2017-06-27 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 27, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approve May 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2017-11: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Re-Guide certain properties
from “”LR-Low Density Residential” to “MR-Medium Density Residential”, located at
1680 Lexington Avenue and 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway (Keith Ostrosky/Talaia
Bowen/Ray J. Miller – Applicants)
b. Case No. 2017-12: Conditional Use Permit to amend the previously approved
Planned Unit Development for Mendota Heights Plaza, to allow the construction of a
new 17,000 sf. medical office building (Gemini Medical – Applicant)
c. Case No. 2017-13: Interim Use Permit to allow for the temporary storage of gas line
pipes, job trailer and other miscellaneous equipment at the Sibley Gas Plant properties
- 800 Sibley Memorial Highway (Xcel Energy – Applicant)
d. Case No. 2017-14: Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for a new
subdivision plat to be titled “Orchard Heights” - located at 1136 and 1140 Orchard
Place (Marcel Eibensteiner- Royal Oaks Realty – Applicant)
e. Case No. 2017-15: Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground
swimming pool, pool house; pool deck; retaining walls and landscaping – property
located at 751 Willow Lane (Bob and Jane Reidell – Applicant)
6. Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
7. Staff and Commission Announcements
8. 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.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 23, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 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 Howard Roston,
Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Mary Magnuson and Christine Costello
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field proposed that the hearings take place in the following order: A) Case 2017-05, B) 2017-06, C)
2017-07, E) 2017-09, F) 2017-10, and D) 2017-08.
Revised Approved with 5 AYE votes.
Approval of April 25, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2017, WITH THE CORRECTION THAT COMMISSIONER COSTELLO
WAS ABSENT
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-05
MR. SEAN HOFFMANN, MANAGER BP/MENDOTA HEIGHTS AUTO SERVICE STATION,
2030 DODD ROAD
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS
AS A PLACE OF SALE/RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES
Planner Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Sean Hoffmann, the local manager of the BP/Mendota Heights
Auto Service Station on the corner of Dodd Road and Highway 110, approached staff and informed them
that he was in the process of obtaining a motor vehicle dealer license. His desire is to provide for that service
or operation at the local business. Unfortunately, City Code Title 12-1D-13-3, standard F4 currently states
that ‘service station premises shall not be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale
or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers.’ Mr. Hoffmann is requesting an amendment
to the code.
The standards listed under this portion of the City Code are applicable to other service stations. The City
has one full service station and two convenient store type gas stations. Planner Benetti also noted that under
Title 12-1F- 4, limited auto sales are permitted only in the B-3 District as follows: “Automobile and other
vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building.” This is why there are not large
scale auto dealerships, such as the ones seen on Highway 110 in Inver Grove Heights or in West St. Paul.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2
Mr. Hoffmann explained in his request that he wants to be very limited; he does not want to turn this into a
used car lot. Planner Benetti this would open up the door to a lot of vehicles on the site. Staff suggested,
for the report process, Mr. Hoffmann should modify the request with conditions; such as, no vehicles shall
be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale’ or similar; vehicles for sale under this provision
will be limited to more than _____ [staff indicated a number determined by the Planning Commission]
vehicles on the site; vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front
yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the property as
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Upon researching, Planner Benetti was unable to find other communities in the metro area that would allow
gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell vehicles on these properties.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this application. However, the
Planning Commission could give some direction or guidance or input as to whether or not, as alternative,
would they allow the applicant to ask for a variance to the Conditional Use Permit that was approved for
the site.
Commissioner Petschel, noting a paragraph of page 3 of the staff report stating that “it does not appear
other cities generally permit or allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell
vehicles,” asked if any other information has been discovered since the issuance of the report. Planner
Benetti replied that during his search he was unable to see that any allowances were made for auto sale uses
and nothing new has been revealed since the preparation of this report.
Mr. Sean Hoffmann came forward and addressed the Commission. He stated that he is trying to obtain his
dealers license to gain access to the wholesale auto auctions. Usually once or twice a month he has a
customer asking for a) where can I get a used car, b) can you help me find a vehicles for my son, daughter,
wife, or myself. It is his desire to cater to these customers. To obtain a dealers license the property needs
to be zoned properly, which is why he is making this request. He believes there is a need for this in Mendota
Heights.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing the comment about needing this approval to obtain his dealers license,
asked if he had to have an actual location or could he just hold a dealers license. Mr. Hoffmann replied that,
per Minnesota law, he has to have a brick & mortar store where it is permissible to sell vehicles. He has no
plans of keeping vehicles on the lot with flags and neon signs, or anything like that.
Commissioner Noonan asked, if the Commission were to recommend the conditions stated above and
inserted ‘zero’ in the blank spot, if that would work for him. Mr. Hoffmann replied in the affirmative. If
someone comes to him he wants to be able to purchase the vehicle from the wholesaler, inspect the vehicles
at his location, and be able to pass that onto the customer at significant savings to that customer. He
anticipated that the longest a vehicle would be on his site would be overnight – but it would not be sitting
out on his lot with a “For Sale” sign on it.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-05, THE REQUEST TO AMEND CITY CODE
TITLE 12- 1D-13-3 TO ALLOW SERVICE STATIONS TO BE USED AS A PLACE OF DISPLAY,
SALE AND/OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Amending the zoning code is not in the best long-term interest of the City of Mendota Heights
2. It is not consistent with the land use and zoning in the area
Commissioner Petschel stated that he has no problem with someone wanting to be a broker on their own
property. The question is whether or not the language can be changed in the ordinance so the City does not
end up with someone purchasing Mr. Hoffmann’s business and putting 10 cars on their lot and selling them;
aside from limiting the number of vehicles.
Commissioner Hennes agreed and commented that this could become a popular thing; it could become
known as a place where a resident could sell their car.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the lot is currently a busy lot; and it is not just this lot, this would apply
to the other gas station lots as well. Changing the ordinance would change the nature of those operations.
If the ordinance speaks for itself in terms of how the City wants to see car dealerships or car operations
handled, then there is no reason to change it.
Commissioner Roston stated that, as stated in the staff report, it is true that the other two stations are both
Super America, and it is unlikely that Super America is going to ever get into this type of business, but they
could also sell out. He also believed that it would be somewhat disingenuous to amend an ordinance to
allow the sale or resale of cars and then to say you cannot have any cars on the lot.
