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti proposed adding Condition 20 as:
20. The Developer will revise the planned five foot (5’) concrete walk along Highway 13 to an
eight-foot (8’) bituminous trail with a minimum of a 5’ boulevard. This trail should extend
south to Victory Avenue, with ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks including on Acacia
Drive. This would also include any necessary easements or right-of-ways.
Commissioner Noonan modified his motion to include Condition #20, Commissioner Mazzitello
agreed.
Commissioner Mazzitello also requested an edit to Condition #5 as “pollinator friendly” has not
been codified in ordinance; it is a policy but not an ordinance. He suggested the word ‘ordinance’
be changed to ‘policy’. Commissioner Noonan agreed to this amendment of the motion.
Commissioner Magnuson, with respect to the concerns raised by the residents of Augusta Shores
for the ability to actually see to get onto Highway 13, asked if the City was in a position to do
some sort of review prior to the time that Phase 2 goes into construction to ensure that everything
is situated in a way that makes it so that the views are not obstructed coming down Highway 13.
Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and believes that working with the City Engineers and with
the MnDOT staff would be more than happy to provide a lot more of a site line space in there.
Adjusting the landscaping is the easiest for staff to do that. They would look at all measures
necessary to make sure that is accommodated.
Commissioner Magnuson also asked if the MnDOT needs to be involved in that process in the
event there needs to be some type of traffic signal or stop sign or something like that – or speed
bumps or whatever to reduce speed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that any
intersection improvements would be at the cost of Mendota Heights. If the City were to require a
traffic study, that is something that would be requested at this time. MnDOT is not currently saying
that this development would cause a problem on their highway; however, they are not looking at
some of the side streets.
Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that any intersection improvements would involve
the City of Mendota Heights and MnDOT. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would require a partnership;
however, most likely the cost would fall back onto the City of Mendota Heights.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5,
2017 meeting.
page 197
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-20
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New Alternative
Energy (Solar) System – City of Mendota Heights (City Hall)
Introduction
City of Mendota Heights, working in conjunction with Ideal Energies, LLC, requests approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit, to allow the installation of a new solar array field
next to the existing City Hall facilities. The property is located at 1101 Victoria Curve.
Background
City Hall is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district. Alternative Energy Systems and their
standards are provided under City Code Title 12-1D-18. Under City Zoning Code Title 12-1E-3 R-1 One
Family Residential District, “Ground mounted solar energy systems that are accessory to the principal
use of the land and are designed to supply energy to on-site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this
chapter.” are allowed by conditional use only.
At the August 22, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Staff Report was presented on this
item (attached hereto); whereby the city’s consultant was present to answer questions. The Planning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, with no comments or objections from the public
(refer to 08/22/17 PC meeting minutes - attached hereto).
Discussion
The City of Mendota Heights is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on general
zoning and land use requests such as these applications presented herein, and has limited discretion. A
determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance
and Wetlands Permit for the new alternative energy system for the City, with certain conditions and
findings of fact to support said approval. If the City Council wishes to implement this recommendation,
pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION NO. 2017-70 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCE AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (SOLAR) SYSTEM
FOR THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, LOCATED AT 1101 VICTORIA CURVE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 198
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-70
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND
WETLANDS PERMIT TO THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO INSTALL AN
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM (GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS)
IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(LOCATED AT 1101 VICTORIA CURVE)
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights (the “Applicant”), in conjunction with solar
technology consultants Ideal Energies, LLC, applied for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance and
Wetlands Permit for the installation of a new Alternative Energy (Ground-Mounted) Solar
System as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-20, for the property generally identified as
the Mendota Heights City Hall, located at 1101 Victoria Curve, which is situated in the R-1 One
Family Residential District, and described in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Title 12-1E-3, “Ground mounted solar energy
systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are designed to supply energy to
on-site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter.” - are allowed by conditional use
only; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this planning item, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received
by the commission, comments from the Applicant’s consultants and general public were received
and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
unanimous approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for the
installation of a new Alternative Energy (Ground-Mounted) Solar System as proposed under
Planning Case No. 2017-20, with certain findings of fact and conditions as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for the installation of a new
Alternative Energy Solar System as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-20, is hereby
approved with the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System use will not be detrimental to the
health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor depreciate surrounding
property values.
B. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System conforms to the general purpose
and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable
performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the
property owners.
C. The installation and implementation of this new Alternative Energy system at the
City Hall will help reduce the overall energy consumed by the facility, and is in
the best interests of the City’s residents and businesses (taxpayers) by helping to
reduce annual operating costs of City Hall and other facilities.
D. The City intends to install and use the Alternative Energy System on the property
in a reasonable manner; the plight of the landowner in selecting this area for its
page 199
new Alternative Energy System was due to circumstances unique to the property;
and the new Alternative Energy System will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
E. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all
applicable city code standards.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for the installation of a new Alternative
Energy (Ground-Mounted) Solar System as proposed under Planning Case No. 2017-20, located
on the Mendota Heights City Hall properties at 1101 Victoria Curve, are hereby approved with
the following conditions:
1. The City’s contractor/consultant for this new Alternative Energy (Solar) System
must provide proper utility connection and safety documentation to the City
Building Official and Public Works Director.
