Loading...
2018-04-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 24, 2018 7:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approval of March 27, 2018 Planning Commission (Regular Meeting) Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2018-10: Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a new single- family dwelling for the property located at 954 Wagon Wheel Trail (Elevation Homes- Applicant / Drrs. Rob and SueMi Tuttle – Owners) 6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 7. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 27, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Patrick Corbett Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 27, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2018, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-09 MICHAEL SWENSON, MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MINNESOTA, LLC 2160 & 2180 HIGHWAY 13 AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to this meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC has requested an amendment to a final development plan pursuant to Section 12-1K-6.G of the City Code. The Commission was also asked to provide additional comments and recommendations to the City Council regarding the previous City Council resolution of 2018-01 with respect to certain findings regarding the PUD allowing for a PUD of less than 10 acres. The Commission was also asked to reaffirm its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 21 Background November 2015 - The developer sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70- unit apartment complex, that application was later withdrawn February 2017 - The developer informed the city he had secured the rights to the Mendota Motel site and shortly afterwards he secured the development rights to the Larson Garden Center site May 11, 2017 - Developer hosted an Open House-Neighborhood Meeting in which notices were mailed to all property owners within one-quarter mile of the site May 23, 2017 - Planning Commission recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from “B – Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development June 6, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-43, approving the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan Amendment June 20, 2017 - City Council approves the creation of TIF District No. 2 August 22, 2017 - The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval to rezone the properties from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD – High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; Preliminary Plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; Conditional Use Permit; and a Wetlands Permit (vote 6-0) September 5, 2017 - City Council adopted Resolution 2017-69 approving the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Wetlands Permit (vote 3-2) November 2017 - Several city residents initiated a lawsuit against the city relating to the City Council’s approval of the development - Attorneys representing the city recommended the City Council adopt an additional resolution reaffirming its previous approvals and whether the proposed PUD meets the standards for a PUD development of less than 10 acres January 2, 2018 - City Council adopted Resolution 2018-01, which: 1) Reaffirmed and adopted additional findings relating to the approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezoning, CUP, and Preliminary/Final Plat 2) Adopted specific findings setting for the basis for the decision 3) Confirmed that the site no longer needed or required a Wetlands Permit due to the changes made by the developer February 16, 2018 - Both sides appeared before Dakota County District Court Judge Michael Baxter and presented their arguments in the case - Judge Baster asked if the Planning Commission was required to review and comment on the matters addressed in Resolution 2018-01, particularly the “10-acre” findings, before the City Council adopted them – City Staff and City Attorneys do not believe that the Planning Commission consideration of those matters was required. However, because Mr. Swenson is requesting an amendment to the Final PUD Plan, staff asked the Planning Commission to review and comment on the matters addressed by the City Council in Resolution 2018-01. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 21 The subject parcel is bounded by Highway 13 on the west, Acacia Boulevard to the north, Augusta Shores and Lemay Lake to the east, and Victoria Avenue / Furlong Addition to the south. The combined Larson Greenhouse / Mendota Motel sites are 5.45 acres. The site plan approved in August 2017 included two 70-unit apartment buildings to be built in two phases; 270 parking spaces, both underground and surface; and a single, divided access driveway accessed by a right-hand turn lane from Highway 13 as required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Amended Final Planned Unit Development The previous plan showed the apartment complexes as having a 47-foot distance between the two. At the request of a Councilmember, Mr. Swenson has agreed to increase that separation to 60.7 feet. This resulted in the Phase Two development to be reduced by 14 square feet, or 1,000+ square foot footprint. As part of the request to add more green space or to reduce the impervious surfacing, Mr. Swenson has agreed to take out 13 parking spaces in the Phase One section from the original 270 and put them into a ‘proof of parking’, meaning if there is ever a need for additional parking or the site stops meeting its parking demands, these parking spaces could go back in. They are taking out the closest access point and re-establishing all of the curb-gutter sections around that new parking area. In the Phase Two section, 14 surface parking spaces and 4 underground parking spaces will be removed and they will re-establish the curb-gutter sections. RESULTS: possible loss of two to six units on the north (Phase Two) section; however, the developer is still working on reconfiguring his interior floor plans. He believes he can get up to 6- 8 units even with the reduction. He is accomplishing this by taking some of the larger two-bedroom units and decreasing them to one-bedroom units. The building footprint will remain as is – less the 14 feet. The net result is 239 parking spaces, reducing the ratio to 1.73/unit from the original 1.98/unit ratio. Section 12-1K-2.B Mr. Benetti explained the determining standards that must be met for a PUD under 10 acres but more than 5 acres: • Determined to be an “infill type development” • Will not require any wetlands permit • Will not require any critical area variance • Will not increase traffic or parking estimates above the level reasonably estimated for a permitted use for the project area’s size in the zoning district in which it is situated [B-3 General Business] • Provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area unless expressly waived by the Council He also noted that Council was required to be ‘conservative in exercising its discretion’ to permit a PUD of less than 10 acres. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 21 During his explanation of the above referenced standards, Mr. Benetti stated the recommendations of staff in each section: • City staff recommends the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject property meets the definition of an “infill-type development” standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require a Wetlands Permit; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the subject property (PUD Project Area) does not require any critical area permit or any critical area variance; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission determines and affirms that the impacts due to increase traffic or parking estimates for the Project area would b less than those estimated for a typical permitted use under the original B-3 General Business District zoning standards, and therefore the subject property (PUD Project Area) meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends that the Planning Commission also determines and affirms that the proposed and updated landscape and buffer plan for the subject property (PUD Project Area) are hereby acceptable; and therefore the PUD meets this standard as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code • City staff recommends the Commission also determines and affirms that the City Council acted conservatively in exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development of less than ten (10) acres on the Subject Property; and therefore the PUD meets this criteria as set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B of City Code Staff also asked that the Planning Commission to: • Reaffirm the August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development Staff Recommendations 1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval 2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01 3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect and unchanged March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 21 Public Hearing Chair Field explained the purpose of the public hearing and the public hearing rules. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Swenson of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan, MN stated that he believed Mr. Benetti covered everything and most of that had already been presented numerous times. He listened to the comments made about the distance between the two buildings and made that correction. He reduced the size of the Phase Two building by six apartment units; thereby, helping the density. He addressed the concern about water run-off by having a flat roof with inside drains that would drain all of the rainwater into the holding ponds, which when full, would then go into the sewer system. The other water that would fall within the parking lot or the grass is also pitched and designed to run into the holding ponds and then into the sewer system. In regards to the number of trips coming in and out of the development, a study was done by engineers who found that the amount of trips would be less than other uses that the property could have. The issue of visibility of people turning north or south onto Highway 13 was addressed by the landscape plan; there would be blockage of view on either side. His plans are to create an open market building. He has applications that must be filled out by potential residents to ensure that only good people are accepted. Mr. Robert Diedrich, 2178 Lemay Lake Drive in Augusta Shores, is a member of the homeowners association. He expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to speak. While they agree that these sites are in need of redevelopment, they have significant concerns about the size and scope of what is being planned. When he and his wife moved to Mendota Heights they were attracted to Augusta Shores because of its low density, peaceful surroundings. They never considered the possibility of a high density apartment complex because the property would not support it and it wasn’t zoned for anything like that at the time. His purchase came at a higher cost as a result; the rezoning and expected negative property value impact feels like a ‘bait and switch’; like a broken social contract between the city and the residents of Augusta Shores. This community is unique in character due to its resistance to unchecked growth and high density urban development. Mendota Heights attracts families looking for peaceful