Chair Field noted that one alternative staff recommended was to take more time and look at the possibility
of a variance. The question was asked how the variance would make the situation any different; and would
it meet the variance rules. Commissioner Noonan stated that if it does not stand the test with satisfying the
Commission with respect to use, giving it more time is not going to change things.
Planner Benetti noted that there is a fine line for allowing a variance for a use, because “use variances” are
not permitted by state law. If the Commission wanted to explore an alternative, he would want to get the
City Attorney involved.
Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears that no one wants a used car lot; however, is there a desire to
see someone with the ability to act as a broker for used cars as part of their business.
Commissioner Roston stated that personally he likes the station, he goes to the station and believes that Mr.
Hoffmann is a good operator and he does not have any problem with him having a broker’s license. The
Commission should do whatever it can to encourage whatever business he can; however, he does not believe
this fits here. If there was a way to accommodate his broker license without having the change the ordinance,
he would be in favor of that. He just did not know how to get there with the existing state law.
Commissioner Noonan noted that even if the Commission adopted the motion to denial, there is nothing
that preclude the pursuit of the sustainable brokerage license. Even if it came back and they want a brick &
stick home, he was unsure that there was support by the Commission for it.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4
Planner Benetti stated that on the application for the motor vehicles dealers’ license, there is a zoning
approval area where he would have to indicate that it meets the zoning or it does not. Typically, the other
brokerages licenses that he has signed off on, they were typically run out of an office building or an office
suite. The understanding was that, because they were only brokering from party A to party B, he could
write ‘absolutely no parking or display of vehicles would be allowed at this site’ because that was not
allowed. As an office brokerage use, the state will accept that if the City limited it; however, it had to be
provided for in the underlying zoning ordinance that the activity or use would be permitted in that district.
Commissioner Roston also pointed out that the ordinance has to be land use based, not user based.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-06
MR. JASON SANDERS OF THE THOMAS IRVINE DODGE NATURE CENTER
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR DODGE NATURE CENTER PARCEL, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 656 HIGHWAY 110
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that this request is a simple lot line adjustment. The applicant is Mr.
Jason Sanders of the Thomas Irvine Dodge Nature Center. The request is to simply cleave off a parcel on
the north end. A lot line adjustment is typically used to create an adjustment to lot lines, as the name entails.
However, it is also used in cases where two parties are creating a piece of land or parcel between the two
that would not be used for any type of development purposes, where a lot split would entail a development
right to it.
The 6.53 acre parcel is being taken by Dakota County to assist in the extension of the Lebanon Trail System
and also to provide for a little bit extra space for the underground tunnel or underpass that would be going
under Highway 110 as part of that reconstruction project. The section of land to be separated and created
under this lot line adjustment will not affect or hinder the overall use and purpose of the remaining 45.5
acre parcel. The separated parcel would be sold to Dakota County subject to this action.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Noonan asked if this newly created parcel could only be sold to Dakota County. Planner
Benetti replied that currently the agreement is strictly between the Dodge Nature Center and Dakota
County. Commissioner Noonan asked for further clarification that if the agreement between the Dodge
Nature Center and Dakota County were to not succeed for some reason, could the shopping center located
adjacent to the newly created parcel purchase it. Planner Benetti replied that he did not believe that could
happen because the entire Dodge Nature Center is covered under a conservation easement, and this parcel
is being created to accommodate a specific need.
Chair Field noted that he is a former president of the Dodge Nature Center and still serves on the board. He
does not feel that he has any conflict of interest and certainly does not have any economic interest; however,
for the record he acknowledge that and asked if anyone felt that he should stand down from voting.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5
Mr. Jason Sanders, Executive Director of Dodge Nature Center clarified that the section under discussion
is not currently under the Dakota County Easement; however, it does have a Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) easement on it.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Keith Kraft, 1314 Furlong Avenue, stated that when Mr. Benetti put up the map and talked about part
of a trail way system, he did not see how the trail could go below – where the trail met up. He asked if the
trail would connect with something to the south. Chair Field replied that it connects through the Mendota
Heights Plaza project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek further clarified that the trail would connect with
the cul-de-sac at South Plaza Drive, go through the former MnDOT right-of-way, and the underpass project.
Mr. Al Singer, Dakota County Land Conservation Manager, 49 O’Day Street, Maplewood clarified that the
County Board has already approved the resolution to purchase the property, they have a signed purchase
agreement. This will soothe a lot of public interest on both the City and County’s part.
Mr. Joseph Weiss, 643 Highway 110, asked if this lot line adjustment would impact any of the properties
on the north side as far as taxes or anything else. Chair Field replied that taxes are not the Commission’s
preview and all they could comment on is the land use and the proposed lot line adjustment per the
agreement between Dakota County and Dodge Nature Center. City Administrator Mark McNeill was
unable to find a connection between property taxes and the neighborhood properties and did not believe
there would be any impacts on the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-06 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and can be
considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of this request is to create a separate parcel to be sold by Dodge Nature Center to
Dakota County for the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Regional Greenway, which would help facilitate
the completion of a new trail link and tunnel underneath Highway 110.
3. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
4. Approval of this lot line adjustment and creation of this new tract of land will have little, if any
impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, or the overall use, enjoyment and
purpose of the entire Dodge Nature Center area.
5. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards.
AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED WITH
DAKOTA COUNTY
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-07
JASON (JAY) AND ALICIA JACOBS, 1023 DELAWARE AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW LARGER GARAGE WITH
REDUCED SETBACKS
Planner Timothy Benetti explained this request was both a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
replacement of a detached garage with a larger garage then is allowed by ordinance and a Variance to a
side-yard setback from ten feet down to three feet. The applicant submitted three letters of support, which
were made a part of the staff report.
The site currently contains a single-family home and a detached one-car garage. The residence is a 1.5 story
building with a 2,352 square foot finished floor area. The existing detached garage is approximately 18 feet
by 22 feet (396 square feet) and is in very poor shape. The setback is 12.5 feet from the rear lot line and
approximately 9.4 to 9.7 feet from the northerly (side) property line. There is a 7 foot by 12 foot hard surface
pad that exists between the garage and the north lot line. That pad itself is approximately three feet from
the existing property line.
There is an Xcel Energy overhead line that runs along the back lot line. There is no easement for that line;
however, staff spoke with an Xcel Energy executive who stated that they typically like to keep at least a ten
foot spacing between any structures and the power line. So they are hoping that holding back to a 10-foot
setback would be adequate enough.