2. The City’s contractor/consultant applies for any required building permits,
including electrical permits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 200
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights MN
PID: 27-02700-04-020
Legal Description: SE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 EX S 208.71 FT OF E 208.71 FT SUB TO
HGWY ESMT OVER 1.75 A; IN SECTION 27 TOWNSHIP 28 RANGE
23, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
page 201
Planning Staff Report
DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-20
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights / Ideal Energies Solar
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 Victoria Curve – City Hall
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Ideal Energies, working in conjunction with the City of Mendota Heights, is seeking a Conditional Use
Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit, to allow the installation of a new solar array field next to the existing
City Hall facilities.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. Notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
property owners within 1,500 feet (approx.) of City Hall – even though 350-ft. is normally required – to
ensure a large segment of the surrounding neighborhoods were made aware of this new municipal
improvement project. As of the preparation of this report, no comments have been received.
BACKGROUND
The City Hall facilities (administration, police
department, baseball field, and parking lot) all lie within
two large separate parcels, with a total combined acreage
of 17.4 acres. A majority of this land area however,
consists of nearby wetlands and road right-of-ways,
which results in a net “developable” area of
approximately 6 acres (see image – right).
City Hall is located in the R-1 One Family Residential
district.
Alternative Energy Systems and their standards are
provided under City Code Title 12-1D-18.
page 202
Under City Zoning Code Title 12-1E-3 R-1 One Family Residential District, “Ground mounted solar energy
systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are designed to supply energy to on-site
uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter.” are allowed by conditional use only. Pursuant to
the same Title 12-1D-18, any solar energy system development is limited to the location, size and area to
the maximum requirements allowed for accessory structures in any residential district. This issue will be
analyzed later in this report.
On February 21, 2017, the City Council authorized city staff to work with Ideal Energies in seeking two
separate solar energy grant applications offered by Made in Minnesota and Xcel Energy. Under the MiM
program, the City would receive a 25% savings in its electrical bills for the first 12 years; after that time a
100% of the electrical benefit would go to the City. The Xcel program has similar payback times.
The MiM grant program would pay for the cost of installation, and the maintenance for the initial 12 year
period. After 12 years, the City would become the owner of the system. Maintenance costs after that time
would be negotiated. The design life of the solar system is typically 25-30 years, but the practical lifespan
of systems can be as long as 40 years. So far, there have been no costs borne by the city on this project,
other than tree removal costs. The costs to install the solar panels will be covered by the two grants.
ANALYSIS
Project Description
The City is processing a conditional use permit for the construction of an accessory, ground-mounted solar
array system along the west side of city hall, which can be considered the rear yard under this case (see
image – below). Ideal Energies has been working with city staff to develop a solar array and site plan that
meets the needs of the City, and which meet all City regulations.
A description of the proposed solar array includes:
• 60 kW in total power generation
• Solar arrays mounted to the ground in concrete pilings or posts
• Sizes: there will be three (3) sets or arrays:
o #1 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 106.6 ft.;
o #2 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 130-ft.
page 203
o #3 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 80-ft.
• Maximum of approx. 9 feet in height
• Blue and silver in color and featuring anti-glare technology
The City originally explored the option of mounting the new solar array panels to the southerly facing roof
of City Hall, which would ideally captured much of the sunlight throughout the year, and avoided the need
to remove some trees on the city property. However, it was determined early on that over 1,000 holes or
penetrations to the roof structure would be needed in order to safely secure the panels; thus this option was
abandoned, and the stand-alone solar filed became the preferred option.
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided CC-City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall under the broad category of
Institutional in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City’s request to establish this alternative energy
system project on this property must be in general compliance with the City Code requirements, and is
subject to meeting certain standards under City Code Title 12-1D-18 (Alternative Energy Systems); Title
12-1E-3 (One Family Residential District); Title 12-1L-5 (Variances); Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Uses; and
Title 12-2-6 (Wetlands Systems-Permit Required).
Alternative energy or solar power systems are noted under the 20130 Comprehensive Plan with the
following statements of support; goals and policies:
Solar Access Protection
The City of Mendota Heights has historically planned for solar access protection within its
Comprehensive Plans. The rationale for including a solar access protection element in the
Comprehensive Plan is to assure the availability of direct sunlight to solar energy systems. A
large share of the energy consumed in Minnesota is used for purposes that solar energy could
well serve such as space heating and cooling, domestic hot water heating and low-temperature
industrial processes. Collection of solar energy requires protection of solar collectors’ sky
space. Solar sky space is the portion of the sky that must be free of intervening trees or
structures for a collector to receive unobstructed sunlight. According to the Minnesota Energy
Agency, “simple flat plate collectors have the potential to supply one-half of Minnesota’s space
heating, cooling, water heating and low-temperature industrial process heat requirements.”
Solar Access Goals and Policies:
Goal 1: Protect reasonable access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Policies:
• Consider modification of existing ordinances to protect access of direct sunlight to rooftops
of all principal structures.
• Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the development and use
of active and/or passive solar energy systems.