attractive neighborhoods with open green space. A number of citizens have written or called to express these concerns, some of which is in the packet of information the Commission received. Many have attended previous meetings – Planning and Council – to voice these concerns and while many have expressed a desire to redevelop the properties, he has yet to hear any citizens’ approval for anything the size and scope of this project. Any new development should seek to harmonize with adjacent properties and neighborhoods and this is codified in the city’s ordinances. Not only does this development not harmonize; it will stick out like a sore thumb in what is currently a low density, low traffic, and single-family owner occupied neighborhood. There is no structure of one story as far as the eye can see and these two hulking three-story rental units will loom large over the neighborhood while providing traffic density that will overwhelm the already limited roadways. Nothing about these proposed buildings is in harmony with the surrounding townhomes, single- family homes, and two cemeteries. There was a lot of police activity at the motel site with 20 units – this new development will have 138 units; seven times the number of units occupied by 30-40 March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 21 year olds with no ownership interest. When this demographic is stacked on top of each other it creates a recipe for more altercations, domestic disputes, and fire and police services – not less. During a number of occasions since the first introduction of this project, citizens have expressed their concerns regarding the increase in traffic flow on Highway 13 between Highway 55 and Highway 110. At this point, Chair Field reminded Mr. Diedrich of the 3-minute limit. Mr. Diedrich continued by explaining that on two occasions this winter there were snow events and traffic was backed up all of the way from Highway 110 to Acacia Drive – the only ingress and egress to Augusta Shores. On those two occasions if there had been an apartment building next door with over 200 vehicles, traffic between Highway 55 and Highway 110 would have been completely gridlocked. There would have been no way to enter or exit their neighborhood. This situation also makes it difficult for services to get in and out. Most of the residents are elderly and it is difficult for them to navigate the traffic already. The developer has suggested that there would be landscaping to improve the sight lines; however, anyone who has driven that property knows that no landscaping is going to fix this problem. There is a curve to the left exiting Acacia Drive and there is a dip going towards Highway 110. Traffic is already on a driver in seconds; no landscaping on the property behind it is going to impact that. It is a road issue – an infrastructure issue. The road currently does not support this large of a development with the kind of traffic it will generate. Ms. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 29 years. She wished to share the declining property values that will be cause by this proposed development. She reviewed her credentials that would allow her to discuss this matter: • Senior specialist in the 3M Corporation Real Estate Department for 19 years • Served on the Mendota Heights City Council for 8 years • Currently on the Dakota County Planning Commission • Served on several related committees prior to this • Masters Degree in Business from the University of Wisconsin with a major in Real Estate Appraisal and Urban Land Development • Master of Public Affairs Degree from the University of Minnesota with concentrations in Land Use and Transportation She continued by explaining that Mr. Richard Kelly, a realtor, has provided an affidavit stating, in his professional opinion, that the property values in the surrounding area would be adversely impacted if this development proceeds as proposed. She then started to provide Mr. Kelly’s experience in forming his opinions. At this point, Commissioner Noonan asked if Mr. Kelly was in attendance. Ms. Smith replied that he was not able to attend. Commissioner Noonan then stated that he had a written report from Mr. Kelly and he would rather hear from Mr. Kelly. Ms. Smith stated that she had his affidavit. Commissioner Noonan stated that the affidavit could speak for itself. Ms. Smith then handed out copies of the affidavit to the Commission. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 21 When Ms. Smith continued in her efforts to share Mr. Kelly’s experience, Commissioner Noonan asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann to weigh in. Ms. Smith argued that it was her prerogative to continue; however Chair Field stated that he sets the rules and since the question was asked, he wanted to hear from Mr. Lehmann. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was his understanding that this affidavit is part of the court records and did not know, other than re-reading it, what purpose it would serve. Ms. Smith stated that she would not re-read it but would like to add her own comments to it. Commissioner Noonan asked if she would be adding to the realtor’s opinion. Ms. Smith replied that she would adding to other comments independent of his opinion. Ms. Smith continued by stating that Mr. Kelly was a licensed realtor, has been with Edina Realty, has participated in hundreds of real estate sales and is familiar with the factors that affect the value of the real estate – including all residential, he is familiar with Mendota Heights, and has visited the site. Mr. Kelly brought forward the following criteria in support of his conclusion: • Traffic – the development would generate over 1,000 estimated vehicles trips per day onto Highway 13 at a point approximately 200 feet from Acacia Drive and the only access point to Augusta Shores. The Furlong neighborhood would experience a similar situation. • Since any services are a distance away from the development and residents would have to drive to any destination and vehicles trips are likely to be higher than those estimated by MnDOT at 1,000 • Traffic Visibility – had already been covered so Ms. Smith did not discuss that • Design Factors – the design, use, and dimension of the large 3-story structure is incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood. Augusta Shores, Furlong, and Lemay Shores are all primarily single-family one-story structures. The dimension factor also refers to the intensity of the development over the 5.45 acre site. Multiple variances have been requested to accommodate the size of the development, the underlying zoning is HR-PUD which is R-3; which has been mentioned with the 60-foot separation between buildings. That would allow 46 units rather than the 140 proposed number of units. Ms. Smith commented that from her experience on the City Council and on many other public commissions, boards, and committees she believes that the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City Council is primarily to the current and future residents over that of the developer. The proposed development does not serve either residential and citizen constituencies. Commissioner Noonan commented that Ms. Smith stated that there were many variances granted for this application; the record will stand that there were not any variances granted. This was done under a PUD and the PUD provided the necessary approvals. The Planning Commission did not grant any variances. Ms. Smith argued that the R-3 district is the standard that the PUD should be judged. Commissioner Noonan replied that was not true. Commissioner Petschel asked for confirmation that the land was zoned as a B-3 General Business before the PUD. Confirmation was given. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, has been a resident of the community for approximately 60 years. He is a retired lawyer and served 12 years on the Planning Commission. He wished to make March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 21 it clear that, in his view, this was a public hearing and the Commission has no right to limit his time to 3-minutes or that of anyone else. Those are the rules that apply to public hearings in the State of Minnesota and suggested that the Commission confirm with the City Attorney. Mr. Lehmann stated that it was not uncommon for municipalities to limit public speaking; in fact it is not unlawful to set a time limit for people to present their testimony. In fact, it is common that there is limited time. After the three minutes are up a person certainly can present other information at the end. The Commission allows other people to present their testimony and then a person can return after everyone has been given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Friel expressed his desire to discuss the matters adopted by the City Council in Resolution No. 2018-01 and which the Commission is now being asked to reaffirm. None of those issues had the benefit of a public hearing at any time before. Not in the Commission’s August meeting and not in the Council meeting. He will address those later. Currently, he wished the Commission to know that he is one of the seven plaintiffs in the litigation now pending against the City of Mendota Heights challenging this project and why they are in the litigation. They are not just a bunch of angry NIMBY’s; some are here because they believe the project creates serious dangers from traffic, some because it would affect the value of their homes, and some because it is inconsistent with land uses. Those in the litigation are concerned with all of those things, as well as being appalled by the approval of this project by the Planning Commission. He also noted that out of the seven members in the lawsuit, five of them were former members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or members of the school board in this community. He most recently watched the video of the 27th meeting [assuming the February 27, 2018 meeting] and noted that one of the Commissioners said that they – referring to the plaintiffs – did not have the common courtesy to come and share their concerns and then they sued the city and that is a bit troublesome. Mr. Friel replied to that comment by explaining that the reason they were not at the Planning Commission meeting in August is because they did not know about it – they do not live close enough to be entitled to a notice. They learned about it by watching the Council meeting on September 5, 2017, about mid-October, after they were advised that they ought to take a look at the meeting. The City Council, at that time, recommended approval pursuant to the Commission’s recommendations of a PUD and granting a Conditional Use Permit. They were all appalled because the ordinance under which they authorized Planned Unit Developments for areas less than 10 acres has got a whole bunch of hoops to go through. One of the hoops is that it would not require a Wetlands Permit. Not only did this one get approved without paying any attention to that provision, the Commission and the Council approved a PUD and at the same time approved a Wetlands Permit; notwithstanding that the ordinance prohibits that. More troubling to them was the fact that your staff told the Council that this violated the ordinance; however, it was a minor matter so they should go ahead anyway. He did not believe that violating any ordinance, any provision of any ordinance, by the governmental body that is responsible to the citizens is a good idea. The language of the ordinance is very clear and unequivocal. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 21 Two members of the lawsuit went to city staff and were told that this was discretionary with the Council. Later they had a similar conversation with a couple of the Councilmembers and they received the same response. Mr. Friel asked to come back after others had an opportunity to speak to continue with his comments. Ms. Belina Reisman, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, noticed while sitting here listening to the evaluations that have occurred she has not heard about Lemay Shores development being included, like with the traffic. It is a concern of those that live in the area that they not be impacted in terms of what the development would look like. They like to have all of those natural settings. This is also in the Comprehensive Plan that the city had and she knows that the city is concerned with adding affordable housing and increasing the density; however, she does not believe that growth has to include the size of what is being considered; with the destruction that is there already; and what the residents want to have. A three-story building will be visible across Lemay Lake and Augusta Lake and that will change the environment. They are also concerned, and have heard, that the building and the site development is not in keeping with the existing buildings in the Furlong area. If this is so, they would also be changing the way it looks. She has heard that it would be closer to Highway 13 than it should be. She and her husband walked around there and saw the steep hill going down into the wetlands. She was amazed that anyone would want to put something there, even if they were to move it back. She has not seen a picture of what the building would look like. She would like to have something to see that really shows it to her and not have to go to an architect to interpret. Ms. Reisman also raised concerns about the drainage. She does not know how anyone can take a building on the property for the motel and have it not impact the area that is to the south because there is nothing there. There are no trees. She questioned what the developer was going to put there that is going to make that development fit in with the rest of the community. Ms. Reisman further asked the Commissioners if they have been to the site and walked the paths from Lemay Shores to Augusta Shores and then down Lemay Lake Road and looked at what that community is like so that they are knowledgeable of what is going to affect all of them. Mr. Al Fautsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, has lived in the area for 15 years and was one of the original owners in Augusta Shores. He lived in St. Paul for 36 years and served for a number of years on their Planning Commission and had lots of speakers and they never limited anyone speaking at any of their meetings. He wished to speak as an individual in a community. One of the things they always look at is “what is the feeling of the community around a particular development.” That has a meaning; they are a community. He was not in attendance to support of any particular development; he is part of a community. He then asked for a show of hands of how many people oppose this development. He March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 21 stated that this large show of hands gives an indication of what the community wants. It is the duty of the Planning Commission to hear all of the testimonies regardless of how long it takes and to make a decision that is beneficial to the community. Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, noted that he is on the faculty of the University of Minnesota. He stated that since Commissioner Noonan rudely interrupted his wife [Ms. Jill Smith who spoke earlier] within her three minutes he wished to repay the favor and make a few blunt remarks. He pointed out that every Planning Commission and every Council in this city, in the past, has supported careful, prudent development of the city. This Planning Commission and three members of the Council have abandoned that record and that tradition. One reason that this city enjoys its special character, of all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities, and is considered an oasis of careful prudent development. This Commission has abandoned that tradition; have abandoned that record and he does not understand why. One could say that they are no longer a Planning Commission but they are a degradation commission. Chair Field stated that he took offense to that statement since he was not present at the previous meeting and there are three new planning commission members since that occurrence. Mr. Smith asked if he could continue. Commissioner Noonan replied that he could as long as he states the facts and not personal opinions. Mr. Smith continued by stating that this is a public hearing and they should be allowed to express their opinion and they have 1st Amendment Rights. Commissioner Noonan agreed as long as slanderous remarks are not made. Addressing Chair Field, Mr. Smith said that Chair Field had a positive reputation in the community; however, he is squandering that now, and the rest of the Planning Commission by supporting this development. Mr. Smith concluded by saying that the original plan was flawed. The remaining two resolutions; one this evening and the one in February; are like putting lipstick on a pig. The pig hasn’t changed – think about it. Commissioner Petschel stated that he is receptive to any comments, especially any emotional comments about this development. No one likes new development near them but the first time that this was before the Commission he did not remember most of the audience being in attendance. He also did not remember many negative comments when this issue was before them previously. (At this point, the Chambers became noisy from audience members speaking out). Commissioner Petschel withdrew his comment and said he was sorry. Chair Field called the meeting back to order. Mr. Smith responded by saying that there has been a consistent lack of transparency on the part of the city regarding consulting the residents of what is going on. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that when he and his family moved here in 1974 he started on the first Park Board and raised $600,000 to have some parks in the city. He then moved March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 21 onto the City Council for 12 years and was part of the original first personnel team who did the first Comprehensive Plan. He remembers they were sweating bullets because the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) was on them for all kinds of different things that the Council did not want to do. The mayor at the time, Don Huber, said that they were living in the next best development community in the Twin City area; 15 minutes from downtown Minneapolis, 12 minutes to downtown St. Paul, the airport is only 5-6 miles away; we do not have to give anything away. When the developers starting coming in and building he was concerned about adding streets and how they were going to be paid for. Again, Mr. Huber sat him down and stated ‘we do not have to give away anything’. They will come to us because we are the next hot spot. With the drainage center on Eagan, this is another hot spot time and please do not give anything away. He concluded by saying that if the Council and the Commission feels that the high density development is necessary for Mendota Heights, that case should be made to the citizens and presented along with a revised Comprehensive Plan that includes properly designed zoning and ordinances to allow the growth of the community in a fashion that they have decided they want. This Commission is not representing what the people want. The developers will come no matter what happens because of where the city is located. He would like for Mendota Heights to stay ‘spacious and gracious’. Ms. Dawn Caruso, 629 Hampshire Drive, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 30 years and was one of the original Centex people; if anyone was around at that time this is like déjà vu. They had a density problem and had Centex the developer wanting to put multiple, multiple, multi- family living. The community and the people who moved into the area at that time did not know that was coming; they fought and fought and fought and they were heard. They worked with the Planning Commission and the City Council and eventually they worked with the developer to find a solution, a compromise where density was decreased and everyone was very happy. The people that live in that community now, across from Mendota Heights Road, has a beautiful community with multi-family and single-family that blends in very nicely. They do not have the issues with traffic and the school density and everything they were looking at. She stated that she was appalled at the communication going back and forth between the Planning Commission and the people from this community that have done their homework and the question about when people decided to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in this. That is a moot point; it does not matter when people became aware – it matters as when people are here because this impacting their lives, their families, and the way they live in this community. The Commission needs to be more respectful of that. This does not impact her as much because she does not use Highway 55 as much, she has other routes. However, the people that are living right in that community on Acacia; this is important to them. The developer does not live here; a developer comes in and builds his homes and gets his money and then he leaves. The community is left to deal with this year after year, after year, after year. She begged the Commission to look at this and see if there isn’t a compromise; some way that either density could go down or the side of the building can be maintained so it flows into the community that has already been approved, people have bought into, and are raising their families there. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 21 Mr. Floyd Knight, 2338 Lemay Shores Drive, commented that he just noticed a new apartment development on Highway 110 and Dodd Road. As he looks at that it looks like a huge development and he just found out in the last couple of weeks that it is going to be approximately 150 units. As he visualizes that building it will probably be comparable to what is planned right now to replace the Larsen Garden Center and the Mendota Motel. If it is anything close to what is being built already, it is going to be an eyesore. It is going to stick out like a sore thumb. It is not going to blend into the neighborhood. He is unaware of what the façade is going to be but he could not imagine that it would be attractive, someplace that people are going to want enjoy, and that the people in the neighborhood are going to feel comfortable. He also noted that the reason he was not in attendance at the beginning was because he just found out about this in the last few months. Ms. Kathy Geier, 1309 Kendon Lane, has lived in the Furlong addition for 62 years. When she was a child there was open fields and woods where she played and ran wild; then her dad decided to build some homes in the neighborhood and he filled up four of the empty lots. That changed the status quo. They went along for a number of decades and then Augusta Shores came in; that upset the status quo and they got riled up, had all of these discussions and meetings – and now that became the new status quo. Then Lemay Lake Shores came in and upset the status quo – they all got riled up again because what they knew was changing; however, it became the new status quo. This is yet another change in the neighborhood and it will become, yet again, the new status quo. Her concern was that with adding that additional housing, the police presence needs to be increased. Currently they do not see very many police cruisers in the Furlong area and they do have issues with cars being broken into, etc. She hopes the police presence will be more noticeable. She also expressed her concern about the traffic and hoped there is a Plan B in the back pocket to address the expansion of the frontage road to accommodate the traffic in the future. Ms. Linnea Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, noted that she had been a previous meeting and brought up the same concern she brings up now, that being the traffic. There is way too much traffic and the density is too large. She is also concerned about the wetlands no matter what kind of holding ponds the developer installs. She lives right across the lake from this development and she sees trees and turkeys in the trees every evening; that is not going to happen now. She is going to lose some of those trees and she is certainly not just going to see turkeys in the remaining trees; she is going to be seeing a building. She would like to see that building cut down to two stories. They are grateful that the motel is gone and Larsen’s is an eyesore. But, cut the development down to two stories; cut it down to 100 units. Ms. Mike Pilney, 2154 Theresa Street, lives in the Curley Addition. He raised his concerns about the unintended consequences of traffic. Coming down Lexington it is very difficult to get in and out of his neighborhood; due to weather or road maintenance, they seem to get unintended traffic. Having additional traffic potentially coming down CenterPoint Drive or Court – due to weather or road conditions or whatever – potentially adds more congestion in that area. He would like to know what traffic would like from a worst case scenario. Mr. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vickie Lane, came forward to talk about Lemay Lake. Fifty or more years ago Augusta Lake was a fishable lake. Now, the Met Council has given that lake a grade of F; March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 21 cannot get any worse than that. She has a friend who lives on Lemay Lake and every two weeks she goes out in a canoe and measure the water quality because she is concerned that it is coming to her lake soon. Augusta Lake is a deep lake and Lemay Lake is a shallow lake. She knows that there are plans and buffer zones, etc. Storm sewer could be Lemay Lake. When someone says ‘storm sewer’ it does not go off to be cleaned up. Overflow from a holding pond goes to a lake – either to Augusta Lake or to Lemay Lake. She would really like for this Commission to fully assure this community that Lemay Lake is going to be protected with a the very best of practices. She does not know what happened with Augusta Lake, it is a mystery; however, she knows that public Works Director Ryan Ruzek is trying to figure that out and she is grateful for that. However, they are fearful about Lemay Lake itself with this kind of a development. She also noted that pervious surfaces soon become impervious without maintenance. They become filled with debris and they need to be cleaned up. She again asked for assurances that Lemay Lake will remain the nice lake that it is right now. Mr. Daniel Bogg, 809 Hazel Court, expressed his concerns regarding future development in Mendota Heights in general; Lemay Lake, Highway 110, and now proposed across Dodd Road. All of these high density complexes are a concern to him. If there is any notice by the people and the Commission – he is a member of the younger generation. Everyone he has seen come up to speak has been here 30 years or more. He and his wife were fortunate enough to move into the city in 2011. They felt it was an absolute blessing at the time and they continue to feel that way as this is the place they want to raise their family; not because of what it does not offer but because of what it does for the future. That being that this is an oasis; this is a different development than the first ring suburbs and the rest of the seven county metro. There is a special holding here in the city. They feel that this Commission and this City Council are foregoing the past – the very important past that has been stood on – to maintain and preserve Mendota Heights for what it is for us – not only the current residents but for the future generations. Seeing no one else to come forward, Chair Field allowed Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, tor return. Mr. Friel stated that they probably would not be here tonight but for the fact that the Wetlands Permit and the Planned Unit Development were approved at the same time. When they started looking at the action the Council had taken and the Planning Commission had taken, there were more infirmities from their point of view and he wished to address those. One of the things that disturbs him is that in a normal process, a public hearing happens and it is referred to the Council and the Council makes the decision. In this case, the Council apparently has made the decision and referred their decision back to the Commission for its blessing. That is not the way it is supposed to work. He suggested that the Commission had no recommending authority at this time because the recommendation has already been determined. He was surprised to see in the staff report that there is a plat change before the Commission. He knows that there is no notice required for that but, under the circumstances, it would have been beneficial to learn that was the case in the notice of the hearing. The underlying zoning classification for this piece of property is R-3 and the basic standards of R- 3 is where the Commission starts. Mr. Benetti informed the Commission of that in their August March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 21 2017 meeting and the Council at their June 2017 meeting. He made it clear to the Commission that for purposes of this site, they could not do more than 46 units, which is the permitted number in an R-3, without a PUD. INFILL – keeping the maximum of 46 units in mind, Mr. Friel spoke about ‘infill’. The ordinances the city contain a definition of infill in the aviation section and it deals with sound. The definition of an infill, whether it is in the sound section or anyplace else, is the same. The Michael property is not infill. It had a development on it when the Commission decided to go forward with this and, in fact, no piece of property that has buildings on it that have to be torn down can ever become infill. Infill by definition is ‘property that is vacant in the city because it has been built around’ and the infill property in this community was all identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the map. By definition infill is filling in – it is not refilling. There is a difference. Redevelopment of infill property is what was done some years ago with the Super Block. There was a property that was largely undeveloped and owned by one or two people. That was infill and was identified as such. He himself has a piece of property identified as infill. It is vacant except for his house on it and it is subdivided. A property that has buildings on it cannot be called infill just because you tear the buildings down. TRAFFIC & PARKING – there is a threshold in the ordinance for traffic and parking. The traffic and parking in the new PUD cannot exceed the reasonable estimates for parking in the permitted use in that district. The permitted use in this district is R-3, not B-3. And the comparison with B- 3 is ridiculous for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is Mr. Benetti compared the size of the density using the R-3 – the 46 units – and its appropriate to use it for the traffic estimates as well. The traffic estimates for this property for the permitted use – 46 units – would be approximately 470 vehicle trips per day using the eight trips per day per unit under the Institute of Traffic Engineers Transportation Manual. The 138 to 136 units will give 1,000 to 1,400 trips per day. MnDOT sent to staff a note that said their view was that they would generate on this site, with this development, over 1,000 trips per day with 140 units. Unfortunately, that information was never disclosed at your public hearing last August, nor did they make the estimates that the Council, because of the lawsuit, saw fit to finally make. He stated that the Council used the wrong basis, they used a comparison with what would be permitted in a B-3. There is another reason why the B-3 is not applicable; go back to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that took care of in June – under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission created a HR-PUD Comprehensive Plan Characteristic for this property. Once the Commission did that, under Minnesota Statues, nothing can be put on that property that isn’t consistent with HR-PUD. B-3 certainly is not consistent with anything that could be put in an R-3 zone. Mr. Friel referenced Minnesota Statute 473.58. The parking estimates cannot exceed those for a permitted use. In this case, for 140 units the parking space required is 2.5 per unit. That has been cut down to 1.7 per unit, a 30% decrease. Staff compared the ordinance provisions with the ordinance provisions of other municipalities and suggested to the Commission that the city was different than the rest of them. He believed that there had been enough testimony to this point about the residents liking to be different from everybody else. If the city wants to change their parking, they would need to change the ordinance – after a hearing and consideration – and not doing it on an ad-hoc basis as was done in this case March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 21 and sometimes that results in a problem, as the city knows from the results of a different lawsuit that has come down just in the last few weeks involving this community. LANDSCAPE PLAN – He did not have much to say on the landscape plan except to say that staff keeps saying that this is not the sort of plan that would ordinarily be had at this stage of the proceedings and that the Planning Commission never sees it and the Council rarely sees it. This isn’t any other plan, this is an ordinance that has a provision in it that requires the Commission have the plan at the time of making the decision; otherwise they cannot determine that they met the requirements of the ordinance. He has not yet seen a landscape plan that meets those provisions, although he has heard repeatedly that one exists. CONSERVATIVE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – he was interested in the city’s analysis of that. The provision reads ‘the Council shall be conservative in exercising it discretion to permit a Planned Unit Development of less than 10 acres’. The word ‘shall’, under the provisions of this ordinance, is mandatory. It is not a suggestion. It is disingenuous to suggest that tripling the number of units from what was permitted – 46 to 140 or 136 – is conservative. They are also permitting at least 2.5 times what is permitted in parking; although there is