Planner Benetti shared an image of the property and indicated the location of streets, the home, the garage,
and a sandbox area on the property.
The new garage would be a two-car garage with an attachment for extra storage. They would maintain the
rear yard 10-foot setback and reduce the side yard setback to three feet. The existing driveway is
approximately three feet from the side yard lot line and the location of the new garage would line up with
that driveway. It would also provide for a little bit more ability to maneuver their large vehicles into the
garage.
Planner Benetti then shared the requirements and standards to be met a Conditional Use Permit and
Variance and how this application met those standards. This information was also included in the staff
report.
Commissioner Hennes asked to see the location of the trees that would have to be removed if the garage
were to maintain the 10-foot setback and asked for an explanation of why they would have to be removed.
Planner Benetti showed on the map where the trees were located and explained that the driveway would
need to be adjusted to allow for the maneuvering of a large vehicle into the garage, thus the needed removal
of the trees.
Commissioner Roston asked to see the location of the driveway in relation to Delaware Avenue and asked
for confirmation that the driveway would not be relocated if this application were approved. Planner Benetti
pointed out the driveway on the map and confirmed that it would not be relocated.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7
Mr. Jason Jacobs came forward but had not additional comments to make to the report. Commissioner
Petschel asked what the distance was between the house and the proposed garage. Mr. Jacobs replied that
it was 30 feet before and would remain 30 feet afterwards.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 1023 DELAWARE AVENUE BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 812 sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable
request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code
that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The variance requested under this application and layout plan meets the tests in the code for
practical difficulties and appears to be a reasonable request per City Coe and State Statute that
prescribe the authority of municipalities to grant such variances.
6. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
7. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
8. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No part of the upper storage section of the garage shall be used for livable or habitable space.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of
the new garage addition.
3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
4. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with the applicable City Code
performance standards noted in Section 12-1I.
Councilmember Hennes asked for confirmation that the neighbor to the north signed a letter of support.
Planner Benetti confirmed.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8
AYES: 4
NAYS: 1 (Field)
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 7, 2017 meeting.
E) PLANNING CASE #2017-09
BEN & ERIKA CHRISTOPHERSON, 1897 WACHTLER AVENUE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACKS FROM FRONT (CORNER) YARD SETBACKS
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that the applicants were asking to reduce the corner yard setback from
30 feet down to 16.9 feet. The subject site currently contains an over 1,500 square foot single-family home
and a 440 square foot two-car attached garage. The property was originally built in 1957 with the primary
frontage on Wachtler Avenue and a very small frontage on Hilltop Road to the north. There is a double
wide driveway entrance from Wachtler and a two vehicle parking pad about half way up the driveway. The
1.04 acre lot is very rectangular in shape, 150 wide by 300+ feet long.
The dwelling setback is 30.5 feet from the north, over 66 feet from the front lot line, and 30.2 from the
southerly lot line. Planner Benetti shared an image of the lot and explained that it is considered a corner lot
because with Wachtler and Hilltop coming in, there is actually a small segment of right-of-way that is
considered frontage on Hilltop. There is also a teardrop-shaped parcel labeled as a park, created as part of
the platting process, but no one knows why it has been labeled as a park. It serves more as a big chunk of
right-of-way.
The applicants had asked staff if they acquired the teardrop-parcel if it would help them. Staff agreed that
it would; however, it could not be done at this time because of the tight timeline of construction. Therefore
they required a variance. However, staff would like for the land transfer to take place, which would make
the setbacks for the home and garage expansion of 22.2 feet and 30.9 feet, rather than the requested 16.9
feet.
Planner Benetti then shared the requirements and standards to be met for a Variance and how this
application met those standards. This information was also included in the staff report.
Mr. Ben Christopherson, 1897 Wachtler Avenue, had nothing to add to the staff report.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Diane Smith, 812 Hilltop Road, lives adjacent to Mr. Christopherson. She noted that she and her
husband have no major objections to this variance; however, they would like to maintain the wooded area
around their home and for assurances that it would not change as a result of this construction. Planner
Benetti was able to provide those assurances.
Mr. Pat Mcquillan, 1909 Wachtler Avenue, noted that he is in full support of this application.
Mr. Christopherson returned and confirmed that, at this point, they have no intention to change any of the
foliage or vegetation on the side of the property abutting Ms. Smith’s property.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-09, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Construction of the proposed dwelling and garage additions onto the existing single-family
dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The existing conditions were not created by the applicant and demonstrate a practical difficulty in
meeting the required setback in order to reconstruct the existing addition in compliance with
applicable codes.
3. The addition onto the existing single-family dwelling can be considered a reasonable request and
use of the property.
4. The encroachment along this wider segment Hilltop Road ROW, due in part to the presence of the
nearby “park” parcel, lends additional support to allowing the encroachment as this should lessen
proximity and visual impacts from this roadway.
5. Due to the subject parcel’s existing condition and location to the abutting Hilltop Road right-of-
way and road surface, a practical difficulty may be evident and was demonstrated in order to
construct said addition to the home.
6. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
7. Granting of the variance sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City Code.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than shown on the survey
included in the application submittal.
2. The new addition will match the overall architecture and design of the existing dwelling.
3. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building permit for
construction of the proposed addition.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
F) PLANNING CASE #2017-10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PYLON OR MONUMENT TYPE SIGNS IN THE B-1
LIMITED BUSINESS AND B-1A BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that at the last Planning Commission meeting staff asked for direction
on whether or not to pursue a code amendment to allow pylon or monument type signs in the B-1 Limited
Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. The Commission gave direction to pursue with the
understanding that staff should ask the Council. The Council was very supportive of this and gave
directions.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10
Staff officially requested consideration of this item and prepared a draft ordinance No. 510 with new
language that now includes an added amendment to Title 12-1B-2 Definitions for “Pylon Sign” and
“Monument Sign.” The public hearing was duly noticed and no comments have been received from
residents, either in favor or in opposition.
The new definitions are as follows:
SIGN, MONUMENT: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure that is
mounted on the ground or mounted on a foundation base structure at least as wide as the sign. A monument
sign is typically solid from grade to the top of the structure.
SIGN, PYLON: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure that has its
supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and a sign face elevated above ground by a pole(s), post(s)
or beam(s) with an open area below the face of the sign.
The ordinance also amends Title 12-1D-15 with new text or language changes, as outlined in the staff
report. Commissioner Petschel asked if the original limitation in height was to prohibit vertical obstructions.
Planner Benetti replied that he would agree with that assumption.