• Encourage buildings and developers to offer solar energy system options, to the extent
practical, for space heating and cooling and hot water heating in new residential,
commercial and industrial developments.
page 204
Section 12-1D-18: Alternative Energy Systems
We have analyzed this application for a conditional use permit according to Section 12-1D-18:
4. Ground Mounted Systems
a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed fifteen feet (15’) in height from the
average natural grade at the base of the system.
The proposed maximum height is approximately 9-ft., so this is acceptable.
b. Setbacks: The system shall be set back a minimum on fifteen feet (15’) from all property boundary
lines and thirty feet (30’) from all dwellings located on adjacent lots, including appurtenant
equipment.
The applicant stated in their “Letter of Intent” that the solar system is set back at least 15 feet from
all property lines and at least 30 feet from all dwellings located on adjacent lots. The two array
fields nearest to City Hall appears to be approximately 15-feet from the building. Because there
is a need to keep the array panels separated from each other; and because this westerly rear yard
area of City Hall property was the only suitable space to install the solar field, the location of these
panels will not be an issue.
c. Location: The system shall be limited to rear yards in all zoning districts.
The applicant is requesting that the system be located in the rear (west) yard of City Hall, which
staff finds acceptable.
d. Maximum Areas (1) Residential Districts: The system shall be limited in size to the maximum
requirements allowed for accessory structures.
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures (other than detached, private garages) in all
residential districts shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. For those properties in excess of 4 acres,
the total area cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (425) square feet, provided:
(A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet.
(B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected.
The approximate dimensional standards of the separated arrays are as follows:
o #1 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 106.6 ft. = 1,378 sf.
o #2 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 130-ft. = 1,690 sf.
o #3 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 80-ft. = 1,040 sf.
Approx. 4,108 sq. ft. of accessory structure area
The 425 sq. ft. standard above relates to a single structure. Since all three solar array systems
exceed the 1,000 sf. total area standard, and exceed the 425 sf. single structure area standards, a
variance is needed, which will be analyzed in the following sub-section of this report.
5. Screening: Solar energy systems will be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting
their function. Systems located within the business and industrial zoning districts may be required
to comply with the standards in subsection 12-1D-13-2C7 of this article where practical.
The site layout plan does not include or indicate any screening measures will be installed for this
project. Screening is typically used to hide or eliminate any visual impacts to surrounding properties,
page 205
especially single family residential. Although city hall is located in the R-1 One Family Residential
districts, there are no abutting residences that would likely see or be impacted (visually) by these solar
panels. The nearest single family residences are located over 500 and 750 feet from the solar field area.
Beth Jacob synagogue is located to the west; Mendota Corporate Center offices to the south (across the
highway); and Holy Family Church to the east.
In order to make room for these the solar panels, the city had to remove 5 medium to large sized trees
in this area, and has targeted 3 smaller trees to be moved to the back side of city hall near the police
department entrance. The solar panels however, will be effectively screened virtually all year round
along the west and north sides by the wooded wetland area adjacent to City Hall. Since the field of
panels are situated deep inside the city owned properties, and will be partially screened by City Hall
itself, the City is forgoing any screening measures in order to provide a more effective means of
providing solar light to the panels, and because there are no neighboring properties that will be visually
impacted by the filed, no screening is recommended.
6. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that are not visually incompatible with the color of the
roof material on which the system is mounted or other structures.
The proposed solar panels are blue and silver. The applicant states that these colors will “blend in
nicely with the existing site improvements”.
7. Glare: Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows
and minimize glare toward vehicular traffic and adjacent properties. Where necessary, the city may
require additional screening to address glare.
The proposed panels use anti-glare technology.
8. Utility Connection
The applicant states that the array will “meet all utility connection and safety standards”.
9. Safety
The applicant states that the array will “meet all utility connection and safety standards”.
10. Easements: Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon any public drainage, utility, roadway or
trail easements.
There are no easements in this area.
11. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which remains non-functional or inoperable for a
continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a
public nuisance. The owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire structure
and transmission equipment, at their expense after a demolition permit.
The applicant states that “…[typical] solar array should last at least 40 years, so abandonment
should not be an issue”.
Section 12-1L-5 Variances.
When considering a variance request, the City is required to find facts for supporting the following
statements of understanding, which are noted as follows:
a) The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
comprehensive plan; and the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner.
page 206
Response: The City’s desire to install these solar panels is a reasonable use of the property and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (as noted earlier in this report). The solar energy created
by these panels will help reduce the energy consumption created by the day-to day (24-hours) of
service operated from this facility, which will help reduce the taxpayer costs to operate such
facility over the course of many years. The operation of this solar field is a reasonable use and
should be supported.
b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner;
Response: When Ideal Energies approached the City of Mendota Heights to seek out these grants
and provide separate solar projects in various locations throughout the city, it was deemed
favorable by the City Council to have any new solar system installed on the south roof line of the
city hall building. However, after a comprehensive architectural and structural (engineering)
review of roof mounted panels and systems to city hall, it was determined that the existing roof was
not designed or built with adequate truss structures; and even if we beefed up these trusses, the
system would require a large number (over 1,000) of holes or penetrations to hold and secure the
panels to the roof. The City just recently invested a lot of money on water mitigation measures in
and around the building, and staff did not want to damage or add any potential problems to an
already taxed facility. In order to keep the grant funding, the city sought the second option of
placing the field next to City Hall, which was one of three options explored earlier for this site.