a little bait and switch there because he wants to reduce the parking required normally for a 140 units down to 235 spaces. Commissioner Noonan suggested that the variance was the wrong term to use and he was correct. All of those setbacks from what is normally required were provided for under the Conditional Use Permit. They may be there but they do vary significantly from the standards by as much as 17 to 50 feet set back on one side and 25% setback on two other sides, and at least a 25% barrier setback in the parking area from the street. For the record, conservative is not a political term, it is not a noun; it’s an adverb and it modifies exercise – conservative exercise of discretion to create the district. He submitted that what was done was not a conservative exercise of discretion of the city in this case. The planning staff report indicated that the plan is down to 45.5% impervious surface – down from 49.7%. He stated that this is really an inconsequential difference, particularly in view of the fact that the ordinance says ‘furthermore, in order to qualify under this subsection of a residential planned unit development, notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, the ratio of impervious surface to the total project area shall not be more than 25:100 – 2,500 square feet of impervious surface to 10,000 square feet of project area. So this plan is still approximately two times what it should be with impervious surface. When dealing with a lot of Planned Unit Developments it is learned that PUD’s of less than 5 acres get a little bit different treatment. The ordinance provides a lot of hoops and the reason those hoops are required to be jumped through is because it is not a good idea to have high density on small tracts of land; it is not a good idea to have high density on small tract in a critical area; it is not a good idea to have high density on property that is near a wetland, let alone be encroaching on it, because of the problems that high density creates in a small tract. He suggested that the Council has not treated those hoops properly or this matter would not be under discussion. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 21 He has practiced law for a while, for approximately 60 years. Most of that has been in the municipal area and he stated that to have the proceeding with a case pending, in which all of the decisions being made tonight are already pending before a judge in Dakota County, is, at best, really bizarre. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, returned and noted again that he had been on the City Council for 12 years when Mendota Heights was 4,500 to 5,000 people. He has been through a lot of development and went through some really heated ones. Mr. Don Huber, afterwards, would always say that he did not like what took place at the meeting and he would wait and get this settled. He would put everyone in a room and they would settle it together. That is why everyone is here. He is part of the lawsuit – they are not the party of new – if he wasn’t living next door he would be here begging the Commission to clean that mess up. But let’s do it with the favor of all of the people that can accept it. Chair Field asked the applicant if he would like to comment. In response, Mr. Ben Delwiche, architect with Kaas Wilson Architects came forward. He said that he realizes that he would be unable to change a lot of opinions so he would be as fact-based as possible. It appears that the number one issue is traffic, he could not speak to that as he does not live in the area but he has driven down into the Augusta Shores area and understands the current concerns. There are trees that overhang that parking lot; he assured the residents that if they take a look at the current landscape plan the situation would be greatly improved. Additionally, the traffic report that was listed as part of the lawsuit was impartial reports by a third party and he could not speak to the expertise of that report, but that is the one fact-based object available to look at and judge this plat. In regards to police calls being similar in regards to the motel, while he could not say unequivocally yes or no, in his experience in the last five or six years dealing with multi-family housing that a lot of the product is going to go to empty nesters, people who are 55 to 60 and want to downsize a little bit, do not want to deal with the yard – that is a huge component of who would be renting here. Not to mention the Phase 2 building, although they do not want to classify it just yet based on how it rents out, is potentially going to be a 55+ building. Mr. Swenson rents to a high quality resident, he puts all potential renters through a thorough vetting process and Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that if asked he would come back and say how many police visits he’s had at his buildings. Mr. Delwiche could guarantee that it would not be anywhere near what the motel was rumored to create. In regards to the building, he has heard comments that the building has not been seen or that it does not fit into the context of the existing neighborhood, he did not disagree altogether. He would say that it was looked at from a different angle. He has been in the neighborhood and found it to be completely separate off of Highway 55 and he did not believe any of the residents would identify as living off of Highway 55. The apartment buildings being proposed are designed to be more reflective of what would be on a busy street, such as what is across the street – the restaurant technologies warehouse building. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 21 Similarly, Mr. Swenson chose a more expensive roof product – a flat roof versus a pitched roof – to deal with some of the height issues. Mr. Delwiche and Mr. Borgan – also from Kass Wilson Architects – did a handful of studies that show that during the summer time the 3-story building would not be seen or would not even be close. They have computer generated images that would show how that process was determined. They are trying to be consistent with a bridge from the restaurant technologies flat roof building industrial to a flat roof high-density residential to what is down the hill – a single-family twin- home development. Mr. Delwiche is not an engineer but he knows the requirements they have to meet. Currently this site is not up to current codes for stormwater retention. There are no provisions to keep the water on the site, the rain falls and hits the motel site or green house site and rolls on down the hill. When this building is complete, that site will be brought up to current code; all of the water that is generated or that lands on the site will be handled internally within that site and then drain to the proper stormwater facilities. As part of that, during construction there is a SWPP plan that evaluates erosion control and has procedures in place during construction to ensure that no pollution from that construction will be getting outside of that property boundary. Mr. Delwiche stated that Mr. Swenson is an owner/operator of all of the buildings that he has. It is a family-owned business that he intends to hand down to his sons. This is not a building he plans to build and then uproot and leave – make his money and get out. That is not his philosophy nor is it his or his company’s objective with this property or their general philosophy of dealing with business. In conclusion, Mr. Delwiche said that where the proposed building is, the setbacks that were maintained and designed to were consistent with where the existing building footprints were at that time. When this was started last fall there were a lot more supporters, which is a real shame because they do not have the perspective of what was there to say – look at what we are putting there instead of this motel. All he heard from residents the first time around was generally positive feedback about how they could not wait for the motel and greenhouse to be removed. He wanted to remind everyone what was there, what is being proposed, it is nowhere close – they plan to do a high-class development. Chair Field asked Mr. Swenson if he had anything else to add. Mr. Swenson stated that there were a lot of comments on this building and what it was going to consist of. One gentleman says it is going to be a monster like the one down by Mendakota. That building is six stories, four stories of apartments and two stories of parking. This project would be nowhere near that. This is three stories above grade and one story parking underneath grade. It is not going to be a monster, it is not going to stand out like a sore thumb, and it is very well designed. Kass Wilson has been doing apartment buildings for a long time. He himself has been building for 40 years and has 4,000 units and he receives very few police calls. The crimes that took place at the hotel were not just domestic; there was drug use, attempted murder, and all kinds of felonies. He vets all of the potential renters and makes sure they can pay the rent so he can pay his mortgage. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 21 They also check to see if they are people of character. They check their background, criminal records, check their credit, and if they do not measure up to what is believed to be fair standards then they do not rent to them. [Note: three emails/letters related to this item were received by the city, requesting consideration by the Planning Commission/City Council. These letters were made part of the March 27th Planning Agenda Packet report - and are appended to these minutes on the bottom.] COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES TO ALLOW THE ROOM TO CLEAR AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) At 8:45 p.m. Chair Field reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Magnuson asked City Attorney Tom Lehmann, since the Commission has not been apprised of the lawsuit situation, if the lawsuit was pending and if the issues that are being discussed here this evening a part of what the judge is being asked to consider. Attorney Lehmann replied that the matter was taken under advisement by Judge Baxter (Dakota County District Court). By law he has 90 days in which to issue an opinion. He indicated to the parties in court that he was going on a medical leave and as a result he would probably need the full 90 days in which to issue his decision. The matter of the lawsuit is still before the district court and under advisement and no opinion has been rendered. The Commissions job now is solely limited to what Chair Field read with regards to the proposed amendment regarding the separation of the buildings and then reaffirming the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council and then their decision on January 2, 2018. That is really all the Commission is being asked to do. Commissioner Magnuson asked for confirmation that the Commissions’ role is very limited at this time. Mr. Lehmann confirmed. Addressing Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Commissioner Magnuson stated that she too is concerned about the quality of the lakes in this area. She asked if Mr. Ruzek had determined what that problem might be and if there are some assurances that there would not be any degradation of Lemay Lake as a result of this or any other development in the area. Mr. Ruzek replied that there was actually a pollution control agency study a couple of years ago and they recommended alum treatment to treat the excess phosphorus in the lake. The city, in conjunction with the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, did an alum treatment to Lake Augusta. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 21 Unfortunately, they are not seeing high quality results. Last summer, city staff did some additional investigative work and discovered some erosion on the east side of the lake. Now the city and the watershed management organization are working on putting together a plan to take care of the erosion. The brown color is being caused by suspended solids – fine clay takes a while to settle out. Every rainstorm is washing a little bit of additional sediment into the lake. They are going to work on a temporary solution in the early spring and then work on a more permanent solution. The new development is being held to the watershed management organization’s water quality standards. They are the most stringent plan that the city has at this time; which should require a 50% reduction from phosphorus levels from how the city’s current ordinance are established right now. The city is in the process of updating its plan; however, that will not be complete until the end of the year. The systems being installed in this project do have mostly infiltration. The city does require one inch of infiltration over all new impervious surface. He believes the calculations on this site far exceed those requirements. They are infiltrating approximately 14 inches. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she was confused about the underlying zone here – is it B-3 or R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the old zoning was B-3 General Business. The new zoning is now HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development. It is a new classification and new zoning district that was created by the rezoning, which is consistent or compliant with the land use change of HR-PUD as well. Commissioner Magnuson requested confirmation that the traffic study that the Commission has, which does a traffic study based upon what could have been developed in a B-3 zone, is accurate. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the zoning was never R-3. Mr. Benetti replied that the zoning had never been R-3 on that site. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND REASSERTS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B Commissioner Magnuson, for clarification sake, stated that the scope of what the Commission is being asked to do is consistent with the motion and that does not include any opportunity or ability on the Commission’s part to talk about density or size or structure or design or anything like that. The Commission is simply being asked by the Council to do these three very limited things. Mr. Benetti confirmed. March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 21 Commissioner Toth asked for the items under consideration to be put back up on the screen and that they be read by Mr. Benetti: Staff Recommendations 1. The Amendment to the Final Development Plan of the Mendota Heights Apartments Planned Unit Development (PUD), whereby the Developer is allowed to provide a 60-foot separation between both apartment buildings; and reduce the surface parking lot by 27 spaces and provide these under a new “proof-of-parking” plan for future use is acceptable and recommended for approval. 2. The Planning Commission re-asserts and finds that the proposed planned unit development meets all the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B for a planned unit development on land less than 10 acres in size; and supports and concurs in the findings of fact made by the City Council on January 2, 2018 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-01. 3. The Planning Commission reaffirms its August 22, 2017 recommendation for approval of the rezoning of the subject site from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High-Density Residential Planned Unit Development, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect and unchanged. Commissioner Magnuson noted that page one of the staff report states that the Commission was being asked to provide comment and recommendations to City Council in respect to its findings that this project meets the criteria set forth in Section 12-1K-2.B. However, on page 10 of the staff report the Commission is being asked to specifically find that it meets the criteria. She would be more comfortable saying that the Council had the authority and made a decision that was consistent with the ordinance versus the Commission making an independent finding based on what has been presented. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment to the motion made. Commissioner Noonan explained that he was uncomfortable with the amended motion because to simply to say that the Commission was agreeing that the decision was a reasonable decision with respect to the findings to support the PUD. It was said that the Commission did not have enough information to make their own independent and therefore to reassure the decision. He believed that the staff report was very thorough in terms outlining what the criteria is of the ordinance and going through the five elements would allow the Commission to make a determination that, yes the Council made a decision on the PUD and the Commission has the information that they could reassert that it was an appropriate decision. He would stand by the initial motion. He believed the Commission could stand by it fairly strongly to say that the Commission does assert or reassert the provisions of the PUD section, based upon the analysis contained in the staff report and the discussions which took place. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission would be reasserting the decision the Council made or the decision the Commission made. The Commission did not make a decision before. Mr. Benetti replied that the Council had already made that decision by adopting Resolution 2018-01. Commissioner Magnuson continued by stating that maybe that was her problem; she did not like March 27, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 21 the word reassert because they did not make a decision that needed to be reasserted. The Commissioner was being asked to state that they agree with the Council’s interpretation. Commissioner Noonan agreed with that logic. The motion was changed as follows: COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND FURTHER REAFFIRM THE COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON AUGUST 22, 2017 AS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SAME APPLICATION, AND AGREES AND FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 12-1K-2.B AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) This item will be returned to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, April 3, 2018. Staff and Commission Announcements Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that a Planning Commission Workshop Meeting would be held on Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. Chair Field did stated for the audience that this was a workshop meeting, not a public hearing. However, the public is more than welcome to attend. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Corbett) From: WM MULLAN [mailto:bmullan@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 2:30 PM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Proposed HWY 13 Development Dear Mr. Benetti: We are residents of Augusta Shores and unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on March 27, 2018. We want to voice our objections to the 140 apartment development proposed by Michael Swenson of Michael Development, LLC. We believe the density of the proposed units overwhelms the site and threatens the health and vitality of the Lake Lemay wetland. The wetland is home to numerous bird species, deer, and other mammals. It is truly a treasure and an important piece of the greenspace preservation that differentiates Mendota Heights from other first ring suburbs. Greenspace is one of the reasons we chose Mendota Heights as our home more than 30 years ago. This project's size, large quantities of paved surfaces, and reduced setbacks, require that the city break its rules and past practices that safeguarded spaces like this wetland. Despite the review by MNDOT of plans submitted by city staff, we are concerned about the amount of traffic generated by a development this large. Mendota Heights prides itself on its trail system and we are avid users of it. The trail crossing at Hwy 13 is already difficult to navigate due to the traffic and the number of drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians in the cross walk. We know this all too well from daily walks with our dog. The sizeable increase in traffic created by 140 units poses a congestion and safety hazard for both drivers and pedestrians. Hwy 13 is already a busy road. The curvature along this stretch limits the ability to see speeding cars as they approach. We believe there are other more appropriate uses for this land that do not require the variances necessary for the proposed project. We are extremely concerned the current project will have a negative effect on the neighborhood and reduce the value of the current housing abutting the site. We urge the City Council and Planning Commission to reconsider the precedent it is setting by breaking city rules for this high density housing that financially benefits one individual. Once the rules are broken, it is difficult to prevent it from happening again. Thank you. William and Cynthia Mullan 2170 Lemay Lake Drive From: Jim Elander <elanderfamily@gmail.com> Date: March 19, 2018 at 8:19:20 AM MST To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: High Density Apartment Housing To Whom It May Concern: We have been residents of Mendota Hts. for the past 22 years living at 2232 Rogers Ct. and we are moving to the new LeMay Shores subdivision, also in Mendota Hts, in June. Both my wife Maggie and I are adamantly opposed to changing the zoning for the land occupied by the old hotel and the nursery on Hi 55. We believe that the land should be used for light commercial or low -density (single family, twinhome/townhome) usage and not a high-density apartment complex. We oppose zoning changes for the following reasons: 1. The increase of traffic on the frontage road to Highway 55. 2. The increase of traffic due to the density caused by the new apartment complex in the Village of Mendota Hts. and the anticipated surge in traffic caused by the new Vikings complex in Eagan. 3. Deteriorating road conditions/access on Dodd , Lexington, Wagon Wheel Trail, Highway 55 West, and Highway 62 West across the Mendota bridge caused by vastly increased traffic over the past 22 years and the lack of expansion to current roadways. 