Councilmember Noonan asked, referencing the last meeting where it was mentioned that a number of pylon
or monument signs existed in the B-1 and B-1A district, if the existing signs meet the new provisions in the
draft ordinance or are they creating non-conforming uses. Planner Benetti replied that, based on his
observations, most of the monument signs do. However, the office building just to the south of City Hall
[Mendota Office Center] is over 200 square feet and would not meet the new provisions. But that sign plan
was approved under that development agreement.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jon Faraci, owner of 1200 Centre Pointe Curve, noted that he would like to install a monument sign
and that is what started this initiative. He respectfully requested that the Commission approve the draft
ordinance. Commissioner Noonan asked if he was comfortable with the recommended size, heights, and
square footage. Mr. Faraci replied that he would like to have 100 square feet, but if it is limited to 80 then
he would work within the limitations. There are twelve tenants in the building so the signage would be
pretty small but he could work with the recommendations.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-10, DRAFT ORDINANCE 510, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE B. RULES AND DEFINITIONS
CONCERNING NEW SIGN DEFINITIONS AND TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL
ZONING PROVISIONS CONCERNING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS
AS PRESENTED
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2017-08
MICHAEL SWENSON, MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
2180 AND 2160-2164 HIGHWAY 13 (SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY)
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO RE-GUIDE FUTURE LAND USE FROM
EXISTING “B–BUSINESS” TO PROPOSED “HR–HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” OR “HR–
PUD HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL–PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT”
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that this request is to change the current land use from B-Business to
HR-High Density Residential or HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development. The
applicant, Mr. Michael Swenson from Michael Development, LLC and the two properties are 2180 and
2160-2164 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway), known commonly as the Larson Garden Center and
the Mendota Motel. Michael Development is proposing to a development on these two sites which will
have complications further down the road for rezoning, conditional use permit, and plating. Currently, they
are initially proposing a development of two 69-unit market rate apartments. The project would involve the
removal of the structures on both sites, clean up, and clearing to make room for the proposed multi-family
development.
Tonight’s action is simply to consider a land use amendment. No one is asking for the rezoning, or
comment, or any approvals of the development plan. The development plan is simply being presented as a
backdrop to why they are asking for the underlying land use. This is the first step in preparation to get the
land use amended, followed by the rezoning. The rezoning must comply with the underlying land use. Right
now, a multi-family rezoning would not comply with the B-Business; so therefore the request is to change
the land use. As part of that land use change, before it comes to the Commission and as a recommendation
to the Council, it also has to be presented officially to the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) for their
official review and recommendation. If they decide this is inappropriate they would let staff know,
hopefully within the next few weeks.
The Larson Greenhouse is a composite of approximately eight different parcels that have been combined
together by the former owner, Robert Larson, to create the Larson Garden Center. This center ran for a
number of years and closed down just a few years ago. The Mendota Motel is situated just south of Victoria
and is currently in operations. The development plan [not under consideration] shows a single access off of
Highway 13. The initial Phase 1 would start with a 69-unit building encompassing the Mendota Motel site.
Approximately 10 months later, Mr. Swenson would start the process of clearing of the Larson Property to
enable the construction of Phase 2, another 69-unit building.
Planner Benetti shared concept images that were provided at a public information meeting a few weeks ago
by Mr. Swenson, noting the nice design and layout of the proposed buildings. The buildings would also
have underground parking.
In November 2015, a presentation was made for a very similar land use change on the Larson site. Mr.
Swenson was the same developer back then and had asked for a change of that land use from B-Business
to HR-High Density Residential. At that point he was proposing a 70-unit building; however, that
application was later withdrawn at the request of the land owner.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 12
In November 2017, city staff was informed by Mr. Swenson that he had just secured the rights to the
Mendota Motel. Shortly thereafter he informed staff that Mr. Larson had approached him to purchase the
Larson property. Mr. Swenson then had two purchase agreements; one for the Mendota Motel and one for
the Larson site.
Planner Benetti also pointed out that staff, even though they were only required to notify property owners
within 350 feet of the proposed development area, they went a little bit further – approximately a quarter
mile out. They wanted to make sure they informed everyone in the Augusta Shores neighborhood, all of
the residents along the south side down to Furlong and Victoria, and even further out on the west side.
Along with the 5.5 acres of the Larson site and the 2.5 acres of the Mendota Motel site, there is also an
access piece of right-of-way that runs right between the two parcels, which is owned by the City. The City
would allow that to be replatted into the site as part of the property rights.
Chair Field asked for clarification of whether the City would be abandoning their ownership of that right-
of-way as a part of this change in land use or would the change in land use take place but the City would
maintain its ownership. Planner Benetti replied that the intent is to vacate and convey; it has not been used
in years and is from the original platting in the 1890’s.
Again, the current land use is B-Business and the request is to change that land use to HR-High Density
Residential or to HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development. The Augusta Shores
development, located east of this site, is guided low density and is zoned R-1 with 23 duplexes or 46 units.
To the south is the Furlong Addition, also guided low density and zoned R-1. Other land uses along Lemay
Lake are single-family, west of Highway 55 is pretty much a nature preserve/cemetery/industrial park. The
proposal is to construct 69 market rate apartments; 2.3 acres would be developed and the remaining 3.2
acres would be left as green space. The applicant proposes that the apartments would employ approximately
three or four full-time staff members to manage and maintain the sites.
Hopefully by the start of this fall, Phase 1 would be underway and within nine to twelve months, Phase 2
would begin. Each complex would be approximately 25,500 square feet. An assessment was done on both
properties and both sites were considered ‘deficient’ or ‘sub-standard’ by building code standards. Any
potential for redevelopment on both sites as a business is questionable given the poor access.
The statement of proposed financing, the applicant states that the project would be privately appraised and
financed through a local bank. As part of the City’s efforts to help redevelopment they are considering a
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district; this would be a TIF #2 District. This would allow for some
assistance back to the developer as part of a tax increment improvement as made on the site to recapture
some of the tax value that they can use for various items.
Planner Benetti stated that there is no industrial acreage and there is no commercial development being
proposed. The current Larson site is generating just under $2,000 worth of taxes back to the City; the
Mendota Motel is generating approximately $1,500. Working with the Ehlers Financial Group and the TIF
consultants, staff estimates with the new development that the value could go up to as high as $100,000.