Staff does believe the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and
therefore the variance to exceed the allowable size of accessory structures in the R-1 Zone can be
supported and approved.
c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Response: It is Staff’s belief that the variance to exceed the accessory structure limitations, will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, due in part by the large separation of these
surrounding uses from the city hall facility; and the City’s belief that the solar array panels will be
screened by the building and the nearby wooded wetlands, so no visual impacts should be evident.
Section 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses
Staff analyzed this application for a conditional use permit according to Section 12-1L-6.B.2:
Site Development Plan
1. Location of all buildings on the property in question, including both existing and proposed
structures
These structures are shown in the attached Site Play/Solar Field Layout.
2. Location of all adjacent buildings located within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the exterior
boundaries of the property in question.
page 207
City Hall is surrounded by Beth Jacob Synagogue to the west; Mendota Corporate Center and
Super-America gas station to the south and southeast; Holy Family church and a few single
family residences along Vail Drive to the east; and the city owned ponds/wetlands to the north. .
3. Floor Area Ratio
Not applicable
4. Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces
Not applicable
5. Vehicular Circulation
Not applicable
6. Architectural elevations (type and materials used of all external surfaces).
A rendering of the proposed arrays is shown in Figure 3.
7. Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed
Not applicable
8. Location and candle power of all luminaries
Not applicable
9. Location of all existing easements
There are no easements on the property.
Grading Plan
Not applicable. The applicant does not intend to grade materials to install solar arrays.
page 208
Landscape Plan
1. Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed
Approximately 6 trees were removed by the city to make room for the solar field. There are no
plans by the City to replace or replant trees at this time.
2. Location, type and diameter of proposed plantings
Not applicable. The applicant does not propose plantings.
3. Location and material used of all screening devices
Not applicable. The applicant does not propose screening devices.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies
with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is not
compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with
the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1),
with the following conditions:
1) The City’s contractor/consultant for this new Alternative Energy (Solar) System must provide
proper utility connection and safety documentation to the City Building Official and Public
Works Director.
2) The City’s contractor/consultant applies for any required building permits, including electrical
permits.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site Plan
2. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 209
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit
For an Alternative Energy (Solar) System
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the community, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System conforms to the general purpose and intent of this
code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all
conditions are met and upheld by the property owners.
3. The installation and implementation of this new Alternative Energy system at the City Hall will help
reduce the overall energy consumed by the facility, and is in the best interests of the City’s residents
and businesses (taxpayers) by helping to reduce annual operating costs of City Hall and other
facilities.
4. The City intends to install and use the Alternative Energy System on the property in a reasonable
manner; the plight of the landowner in selecting this area for its new Alternative Energy System was
due to circumstances unique to the property; and the new Alternative Energy System will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood.
5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
page 210
page 211
1140
11011179
1101
1905
1960
1101
1903 1901
1092
1890
1088
1084
1158
1095 1085
1090
1092
1162
1163
1082
1901 10851091
1916
1895
1908
10871895
HWY 110 LEXINGTON AVEVICTORIA CUR
VAIL DR
VICTORI
A
R
D
HWY 110
Dakota County GIS
CIty Hall Property(Wetland Boundary Map)City ofMendotaHeights0190
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/16/2017
page 212
GROUND FIXED TILT (GFT) has evolved from more than 12 years of experience meeting a variety of project
requirements. A synergy of steel components and aluminum parts deliver performance with the lowest system
cost. Installation savings are captured through efficiently engineered components, optional pre-assembled parts
and integrated bonding for optimized construction sequencing. GFT delivers engineered cost savings to meet your
project needs.
GROUND FIXED TILT
SCALABLE TO ANY SIZE PROJECT
LESS STEPS • FEWER PARTS • BEST SERVICE • QUALITY PROVIDER
page 213
UNIRAC CUSTOMER SERVICE MEANS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PRODUCT SUPPORT
ENGINEERING
EXCELLENCE
UNMATCHED
EXPERIENCE
PERMIT
DOCUMENTATION
DESIGN
TOOLS
CERTIFIED
QUALITY
BANKABLE
WARRANTY
PROTECT YOUR REPUTATION WITH QUALITY RACKING SOLUTIONS BACKED BY ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AND A SUPERIOR SUPPLY CHAIN
ON-TIME DELIVERY
No waiting. Our goal is simple: Consistently deliver
solutions and services correctly, efficiently and
dependably to exceed your expectations. Our
world-class operations provide a 99% on-time
delivery to help you meet your commitment dates.
BANKABLE WARRANTY
Unirac has the financial strength to back our products and
reduce your risk. Have peace of mind knowing you are
receiving products of exceptional quality. GFT is covered by a
20-year manufacturing warranty on all parts.
CERTIFIED QUALITY PROVIDER
Unirac is the only PV mounting vendor with ISO certifications
for 9001:2008, 14001:2004 and OHSAS 18001:2007, which
means we deliver the highest standards for fit, form, and
function. These certifications demonstrate our excellence
and our commitment to first class business practices.