4. The detrimental effect that more high-density housing will have on the character of the neighborhood and the city. We moved to Mendota Hts. 22 years ago because of the central location, low taxes, great schools, and small town charm in the center of an urban area. We have seen a steady decline in these attributes over the years. Our decision to move from Rogers Ct. was largely due to the increased traffic conditions on Wagon Wheel and Dodd, and the anticipated influx of more problems with the new Viking stadium. We are very disappointed to find out that the city is considering putting more apartments so close to our new home. We urge the mayor and council to take more of a strategic vision (20-30 years) for this wonderful city and it’s placement in the metro, and more thoughtful consideration of the attributes that make Mendota Heights a wonderful place to live. Regards, Jim and Maggie Elander 651-226-6499 elanderfamily@gmail.com March 22, 2018 To Mendota Heights Planning Commission: I am unable to be at the public hearing on March 27th regarding the Final Development Plan for the Mendota Heights Apartments PUD located at 2160 and 2180 Highway 13. As directed by the public hearing notice, I am submitting my comments to you through Tim Benetti, Community Development Director. As you consider and determine your decision regarding the proposed amendment I ask you to keep in mind that your actions will have impact on the community for years to come. Mendota Heights has a positive reputation as a community that has carefully considered its development and maintained its aesthetic excellence as described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and currently posted on its website. I believe that high density development is not in the best interests of our community as it will compromise the nature and character of our community. As a former planning commission member, I can attest to the fact that great effort was made to maintain the quality of family life (all ages and stages), promote business development that would enhance our community and avoid projects that would result in overcrowding in our neighborhoods. High density development has negative impacts on the health and safety of our residents. The health impacts are supported by research that has identified that increased traffic volumes ( expected outcome of any high density development) in turn results in congestion, compromised air quality, increased noise pollution, higher incidence of accidents (pedestrian, motor vehicle and bikes), wasted time, stress, and a reduction of property values. I am opposed to the rezoning of the site as proposed to HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development as it will have a negative impact on the quality of life for our residents and is not in keeping with the long-standing vision and commitment to our community. Thank you for your consideration and opportunity to provide input. Marina McManus 1026 Victoria Court Mendota Heights, Mn. 55118 Planning Report MEETING DATE: April 24, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2018-10 Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Elevation Homes / Drrs. Rob & SueMi Tuttle PROPERTY ADDRESS: 954 Wagon Wheel Trail ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 22, 2018 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of a new 5,500 sq. ft. (finished) single-family dwelling, with a three-car attached garage and an in-ground swimming pool. The subject property is generally located on the north side of Rogers Lake and addressed as 954 Wagon Wheel Trail. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-6; any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city. The following activities require a permit: 1. The deposit or removal or permitting the deposit or removal of any debris, fill or any other material over one hundred (100) cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over one hundred (100) cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment or ponding area or the changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials, including, but not limited to, sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials. 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 2 of 9 The subject parcel consists of 4.02 total acres, with approximately 2.1 acres under Rogers Lake to the south (per Dakota Co. GIS), while the main upper portion of the parcel’s buildable area and adjacent wetland consists of approximately 1.97 acres in size (see image below). The property currently has an old, dilapidated 810 sf. single-story home built in 1939, which is scheduled to be removed to make space for this new home project. An existing and abandoned foundation just south of the home will also be removed, along with some old fencing. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Elevation Homes has provided a Survey/Site Plan of the site, which illustrates the general layout of the new dwelling structure. The structures front yard setback (from nearest projection point off the attached garage) is 132-feet from Wagon Wheel Trail; 15-ft. from the easterly property line; over 107-ft. from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) off Rogers Lake; and 106-ft. from the westerly property line. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 3 of 9 Elevation Homes plans to construct a new 5,500 sq. ft., two-story, home, with a 1,193 sf. three-car attached garage, and swimming pool (see partial elevation image – below): The site coverage calculations are indicated as 11,735 sq. ft. of hard surface areas (structures, decks, patios, driveway), which equates to only 13.8% of impervious cover. The proposed residence and garage will have direct access from Wagon Wheel Trail. On October 17, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-88, which authorized the partial vacation of Rogers Avenue ROW located south of Wagon Wheel Trail. Upon the approval of this vacation, a 30-ft. wide strip of land was conveyed over to each of the adjacent landowners at 954 and 940 Wagon Wheel Trail. The new survey/site plan submitted by the Applicant incorporates this 30-ft. strip of land, which provides the area for the new driveway/access into the property and part of the dwelling structure footprint. The survey/site plan illustrates the delineated edges of the northerly wetland feature and the edge along Rogers Lake to the south; and includes “wetland setback” lines and buffer areas from both the lake and wetland. The plan also identifies new landscaping and trees along the north and east areas of the property. ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential dwelling qualifies as a permitted use in the applicable zoning district, subject to full city approvals; and should remain compliant with the current 2030 Plan and the expected 2040 Comprehensive Plan update.  Wetlands Permit Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100- feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. 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; Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 4 of 9 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. City Code Title 12-2-7 provides a list of standards and conditions for the granting of a Wetland Permit within the City. These standards are appended to the bottom of this report. For the most part, it appears all major construction related to the building of the new home, garage, swimming pool and driveway all appear to have little, to no effect upon the wetland areas. The work along Rogers Lake appears to be separated by a wide buffer space with minimal disturbance or grading to be done near the lake. Some new grading is being planned near the north wetland area, but there should be no impacts to the physical portion of the wetland itself. The plan calls for all new grading work to be outside the wetland setback zone, with silt fence protection all along this area to be installed (which is required) prior to any construction in or around this wetland area. The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) provides certain guides and suggested standards for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The LSWMP recommends a 25-foot wetland setback, which essentially provides a no disturbance buffer zone and permits a natural vegetative planting and erosion/silt protection strip along the water body. The Plan also suggests any natural wetlands or ponds situated on private lands be dedicated with drainage and utility easements; that way the city will be responsible for the overall care and maintenance of such water features in the future. The plan identifies an approximate 25-foot wetland buffer (noted as “Wetland Setback” line) from the delineated wetland edges along Rogers Lake and the north wetland body. The plan also notes: “Existing Shoreland Vegetation to Remain Unaltered” along the wetland boundary areas along Rogers Lake. The setback area along the north wetland does not contain any added notes or provisions similar to the Rogers Lake area. The plan also includes a note: “Proposed New Brush Line to Clean-Out Buckthorn and Other Invasive Species” along the Rogers Lake edge. Staff acknowledges and commends the Owners desire to maintain an unaltered shoreland area and natural vegetative brush line along Rogers Lake; as water quality and protection of this natural resource is paramount to city leaders and residents who live near Rogers Lake. The large open (rectangular) area immediately to the west of the new home is planned to be a simple grass/sodded play area for the family. Along the northerly part of the new home, new grades will be established coming off the new driveway and garage structure, and staff assumes some of these areas will be seeded as turf or sodded. Staff recommends that no part of the wetland setback/buffer zones be planted with turf grass or sod; instead these buffers should be planted with pollinator friendly and wetland protective plantings, which are noted in the city’s Native Plant List, made part of the Pollinator Friendly Policy (adopted 2016). The Owners may also call upon the city’s Master Gardeners to provide suggestions and recommendations of certain, suitable plantings. City staff will provide the Applicant/Owners of said list and ensure the final building plans call for such plantings as necessary. The plan identifies a number of trees to be removed on the site, with approximately 26- 28 trees scheduled for removal, but also identifies a large number of trees to be saved or protected during construction. The trees marked for removal are in poor health and some are considered non-native or invasive. The new plan calls for 14 new deciduous trees and 10 new coniferous (evergreen) trees to be planted in and around the new home and driveway (primarily along the along the north and east sides of the new home site). Although the plan does not identify the type/species of new trees, Staff will work with the Applicant/Owners in providing suitable or recommended tree plantings, once again from the Native Plant List if necessary. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 5 of 9 Water and sanitary sewer are still available from the mains in the Wagon Wheel Trail ROW to the north. The old septic system appears to have been removed many years ago, so there should be no environmental impacts or clean-up related to any old septic system; and therefore, no related standards or conditions (per Title 12-2-7) are needed. Proposed erosion control measures (silt fencing) are shown on the Site Plan, and basically encircles the main developable portions of the parcel. The erosion control or stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be reviewed in greater detail by the Engineering Department as part of the building permit application. The scope and scale of this proposed new home project fits in nicely with the overall size of the property; and due to the proximity of the wetland and adjacent lake, most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area in and around where the old residential dwelling sat on the property. Due to this relatively minor scale of the project on this large parcel, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit with certain conditions, based on the findings of fact that the proposed residential use will be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements found under City Code Section 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems and other related City Code requirements; – OR – 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; – OR – 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to Elevation Homes/ Rob and SueMi Tuttle, which would allow the construction of a new home with attached garage and swimming pool facility based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new single-family development, including the dwelling structure, garage and swimming pool shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations (ref. Ch. 2 Swimming Pools) and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code. 2. The new single-family development shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 6 of 9 3. The Applicant/Owners shall submit a final grading plan, utility plan and a dimensioned site plan subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department and Planning Department as part of any building permit application. 