Staff also did a comparison of other communities around the metropolitan area as to guided density and
found that the trend is towards higher density in appropriate locations; which would include good access
and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff believes this proposed development site would meet
those criteria. Staff believes the current commercial use is struggling and probably will never come back
on this site simply because of high level of access and visibility that a commercial enterprise would need
and is not available on this site. However, a multi-family residential use would not need the same level of
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 13
access and visibility. Multi-family uses typically need to be buffered from lower density residential uses
and this site makes that relatively easy; it is very well heavily wooded and separated by the lake.
Planner Benetti concluded his presentation by explaining that designating the site for at least the requested
25 units/acre is appropriate, the only question would be how this should be accomplished:
1. Amend the High Density Residential land use category in the 2030 Land Use Plan from a maximum
density of 8.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre, then amend the 2030 Land Use Plan to re-guide
the subject site as “High Density Residential”
or
2. Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan for this site to “HR-PUD High Density Residential – Planned Unit
Development”, whereby allowing a higher density to be determined by the City
or
3. Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan to add a new land use category with a maximum allowable density
of 25 units per acre. This could be called “Urban Residential”, then amend the 2030 Land Use Plan
to re-guide the subject site “Urban Residential”
Staff recommended the Planning Commission re-guide the Larson Garden Center/Mendota Motel main
sites to allow multiple-family residential uses up to 25 units/acre, following one of the three options listed
above.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the current maximum density of 8.5 units/acre is city-wide. Planner Benetti
replied that this is the maximum under the high-density land use. Commissioner Hennes stated that there
appears to be a lot of inconsistencies in the number of units per acre in the high-density land use areas. To
him, 8.5 units/acre sounds pretty small. Planner Benetti agreed. Commissioner Hennes then asked if there
has been any discussion of a more consistent level or maybe a higher level of density. Planner Benetti
replied that this application could quite possibly lay the groundwork to explore those options down the
road.
Commissioner Hennes then asked if the Met Council has a recommended standard or do they leave it to
each city depending on circumstances. Planner Benetti replied that the Met Council leaves it up to the
discretion of the local government agency.
Commissioner Roston commented that this is something that Mendota Heights should expect going forward
as a City. Any first ring suburb, like Mendota Heights, is going to have pressure to have more high density
development.
Mr. Michael Swenson or Michael Development, LLC reiterated the request and noted that without this land
use change the development is just not possible.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Jankowski, 2070 Acacia Drive, is located immediately north of this proposed site. He asked what
the average density currently is in Mendota Heights. Planner Benetti replied that the 8.5 units/acre is a
current density standard in the high density areas. Mr. Jankowski questioned the need to raise that standard
to 25 units/acre. He understands Mendota Heights being a first ring suburb has to anticipate growth;
however, he did not want to see it rush along too rapidly. He asked that consideration be taken carefully on
what 25 units/acre means for the City and the residents who like living there, in terms of the increase in
traffic on Highway 13 and in terms of other residents in the area.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 14
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared an image of the zoning districts in Mendota Heights and pointed
out the two high density residential zoned areas; the Eagle Ridge Development and the Lexington
Apartments. There are a few PUD locations as far as along the Kensington area, the apartment complex
that went in where the Ecolab site was on Riverside Lane – so there are really very few areas that are zoned
high density residential. The request before the Commission was to re-guide this small area as a high density
planned unit development – similar to the Kensington Development – or just to have it zoned a high density
residential as the other two areas in the City.
Commissioner Hennes clarified that Mendota Heights has a mix of high density sites that have densities
much higher than 8.5 units/acre; and a lot of the reason why is because they were advanced under a Planned
Unit Development, which allows for the negotiation between the City and the landowner to come forward
with an appropriate development at an appropriate density given the site and its properties. To suggest that
the City has a standard 8.5 units/acre is not correct; however, we have a mix up to as high as 60 units/acre
in some high density developments. To ask for an average per acre density figure is not comparing apples
to apples – there are R-1 single-family districts – Commissioner Hennes lives in an R-1 district and has one
unit on a quarter acre lot. Others in the City live on much larger lots so to suggest that that a standard density
across all of Mendota Heights is a telling characteristic is not accurate. It is necessary to look at it from the
various land use categories in determining the appropriateness of the density based upon land use
considerations.
Chair Field noted that he did not believe the Commission could answer Mr. Jankowski’s question in terms
of the density for the entire City; however, they can give at 60 units what they have at Dodd and Highway
110. It is not a maximum, it is just what has been approved within the City.
Referencing the statement made earlier, staff estimates that with the new development the projected annual
gross TIF value could go as high as $100,000, Mr. Jankowski asked how soon those taxes could available
to the City. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that under what is being proposed, there would be a
tax increment district and for the first nine years, any taxes above what are currently being received by the
City, the County, and the School District would to reimburse the developer for his costs involved with the
development. In year 10, those would start to get spread and being received by the individual jurisdictions.
Mr. Steve Kraft, 1314 Furlong Avenue, asked if there was any kind of buffer zone between the high density
PUD’s and the R-1 Residential districts. Planner Benetti, pointing to the zoning map, indicated that all of
the neighborhoods to the south of this area are R-1 Residential. Without delving too much into the proposed
development plan – as it is not final and not under consideration this evening – the plan would be to have
some kind of greenway or buffer between the site and the single-family residential areas.
Mr. Kraft then asked if anyone had any idea what affect this development would have on land property
values in the Furlong Addition and to Augusta Shores. The reply was that there really are no ideas and
anything that would be said would be speculative at best.
Ms. Katherine Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive in Augusta Shores, stated that she is happy to see this come back
to the Planning Commission. She challenged anyone to find two greater eye sores within the City. She
would love to see something better and lovelier in this area. She cited many incidents that have occurred
within the area and placed the cause on the disreputable clientele at the Mendota Motel.
Ms. Haight did voice her concern about the location of the multi-family unit proposed to be on the Larson
property appears to be very close to Highway 13. Currently, when coming from Acacia Drive onto Highway
13, when looking to the left the sight line is very difficult to see. The cars come very quickly around the
curve and she is concerned about that building being so close to Highway 13. Chair Field noted, assuming
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 15
this proceeds, staff will come back with some site reviews and these types of comments would be more
appropriate at that time.