TOP MOUNTING
MODULE CLAMPS
W/ INTEGRATED BONDING
ALUMINUM
BEAM SPLICE
4.5” X 6”
C-PILE
FOUNDATION
DIAGONAL BRACE
ASSEMBLY
ALUMINUM
MODULE
SUPPORT BEAM
SNAP-0N
WIRE MANAGEMENT
SCALABLE TO ANY SIZE PROJECT
ALUMINUM BEAMS WITH MAXIMUM ADJUSTABILITY
East-West aluminum beams include a top mounting slot to accommodate a variety of
module sizes without customizing a design for your project. Attachment to North-South
top chords is simple and quick with slots yielding maximum construction tolerances
throughout the array. A series of pre-drilled holes on the foundation channel and steel
top chord ease the assembly process with fewer tools and less labor.
ENGINEERED COST SAVINGS
PRE-ASSEMBLY & WIRE MANAGEMENT
When project optimization outweighs component costs, Unirac will pre-assemble
the top mounting clamps, shifting part of the installation process to our factory and
saving labor steps on the job site. Wire management simply snaps anywhere onto the
aluminum beam, holding bundles of wire up to 2 inches in diameter.
PROJECT SUPPORT SERVICES
DESIGN & QUOTATION ASSISTANCE
Every project receives standard drawings and calculations to aid permitting and system
installation. We provide top notch project management services including design &
quotation assistance, site-specific construction drawings and 3rd party structural
design documentation.
ELECTRICAL
BONDING &
GROUNDINGUL2703
GROUND FIXED TILT
PUB2016SEP08 - PRINTED UPDATE
page 214
page 215
page 216
page 217
page 218
page 219
D) PLANNING CASE #2017-20
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS & IDEAL ENERGIES - 1101 VICTORIA CURVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE
CITY’S NEW GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAY FIELD
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City of Mendota Heights and
Ideal Energies have requested a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit to install
a new ground-mounted solar array field next to City Hall.
City Hall consists of two parcels that equal approximately 17.4 acres, most of which is encumbered
by right-of-way and some wetland prime areas. The developable site is just over 6 acres. The
property is located in the R-1 Single-family Residential district. Under the City’s zoning code, any
stand alone or above ground solar array field must approved under the conditional use permit
process.
In February 2017, the City Council authorized staff to work with Ideal Energies in seeking two
separate solar energy grant applications offered by Made in Minnesota and Xcel Energy. The City
installed some rooftop panels on the Fire Station and the Public Works Building and attempted to
look at seeing it the same would be possible on City Hall; however, the roof trusses were
determined not to be adequately structurally sound enough to support the weight load and staff did
not want to punch holes into a roof that was just repaired.
The grants from Made in Minnesota (MiM) and Xcel Energy would help bring down the costs for
the building. During the lifetime, typically a 25-30 year programming, there would no cost
forwarded to the City. It would be fully funded by the grant.
The field would be made up of three separate arrays; the first being approximately 13’ x 106.6’,
the second being approximately 13’ x 130’, and the third being approximately 13’ x 80’. The
maximum height would be approximately 14’ and consist of blue and silver panels featuring anti-
glare technology.
All solar field arrays must be set back at least 15’ from all property lines and at least 30’ from all
dwellings. The two arrays would be approximately 15’ from the building and, therefore would
require a variance.
The limitations in size of ground mounted systems is tempered by what is allowed under the
accessory structures. It was believed that the intent of that was for a typical single-family residence
to not have its entire backyard taken up by a solar array. The City is out of the ordinary in that they
have the luxury of a lot of space and is more of an institutional use than residential. That being
said, the City still needs to comply with certain rules and standards. Since the three solar arrays
exceed the 1,000 square foot area standard, and exceed the 425 square foot single structure area
standards, a variance is required.
page 220
Under the ground mounted systems standards, staff felt that the site also does not need to include
or indicate any screening measures because the site is separated enough from residential uses and
other institutional uses. Any screen measures would be a waste of added resources and expense.
Mr. Benetti explained that statements of understanding that had to be found when considering a
variance request and how the application supports those statements. He also noted that because
this project was within 100 feet of the wetland area a wetland permit was required. The good news
was that there would be no impact or affect to the wetland area.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the savings to be received from Xcel Energy apply to City Hall
or to all city-related operations. Mr. Tyler Scott of Ideal Energy replied that the way the solar is
integrated is directly with City Hall. So City Hall would use the solar power and would see the
savings.
Commissioner Magnuson asked how durable the panels were. Mr. Scott replied that, in terms of
the baseball field being located nearby, the panels are tested against hail by taking a 1-inch ball
bearing and shooting it at 55 MPH at a panel as a direct hit. The panels withstand that; however,
he is unsure how that compares to a foul ball on a little league field but they are very durable.
Councilmember Magnuson then asked about security seeing as there would be no fencing around
the array. Mr. Scott answered that there have not been any security issues to date.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Acting Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (SOLAR)
SYSTEM BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System use will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the community, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System conforms to the general purpose and
intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards,
provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners.
3. The installation and implementation of this new Alternative Energy system at the City Hall
will help reduce the overall energy consumed by the facility, and is in the best interests of
the City’s residents and businesses (taxpayers) by helping to reduce annual operating costs
of City Hall and other facilities.
page 221
4. The City intends to install and use the Alternative Energy System on the property in a
reasonable manner; the plight of the landowner in selecting this area for its new Alternative
Energy System was due to circumstances unique to the property; and the new Alternative
Energy System will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable
city code standards.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The City’s contractor/consultant for this new Alternative Energy (Solar) System must
provide proper utility connection and safety documentation to the City Building Official
and Public Works Director.