4. 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. 5. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.; and full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. 6. No disturbance, grading work or any type of construction activities, besides installation of erosion control measures and/or limited vegetation removal, shall occur within the 25-ft. buffer strip along the northerly wetland feature; or within the buffer area defined between the wetland setback line and the OHWM line of Rogers Lake to the south; or on slopes 25% or greater. 7. All new trees and wetland buffer areas shall be planted with approved native trees and pollinator friendly and wetland suitable plantings, as per the city’s Native Plant List. 8. The Property Owner shall dedicate a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the eastern property line within the vacated Rogers Avenue right-of-way; and a new permanent drainage and utility easements over the entire northerly wetland area, which should include the 25-foot non- disturbance buffer strip from the delineated wetland edge, with said easements to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey or separate easement agreement submitted and recorded with Dakota County. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 7 of 9 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit 954 Wagon Wheel Trail The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development of the new dwelling, garage and swimming pool is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed residential home meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage and residential structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code. 5. The proposed new residential home project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of the wetlands or Rogers Lake area, due to the implementation of new wetland setback and unaltered shoreland areas; and the proximity and separation of the structure from said water features. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 8 of 9 TITLE 12-2-7: STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS OF [WETLANDS] PERMIT: A. Specific Standards: No permits shall be issued unless it is determined that the proposed action within a W district complies with the following requirements: 1. Dredging and/or filling shall be located in areas of minimal vegetation. 2. Dredging activities shall not significantly reduce the water flow characteristics or ponding capacity. 3. The size of the dredged material shall be limited to the absolute minimum and said limits designated on the dredging/grading plan. 4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not result in a significant change in the current water flows, ponding, or in destruction of vegetation, fish spawning areas, or in pollution of water. 5. Earthwork will not be performed during the breeding season of waterfowl or the fish spawning season. 6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large scale development or PUD. In other residential developments, dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of boat channels and marina by two (2) or more adjacent property owners. The width of a boat channel to be dredged shall be no more than the minimum required for the safe operation of boats at minimum operating speeds. 7. No part of any septic tank system or any other sewage disposal system requiring on land or in the ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than fifty feet (50') from the edge of a W district boundary, unless it can be shown that no effluent can reach the wetland because of existing physical characteristics of the site. On-site sewage disposal systems shall be permitted only if they meet state and city regulations. 8. Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity. 9. No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area. 10. W district lands may not be used for disposal of organic refuse or garbage material typically disposed of in a landfill. No part of a wetland should be used for a sanitary landfill. 11. Lowest floor elevation of buildings located within the W district must be at least three feet (3') above the highest known water level. 12. No development shall be allowed in the W district which will endanger the health, safety, and welfare of persons or which will result in unusual maintenance costs to road and parking areas or the breaking or leaking of utility lines. 13. Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter. 14. Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property. 15. The proposed action will not cause storm water runoff to take place at a rate which would exceed the natural rate of runoff occurring from a rainstorm of a twenty four (24) hour duration and a once in two (2) year frequency. 16. Any increase in runoff due to the proposed action will be detained on the site for infiltration through the soil to the water table. Detention of water shall be calculated on the basis of 100- year frequency rainfall published by the U.S. weather bureau. Planning Report Case #2018-10 Page 9 of 9 17. The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall remain undisturbed by the development of the site. a. Drainage water shall be directed in such a manner as to travel over natural areas rather than across contaminated surfaces. b. Treatment of runoff prior to release to natural drainage shall be provided for parking areas and land uses which manufacture products likely to contaminate ground water. c. No portion of any septic tank drain field shall be located closer than four and one-half feet (41/2') from the highest known water table on the site or underlying bedrock. 18. Land shall be developed in the smallest practical increment at any one time and for only the shortest practical period of time, not to exceed a single construction season. 19. Sufficient control measures and retention facilities shall be put in place prior to commencement of each development increment to limit gross soil loss from the development site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year. 20. Existing wetlands shall not be used as sediment traps. 21. Sediment yield from construction sites adjacent to streams and lakes shall not exceed two (2) tons per acre per year. 22. The person seeking the development permit shall be required to demonstrate that after the development is completed the conditions on the site will be stabilized such that the yearly soil loss from the site will not be greater than 0.5 tons per acre. 23. Development of woodlands shall not reduce the existing crown cover by more than fifty percent (50%). The removal of trees seriously damaged by storms or other act of God, or diseased trees shall not be prohibited. (1981 Code 402 § 7) ? G!.G!. G!.66666666666666 66 ³³³* ³³" """* * * ³ " " " 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666 6666 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2 !!2 2270 954 954 940 945 940 954 945 940 953 2270 2301 945 2270 2275 954 987 900 954 2275 WAGON WHEEL TRL PRIVATE ROAD361' 202' 77' 109'100' 8''0''8''0''Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights0100 SCALE IN FEETDate: 4/20/2018 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. 954 Wagon WHeel Trail (Tuttle Residence) 12 14 9'-118"1'-834"8'-10"1'-834"7'-8"124 18'-6" 21'-6" 23'-6" 3'-0" 2'-0"7'-11"14:12 6'-11"4:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 1'-0"1'-0" 2 NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2"41 2" 41 2"41 2" 41 2"41 2" 2'-0" D H KJG A B C E F 12 4 124 12 4 1'-834"8'-5"7'-4"5" HALF ROUNG GUTTER 8/4X4 OVER 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENT ANGLED 8/4X8 CELLULAR PVC FREEZE 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X8 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X4 OVER 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENT SEE WINDOW TRIM 8/4X6 CELLULAR PVC FREEZE 5 3:12 LOWER ROOF TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 3:12 DORMER TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 14:12 TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0" 8/4X4 OVER 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FASCIA FIBER CEMENT SOFFIT W/ CONT. VENT ANGLED 8/4X10 CELLULAR PVC FREEZE 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM 5/4X12 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X3 CELLULAR PVC TRIM CUT TO DIM. 8/4X2" CELLULAR PVC HEAD & CASE TRIM HEAD FLASHING 2"X8/4 CELLULAR PVC SILL ANGLED W/ DRIP KERF RIPPED IN BOTTOM 1"1" 6 TYP. WINDOW TRIM DETAIL 1/2" = 1'-0"MARKDATEDESCRIPTIONTuttle Residence954 Wagon Wheel TrailMendota Heights, MinnesotaSheet Title Issue NamePrepared ByCertificationIssue/RevisionProject NameDate © 2018 PLAAD, LLC. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF PLAAD, LLC, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PLAAD, LLC. April 6, 2018MARK2018-03-26DESIGN DEVELOPMENTMARK2018-04-06DESIGN DEVELOPMENTA200 Exterior Elevations 9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"7'-11"9'-01316"1'-9116"1'-834"7'-11"8'-0"4:12 14:12 14:12 4:12 14:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 14:12 4:12 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 41 2" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" LMN A BCEF8'-5"7'-4"8'-5"7'-4"MARKDATEDESCRIPTIONTuttle Residence954 Wagon Wheel TrailMendota Heights, MinnesotaSheet Title Issue NamePrepared ByCertificationIssue/RevisionProject NameDate © 2018 PLAAD, LLC. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF PLAAD, LLC, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PLAAD, LLC. April 6, 2018MARK2018-03-26DESIGN DEVELOPMENTMARK2018-04-06DESIGN DEVELOPMENTA202 Exterior Elevations 12 14 21'-6" 12 4 9'-118"1'-834"1'-834"3'-0"18'-6" 23'-6"7'-11"14:12 14:12 1'-0"1'-0" 4:12 4:12 4:12 41 2" 2'-0" 2'-0" 3 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 NOTH WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1413121011MN 1 2 3 12 4124 8'-5"7'-4"8'-10"7'-8"1'-834"8'-5"7'-4"MARKDATEDESCRIPTIONTuttle Residence954 Wagon Wheel TrailMendota Heights, MinnesotaSheet Title Issue NamePrepared ByCertificationIssue/RevisionProject NameDate © 2018 PLAAD, LLC. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF PLAAD, LLC, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PLAAD, LLC. April 6, 2018MARK2018-03-26DESIGN DEVELOPMENTMARK2018-04-06DESIGN DEVELOPMENTA203 Exterior Elevations