Mr. Tom Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive in the Augusta Shores Development, stated that it is his
understanding that on the north side of the Larson property is an old city road that Larson’s acquired. He
questioned what would be happening with that. Planner Benetti replied that there is a segment of right-of-
way along the north side that was brought up at the public information meeting. There has been some
inquiry from Augusta Shores to obtain that or get possession of that as part of this process. Whenever there
is an access of right-of-way, typically it is a half and half; one half goes the other side and one half goes to
the adjacent neighbors. If the other neighbor decides he does not need that, they can give up that half right.
The current tentative TIF area does not include that area. This would be a separate issue.
Mr. Hanschen then noted that it appears to be inevitable that there is going to be high density here and asked
if the Commission were leaders leading the rest of the community or were they following what is going on
in the rest of the surrounding communities. He stated that Mendota Heights does not necessarily need high
density.
Ms. Linnea Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, stated her concerns about the traffic – two buildings, each
with 70 units, equaling 140 units with possibly 180 to 350 people living in the two buildings adding up to
350 new cars every day on Highway 13; the traffic along Highway 13 has already been increasing steadily
the last few years. To go from no traffic from the Larson property and only 19 rooms at the motel to a
possible increase of 350 new cars – that is a huge increase.
[Note: an email from Tim and Mary Furlong, 2230 Furlong Avenue was received by the city on May 22,
2017, to which a copy was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Pursuant to Planning
Chair Field’s request, a copy of said email and response from City Administrator Mark McNeill is being
added to the record - attached hereto as “Attachment –A”]
Mr. Swenson had no additional comments or replies to the concerns raised.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-08 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT 2160 – 2180 HIGHWAY 13 (SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY), BY AMENDING THE
2030 LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS SITE TO “HR-PUD HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT,” BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Commercial development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan, may not be viable due to access and visibility constraints.
2. Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the existing
vegetation and adjacent commercial use can provide a physical and visual buffer between the
proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing.
3. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would
allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 16
4. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and
would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
2. The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the proposed concept
development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval from the Metropolitan Council.
3. If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation for the subject parcels may remain
in place.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
General Planning Items
A) RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 (FOR THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 2180 AND 2160-64 HIGHWAY 13)
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that this is a prepared resolution that is required as part of the
Commission’s official recommendation back to the City Council and to any authorities, that the
Commission is recommending either for or against, approval or denial, of the creation of the Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) District No. 2. The creation of this new TIF District would provide limited financial
assistance to a developer, and help facilitate the successful redevelopment of the Mendota Motel and former
Larson Garden Center properties.
For clarification, Planner Benetti stated that the purpose is to modify the Municipal Development District
No. 1 – basically everything within the City boundaries as that is the municipal development district – and
the proposed establishment of TIF 2 is just exactly where the City is going with it.
Planner Benetti then provided a very quick overview of what a TIF does and why it is used:
• The ability to capture and use most of the increased local property tax revenues from new
development within a defined geographic area
• It encourages certain types of development or redevelopment that would not normally occur
without assistance – commonly known as the “but for” test. It helps redevelop blighted areas;
remediate polluted sites; construct affordable housing; create or retain jobs
TIF District approval can be established by City, County, HRA, or EDA. It must have approval by City
Council following a public hearing. The public hearing on this request is scheduled for June 20, 2017.
County and school district approval is not required; however, it is something that the City does request.
The City’s TIF area number 1 was established in 1981 and was certified in 2007.
The eligible uses for TIF include:
• Land acquisition and relocation
• Demolition and clearance
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 17
• Site improvements and parking
• Public utilities
• Construction of affordable housing
• City administrative costs
Ineligible uses include:
• Recreation (parks, trails, ice arenas, etc.)
• City buildings
Chair Field clarified that the applicant for this item is not the developer, Michael Development, LLC, but
it is the City of Mendota Heights.
Even though this was not publicized as a public hearing, Chair Field opened the floor for comments and
questions from the residents.
Seeing no one coming forward, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADOPT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2
CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS; IS HEREBY SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION; AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he was very comfortable with this given the fact that TIF is one of the
few remaining redevelopment tools available to cities to help facilitate redevelopment. Everyone has
experienced, for the last several years, the declining nature of Larson’s and concerns about the motel. This
tool allows the City to allow new development to come forward and to clean or address a situation that is
needing cleaning up or needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Roston agreed with Commissioner Noonan.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
PLANNING CASE #2017-04
Randy and Becky Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court
Conditional Use Permit
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 18
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
City of Mendota Heights
Direction of a Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Pylon/Freestanding Signs in the B-1 and
B-1A Commercial Districts
Planner Timothy Benetti stated that staff is entertaining a hotel group looking at the Northland Drive and
the Pilot Knob site. Their application will most likely come in for review in the next month or two.
Staff and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Roston announced that he closed on his house today and he will be moving from Mendota
Heights in June 2017. He has been in the City for 18 or 19 years and has loved everything about the City.
He appreciates the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission, it is a great staff, and a very well run
City. He has had nothing but good experiences and he appreciates everyone.
Chair Field wished everyone a happy and safe Memorial Day Weekend.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:18 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 19
May 23, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 20
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-11
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Land Use Change)
APPLICANT: Keith Ostrosky / Talaia Bowen
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1680 Lexington Avenue South – AND – 1104 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 17, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Keith Ostrosky, owner of 1680 Lexington Avenue and Talaia Bowen, owner of 1104 Sibley Memorial
Hwy. are collectively seeking a comprehensive plan amendment to the city’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
A vacant lot located immediately to the east of 1104 SMH is owned by Raymond J. Miller, with no
identifiable address. Although not officially part of this shared application (of Ostrosky and Bowen), staff
contacted Mr. Miller directly and agreed to become a willing participant in this amendment application.
The official request is a land use change from LR - Low Density Residential to a new MR - Medium Density
Residential. There are no corresponding or additional applications for rezoning (i.e. from R-1 One Family
Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential) at this time. There are also no official redevelopment
plans to be reviewed at this time as well.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel, including all registered owners (condominium owners)
within the City of Lilydale.
Staff received two written comments via email from neighboring residents (Gerber family - 1081 Douglas
Road and Jim Lennon – Overlook Condos- Lilydale) both included herein), along with a number of phone
calls and inquiries regarding this land use application.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties - 1680 Lexington is 2.33 acres in size; 1104 Sibley Mem. Hwy. site is 0.42 acres;
and the Miller vacant lot is 0.38 acres, for a total combined area of 3.13 acres.
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 2 of 7
All three properties are currently zoned R-1 One Family Residence; and guided LR-Low Density
Residential.