2. The City’s contractor/consultant applies for any required building permits, including
electrical permits.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Field)
Vice-Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5,
2017 meeting.
Unfinished Business
No items scheduled
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Orchard Heights Development on
the Odin Family was presented at the last Council meeting and was denied on a 5-0 vote. The same
issues that were brought up at the Planning Commission meeting were addressed directly to the
developer. For all intent and purposes, he was not willing to make some suggestions or lose some
density or some lots.
City Council did approve the Precision Homes Critical Area Permit at the last meeting. The
Planning Commission should expect to see a second Critical Area Permit request for the new house
they plan to build. Staff has not seen any demolition permits filed yet.
Staff and Commission Announcements
The Planning Commission would have a special meeting on Wednesday, September 23, 2017 at
6:00 p.m. to consider an Interim Use Permit for Minnehaha Academy to use the Brown College
site at 1340 Mendota Heights Road. Assuming that the application would be approved, the City
Council would then convene to consider the same resolution.
Commissioner Magnuson, regarding the subdivided property on Hunter Lane and Culligan, asked
if the City pays attention to the overgrown weeds, grass, and total unkempt look of the property.
page 222
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Award of a Professional Services Contract for the Lexington Highlands &
Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement Project.
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to award a contract for the design, surveying and construction services for
the Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement Project.
BACKGROUND
The Lexington Highlands Neighborhood Improvement includes rehabilitation of Avanti Drive,
Bwana Court, Faro Lane, Summit Lane, Twin Circle Drive, Vail Drive, and West Circle Court.
The Mendakota Neighborhood Improvement Project includes rehabilitation to Mendakota Court
& Mendakota Drive. The South Plaza Drive Improvements include a complete rehabilitation
from Dodd Road to the end of the cul-de-sac.
DISCUSSION
Staff developed a Request for Proposals (RFP) on the project and invited three firms from the
pre-approved consultant pool to submit proposals. The three firms submitted quotes for this
project.
Consultant Design Fee Construction Fee Total Fee
WSB & Assoc. $32,104.00 $66,354.00 $98,458.00
Bolton & Menk $63,027.00 $95,505.00 $158,532.00
Stantec $53,200.00 $109,080.00 $162,280.00
All firms submitted thorough and complete proposals and each addressed concerns and gave
ideas on proceeding with the project. Staff would be comfortable awarding the project to either
firm but is recommending WSB & Associates based on the lower cost of their proposal.
BUDGET IMPACT
The proposed contract price of $98,458.00 will be charged to the project which is funded through
Special Assessments, City Bonds, and Utility Funds.
page 223
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council accept the proposal from WSB & Associates for the proposed
not-to-exceed price of $98,458.00.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion authorizing staff to
enter in to a contract with WSB & Associates. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 224
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 2017-71, 2017-72 & 2017-73 – Order Preparation of Feasibility
Report for Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements and
South Plaza Drive Improvements
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve resolution 2017-71, 2017-72 & 2017-73 Ordering Preparation of
Feasibility Reports for Lexington Highlands Neighborhood Improvements, Mendakota
Neighborhood Improvements, and South Plaza Drive Improvements.
BACKGROUND
The Lexington Highlands & Mendakota Neighborhood Improvements have been identified in the
2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). These streets currently have failing bituminous
surfaces and are in need of repair.
DISCUSSION
Lexington Highlands – This project proposes to rehabilitate Avanti Drive, Bwana Court, Faro
Lane, Summit Lane, Twin Circle Drive, Vail Drive, and West Circle Court.
Mendakota – This project proposes to rehabilitate Mendakota Drive & Mendakota Court. We
will look at possible improvements to the adjacent Mendakota Park (parking lot, trails, etc). This
project may also provide for the opportunity to reconstruct the intersection of Mendakota Drive
and Mendakota Court, which has an unusual roadway geometry which could be improved for
traffic safety.
South Plaza Drive – This project proposes to rehabilitate and improve South Plaza Drive.
Treatment methods and improvements will be further identified in the feasibility process.
BUDGET IMPACT
The CIP identifies construction costs of $700,000 for the Lexington Highlands Project and
$740,000 for the Mendakota & South Plaza Drive Project. The costs will be refined during the
feasibility process. The projects are proposed to be funded by special assessments, municipal
bonds, and utility funds.
page 225
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolutions authorizing the preparation of feasibility
reports for Lexington Highlands, Mendakota and South Plaza Drive Improvements.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion adopting the
following:
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT
#201706); and
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201706); and
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT #201706).
This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 226
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-71
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
LEXINGTON HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT NO. 201706)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Lexington Highlands
Neighborhood Streets (Avanti Drive, Bwana Court, Faro Lane, Summit Lane, Twin Circle Drive,
Vail Drive, and West Circle Court) in Mendota Heights including the construction of reclaimed
aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, storm sewer repair, ADA
improvements and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City’s 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the Public Works Director for study and that he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective and
feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other
improvements, and the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 227
WALSH LNLEXINGTON AVEMARIE AVE W
SUMMIT LNOVERLOOK RD
AVANTI DRTWIN CIRCLE DRKAY AVE
VAIL DR FARO LNORCHARD PL LILAC RDVICTORIA
R
D
ORCHARD HL
KINGSLEY CIR S
OVERLOOK LNR
O
L
L
I
N
G
G
R
E
E
N
C
U
R
OXFORD
C
T
VICTORIA CT
BWANA CT
WEST CIRCLE CT
WIN
D
W
O
O
D
C
T
SUMMIT LNVICTORIA RD
Dakota County GIS
Exhibit A - Lexington Highlands City ofMendotaHeights0400
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/3/2017
page 228
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-72
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
MENDAKOTA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT NO. 201706)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on Mendakota Neighborhood
Streets (Mendakota Drive & Mendakota Court) in Mendota Heights including the construction of
reclaimed aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, storm sewer repair,
ADA improvements and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City’s 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the Public Works Director for study and that he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective and
feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other
improvements, and the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 229
DODD RDAZTEC LNFOX PLMENDAKOTA DR
CREEK AVE
SOUTH PLAZA DR
APACHE STMENDAKOTA CT
HOKAH AVE
SWAN CTALICE LNPRIVATE ROAD
Dakota County GIS
Exhibit B - Mendakota Neighborhood
August 3, 2017
City ofMendotaHeights0400
SCALE IN FEET
page 230
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-73
A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT NO. 201706)
WHEREAS, it is proposed to construct improvements on South Plaza Drive in Mendota
Heights including the construction of reclaimed aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter,
bituminous surfacing, storm sewer repair, ADA improvements and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, this project is identified in the City’s 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Plan;
and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the proposed improvements be referred to the Public Works Director for study and that he is
instructed to report to the Council with all convenience and speed advising the Council in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective and
feasible and as to whether they should best be made as proposed or in connection with other
improvements, and the estimated costs for the improvements as recommended.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this fifth day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 231
Request for City Council Action
DATE: September 5, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police Emergency Manager
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Authorize Captain Position Recruitment
COMMENT:
Introduction
The Council is asked to authorize the police department to begin the internal promotional
recruitment process to fill the vacant Captain position.
Background
The Police Captain position has been vacant since January 1, 2017. In order for the police
department to continue to improve operational efficiency, staff is asking the council to authorize
the Police Department to fill the Captain position.
To assure a valid and transparent process, City Staff will work with an outside consultant to
facilitate the promotional process. There are four members of the police department who meet
the minimum requirements to participate in the promotional process.
Budget Impact
The Captain position is a budgeted position. The position is an exempt position and is assigned
to pay grade 42 on the 2017 Pay Classification Plan scale. The 2017 salary range is $95,018 to
$115,452. Any other fringe benefits negotiated for this position will be in addition to the base
salary. A take-home vehicle is the norm for this level of position and was purchased in 2017.
Other costs associated with working with the third party consultant are not yet unknown.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the city council authorize staff to begin the internal promotional
recruitment process to fill the Police Captain position.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize staff to take the steps necessary to begin
the internal promotional recruitment process to fill the Police Captain vacancy.
page 232
DATE: September 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City Hall Remodeling Plans and Specifications; Authorization to Seek Bids
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve plan and specifications, and authorize the advertisement for the
remodeling of the lower level of Mendota Heights City Hall, and to perform masonry work to
remedy a source of water infiltration to the lower level.
BACKGROUND
The lower level of City Hall has experienced water infiltration issues for many years; that has led
to mold issues. The building was tested for mold last year, and the mold has either been abated,
or encapsulated (contained). Remodeling is now needed to make the abated rooms (currently,
the men’s locker room and elections storage area) usable again. Other rooms—the squad room
and women’s locker room—will need to have mold abated after completion of the remodeling of
previously impacted areas.
In February of this year, JEA Architects was hired to do design work.
Building Remodeling: In addition to the water-related remodeling, a number of changes to make
the Police Department (and elections storage area) more usable by the occupants have been
designed. This includes an additional office space for the Captain’s position; the potential
removal of showers to accommodate more lockers in the women’s locker room and duty bag
storage in the men’s locker room; and a remodeling of the squad room and break room to make
those areas more functional..
Because the interior work will need to be done while the building is occupied (necessitating the
shifting of occupied spaces), and because some of the work won’t be able to be completed until
now encapsulated mold is abated, the contract will call for work to be done in a total of 6 phases.
page 233
Water Infiltration/Exterior Masonry: During JEA’s work, a minor amount of water was
discovered to be still entering the building, which created the need for a specialist to be hired to
find the root cause. That company found that part of the water infiltration may be due to the
construction methods used when City Hall was built in the late 1980’s. They are recommending
that the bottom five courses of exterior brick be removed, and work done to fix flashing, seals,
and other internal ties.
All four sides should be done at some time, but the bid documents will include only the most
critical south side in the base bid; two of the three bid alternates provide for separate pricing for
fixing the other three sides. That way, depending on the pricing of the bids received, the City
could choose to do it all at once, or come back to fix the lesser priority locations at a future time.