1680 Lexington contains a one story, single family dwelling, originally built in 1952, consisting of
approximately 2,075 finished floor square feet. The site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line
along the mostly northerly half segment of the lot (see image below).
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 3 of 7
The property at 1104 SMH contains a two story, split-level single family dwelling, originally built in 1977
with 1,714 finished floor square feet.
The unaddressed lot next to 1104 SMH is an undeveloped parcel currently on the market for sale. This lot
is mostly wooded, with evidence of some very steep slopes. \
The following table provides the minimum requirements for either single family or multi-family dwelling
in a Medium Density or R-2 Zone area:
Lot
Dwelling
Lot Area/
Area Lot Unit
Lot
Width
Front
Yard
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
1 family 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 100' 30' 10' 30' 2
2 family 20,000 sf 1 10,000 sf 100' 30' 1 10' 30' 2
3 family 30,000 sf 1 10,000 sf 150' 30' 1 15' 30' 2
Based on the contours of the lots, the Ostrosky parcel has an estimated “buildable” “space of approximately
0.9 to 1 acres of the overall 2.33 acres; and the Bowen parcel appears to have an estimated 0.3 acres of
buildable space; while the Miller lot is undetermined. At this time, Planning Staff is only representing these
buildable area calculations based on rough estimates from observations made on current aerial photo and
land contour elevation interpretations. Without an accurate survey of these properties, staff is unable to
clearly determine what the exact developable space of each lot may be, or the combined total of all three
lots at this time. That determination will have to be made or determined later should these sites become
available or presented for future development.
(Ostrosky Lot - est. buildable area)
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 4 of 7
(Bowen Lot – est. buildable area) (Miller Lot –buildable area undetermined)
ANALYSIS
1) As the Planning Commission is well aware, the City is currently undergoing its own 2040
Comprehensive Plan update, which we expect to be completed by early next year 2018. Without
an established moratorium in place to delay or halt these land use requests, the city can still take
and process comprehensive plan amendments and land use change requests as presented herein.
2) The pattern of land use in Mendota Heights is something over which the City has great discretion.
The City is under no obligation to change the Land Use Plan as requested.
3) The City’s 2030 Land Use Plan defines the two land use categories as follows:
Low Density Residential (LR), (LR-II)
This land use is the most prevalent land use category in the City and provides for single family
development. This designation is intended for a density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre. The
corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential Districts: R-1 (2.9
units per acre), R-1B (1.45 units per acre), and R-1C (2.18 units per acre). The Land Use
Maps identify these areas as “LR-Low Density Residential” or “LR-II.”
Medium Density Residential (MR), (MR-PUD)
This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities
of up to 4.35 units per acre. There is no vacant land within this designation. The
corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-2 (Medium Density Residential District)
and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development). The remaining land
in this category was purchased as a part of the Pilot Knob Open Space project. The Land Use
Maps identify these areas as “MR – Medium Density Residential” or “MR-PUD.”
4) The subject properties are generally located near the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Sibley
Memorial Highway, in the “notch” segment of the city surrounded by City of Lilydale boundaries.
The properties are bounded to the south by the Overlook Condos (107 units - City of Lilydale); the
Riverpointe and Lexington Riverside condos across the highway (130 units - City of Lilydale);
Riverpointe Condos (23 units – Lilydale); and a variety and number of single family dwellings to
the immediate west and surrounding area of the Overlook development.
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 5 of 7
5) There appears to be only one other lot in the City zoned R-2, on Vail Drive east of Lexington
Avenue, within an otherwise single family R-1 neighborhood.
6) A change in land use, particularly one from low-density/single family residential to a slightly higher
medium density/two-family residential brings to bear the question of the character of the area. The
immediate neighborhood and bulk of the surrounding properties (even though contained within an
adjacent community) are well established as multiple family residential developments. The single
family uses across the street off Lexington are also well established, but they too also experience
some “multiple family residential” impacts due to the proximity of the Lexington Court townhomes
to the south and even Overlook Condos across the road. These existing multi-family and single
family uses should experience little, if any impacts due to this proposed land use change.
7) In rare cases, some cities may be accused of selectively amending the land uses in small, remote
areas, which leads to the further concern or phrasing of “spot zoning” in zoning discussions. This
illegal act of land use change refers to situations where a smaller property is singled out for different
zoning with no connection to a larger, rational pattern of land use in the vicinity. In this case, re-
guiding from LR Low Density to MR-Medium Density Residential, followed by a possible (and
allowable) rezoning of the subject properties from R-1 to R-2 Two Family Residential, would be
an appropriate change of land use in this area, due in large part to the existing and much higher
density residential developments abutting these properties. Therefore, a reasonable argument can
be made that this is not selective land use changing or even fostering a future “spot zoning” of this
area.
8) If the requested changes were made, the owners would be entitled to all permitted and conditional
uses in the R-2 District (Section 12-1E-7), which includes “dwelling structures containing two units
to twenty-four units” as a permitted use and “manufactured home park” as a conditional use.
STATEMENT on DENSITY
A change in land use from Low Density to Medium Density would not necessarily guarantee the rezoning
from R-1 One Family to R-2 Two Family Residential; nor does this land use change guarantee that only
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 6 of 7
two-family dwellings (or twin homes) will be built on these lots, either individually or collectively. The R-
2 Zone allows for single family (detached) dwelling, plus residential dwelling structures containing 2 to 24
units. All single family units require a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. of land area/unit; while any 2-family plus
structure requires 10,000 sq. ft. per unit.
As indicated previously, the proposed Medium Density land use provides for townhome and attached
housing development at urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre. Under the City Code Definitions
section, a lot area is calculated based on the following:
LOT AREA, PER DWELLING UNIT: The number of square feet of lot area required per dwelling unit.
For each parcel, the number of allowable units is calculated as follows:
Ostrosky (1680 Lex.): 2.33 ac. @ 4.35 un./ac. = 10.1355, or 10 units.
Bowen (1104 SMH): 0.42 ac. @ 4.35 un./ac. = 1.827, or 1 unit *
Miller Lot 0.38 ac. @4.35 un./ac. = 1.653, or 1 unit*
All 3 Lots Combined: 3.13 ac. @4.35 un.ac. = 13.62, or 13 units
* Only by combining these two lots would this revise to 0.8 ac. @ 4.35 un/ac. = 3.48 units.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels the requested comprehensive plan amendment to change the underlying land use of these three
properties should have minimal impacts upon the surrounding and existing land uses in this area, and
believe the request is generally supported by the current comp plan goals and policies.