If approved, the advertisement would be made on September 10th, and bid opening would be
September 28th. The contract would then be awarded on October 3rd. The interior work is not
time-critical, but the exterior masonry work should ideally be done prior to freeze-up.
Representative design sheets are attached. Complete copies of the plans and specification are
available for inspection at City Hall.
BUDGET IMPACT
The architect has estimated the cost range of the base bid to be between $305,000, and $355,000.
Funding for this would come from the Water Tower Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council approve the plans and specifications, and authorize an
advertisement of bids for the City Hall remodeling project.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion approve the following resolution 2017-74:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2017 CITY HALL
LOWER LEVEL REMODELING AND EXTERIOR WALL MASONRY REPAIR
PROJECT
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 234
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-74
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2017 CITY HALL LOWER
LEVEL REMODELING AND EXTERIOR WALL MASONRY REPAIR PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Administrator has reported that remodeling of certain portions of
the lower level of City Hall, and related masonry repairs to the foundation walls are feasible,
desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the estimated costs of said
improvements and construction thereof; and
WHEREAS, JEA Architects has prepared plans and specifications for said
improvements, and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements to the Mendota Heights City Hall
Building be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City.
2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the City Administrator be and is hereby,
authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with
the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City
of Mendota Heights by 11:00 A.M., Tuesday, September 26, 2017, and at which time
they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City
Administrator, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at
its next available scheduled Council meeting.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this ninth day of September, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 235
ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE DESIGN SPACE PLANNING
JACK EDWARD ANDERSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 202 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
PHONE (952) 935-5164 FAX (952) 935-2102 WWW.JEAARCHITECTS.NET
January 12, 2017
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota heights, MN 55118
Re: Proposal of Professional Services for
Mendota Heights City Hall Lower Level Interior Remodeling
Dear Mark:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal for the Mendota Heights City Hall Lower Level
Interior Remodeling.
I. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
We have identified the following list of items for consideration in preparation of our fee quotation:
A. The project consists of interior remodeling and includes the following lower spaces:
• Refer to Attachment A
II. PHASE I - SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Our services include architectural services specifically as follows:
1. One visit to meet and verify and catalog the existing conditions.
2. Project research, existing space review.
3. Photograph the existing interior spaces.
4. Code review and assessment.
5. Provide 22” x 34” (or 24” x 36”) drawing as follows:
a. A2 – Existing Floor Plan with proposed layout (one or two options)
1) Miscellaneous Notes
2) Miscellaneous Details
3) Preliminary Phasing Plan review and assessment.
6. Preliminary cost estimate.
7. Engineering general review.
8. Meeting and coordination with City staff to present design criteria.
page 236
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
January 12, 2017
Page 2
II. PHASE II - SCOPE OF SERVICES (Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical)
A. Completion of Preliminary Design Drawings
B. Construction (contract) Document Drawings
1. Site visit/kickoff meeting.
2. Provide drawings and specifications as necessary.
3. Coordination with City personnel
4. Contract Document coordination and administration.
5. Construction (contract) Document Drawings
a. Architectural title sheet, floor plan/phasing sheet and detail sheet.
b. Engineering sheets necessary for the project
c. Architectural and engineering sections necessary to bid the project.
d. Final quality control review.
C. Bidding Services
1. Distribution of contract documents to bidders.
2. Field necessary communication relative to the bidding process.
3. Coordinate and provide project addenda as necessary.
4. General project administration.
D. Construction Administration Services
1. Administer Architectural/Owner/Contractor pre-bid meeting.
2. Review of shop drawings.
3. Present color selections for the project.
4. Provide Contract Document Clarification.
5. Site visitations.
1) Architectural
a) One (1) Pre Bid
b) Two (2) Construction
c) One (1) Punch List
2) Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
a) One (1) Construction
b) One (1) Punch List
page 237
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
January 12, 2017
Page 3
III. FEE PROPOSAL
A. We propose that the fee for the above scope of services be hourly not to exceed a
range of $20,250 - $22,250.00, plus reimbursables. Proposal adjustments can be
made based on final review of scope of work.
B. Additional Costs:
1. Standard reimbursables will be billed at 1.15 times cost (unless indicated otherwise).
These items include:
a. Reproduction ($5.50 per 22” x 34” or 24” x 36” sheet and
$0.30 per 8 1/2 x 11 copy)
b. Messenger/delivery/postage
c. Travel ($0.60 per mile)
d. Faxes ($.75 each)
e. Long distance telephone calls
C. Additional services will be billed at the following hourly rates:
Principal/Project Manager $125
Project Architect $95
Senior Technician $75
Technician $60
Clerical $40
IV. ADDITIONAL NOTES
A. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering services are included in our scope of services.
B. Civil and Structural Engineering services are not included in our scope of services.
C. We will execute an AIA Agreement appropriate for this project.
page 238
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
January 12, 2017
Page 4
Would like to note that we have an excellent track record of working through tough remodeling projects
with quality solutions and follow through including a number projects with the cities of Rosemount,
Savage, Shakopee, Edina and Mahtomedi.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Mendota Heights. Please feel free to call if you
have any questions regarding the services which are included in this proposal.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jack Anderson, AIA, CID, NCARB
President
JEA/kda
Enclosures
page 239
page 240
page 241
page 242
page 243