Therefore, Staff recommend the Planning Commission approve this comprehensive plan amendment as
from LR - Low Density Residential to MR - Medium Density Residential, for the three properties identified
herein.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment based on the attached findings of
fact;
OR
2. Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment based on certain [revised] findings
developed by the Commission;
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
Attachments
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 7 of 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Land Use Change)
for
1680 Lexington Avenue South (PID No. 27-02300-50-010),
1104 Sibley Memorial Highway PID No. 27-02300-50-021), and
[Unaddressed Parcel] Sibley Memorial Highway (PID No. 27-02300-50-022)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The properties are located along the north edge of the community, adjacent to state highway, and
within a small “notched” section of the community and essentially surrounded on three sides by
neighboring City of Lilydale boundaries, which contains a high level of multi-family residential
developments. The impact of this Medium Density level land use change in this area would appear
to be a reasonable request, and should not cause any negative effects or impacts upon the
surrounding properties.
2. The subject property is logically following or completing an in-fill type land use pattern that is pre-
existing with the surrounding high density land uses.
3. The size(s) of these properties are fairly small in comparison to other high density uses in this area;
therefore, the amount of units that may be available to this area should be minimal as well and have
little impacts to the surrounding land use, including the existing single family used across from
Lexington.
4. The properties either front (access) directly on Lexington Avenue, a major street and Sibley
Memorial Highway (TH 13), so any additional traffic from a medium density development on the
property would not pass through other quiet, single-family neighborhood streets.
5. Allowing twin homes, triplex or other medium density structure would allow the owner(s) a
reasonable use of the land not otherwise possible given the dimensions and limitations of
development of all three properties.
SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYDOUGLAS RD
LEXINGTON AVEJAMES RD
P R IVAT E R O A D
K IN G S L E Y C IR N MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RDDOUGLAS CTDakota County GIS
Ost ro sky /B o wenComprehensive Pla n Amen d me nt1680 L exi ng to n & 1 10 4 S ib . Me m . H wy .
City ofMendotaHeights0290
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/12/2017
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.
Dakota County, MN
Property Information
Ju ne 21, 2017
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
From:Nancy Gerber
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:comprehensive plan amendment
Date:Monday, June 19, 2017 12:04:50 PM
Dear Mr. Benetti,
We received a notice of hearing for a change in plan amendment for 1680 Lexington. Our home is at
the corner of Lexington and Douglas just down the hill from the property. We strongly object to
more dense housing in that part of the city.
The property is elevated and sound from the site carries very well down the hill and is disruptive and
unpleasant. Currently the home owners play a radio and use heavy equipment often for long periods
of time. Adding to that would be intolerable and change the nature of our neighborhood in a
negative way.
Mendota Heights claims to value a country feel with amenities. Adding population and cutting trees
on the property on the hill would not promote a country feel and certainly would have a negative
impact on the peace, quiet, and property values of the folks who live down the hill. Is this property
not on the protected area for the river? Are there not environmental concerns?
This change to land use is also a traffic concern. Cars travel too fast down the hill on Lexington and it
is risky to pull out of a driveway on the hill because visibility is impaired. Adding to traffic on
Lexington is not a good idea.
The notice says there are no current plans to develop. It seems risky to approve this change of land
use without a plan or proposed project. Could the question be raised once we know what the
consequences of this choice would be?
Do we need to appear at the city council meeting in order to present our concerns?
Thank you for considering our comments,
Clyde and Nancy Gerber
From:Jim Lennon
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Public Hearing 1680 Lexington Ave
Date:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:01:58 PM
I reside in Unit 211, Overlook Condo, looking directly at property to be use for
Medium Density.
Its the only reasonable request...asking property owners to build single family
homes on busy Hwy 13 is not fair.
I support the request to Medium Density
Jim Lennon
Off: 651-994-9096
Text: 651-357-3537
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-12
CUP for PUD Amendment to the Mendota Plaza (Gemini Medical)
APPLICANT: Firm Ground/Gemini Medical (Paster Properties LLC – Owners)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 796-820 Highway 110 – Mendota Plaza
ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD
ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking approval to amend a planned unit development final development plan, which
would facilitate the new development of a new medical office building inside the Mendota Plaza
development. City Code Title 12-1K-6-G requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved
planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development site is identified as Lot 8, Block 1 of Mendota Plaza Expansion, which is located
directly behind the Walgreen’s store and the northeast corner of Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive (below):
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 2 of 17
Existing adjacent uses include the Mendota Plaza shopping center, which includes the Walgreens and White
Pine senior/assisted living facility, and the ongoing “The Reserves at Mendota Village” – a four story, 139
unit market rate apartment. Across from South Plaza Dr. is the Boltz Family Martial Art Academy, NIB
Insurance offices and Marketplace Home Mortgage offices. Mendakota Country Club lies on the opposite
side of Dodd Road to the west.
The Mendota Plaza development was planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential
development area, with connections to existing retail uses and planned off-street trail systems, as well as
public gathering spaces. The development team includes Mendota Mall Associates and Paster Properties,
who is the owner/manager of the existing shopping center and subject parcels, and At Home Apartments,
the new owner/manager of The Reserves.
The proposed project by Frim Ground is to construct a new 17,000 sf. medical office building for Gemini
Medical, a company currently headquartered in St. Paul, MN (see image below).
Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices. In order to better serve their clientele
of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area, Gemini requires a new building that primarily provides space for
client hospitality and education. Gemini also intends to have this building serve as their primary offices
for business administration and sales teams. Gemini Medical building will also provide an area for shipping
and receiving necessary supplies and inventory. The proposed plan includes roughly 2/3 of the building
area for client hospitality/education and administration and sales, while the remaining 1/3 of building area
is dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
As part of this PUD Amendment request, the Applicants are seeking a slight deviation from the architectural
and building materials standards previously approved and adopted under the original 2009 PUD Agreement.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 3 of 17
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The Mendota Plaza development, including the subject parcel, are guided Mixed-Use PUD in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan:
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail,
and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. Areas of the community
with this land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road.
The entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD as part of the previous PUD approval
process. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses are consistent with the
future land use designation.
Proposed PUD Development Plan Amendment
The applicant is proposing to amend the existing PUD Final Development Plan. According to Title 12-1K-
6-G of the City Code:
Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development
plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures
provided below:
1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by
the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan
was approved. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the
council.
2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made
by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional
use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the
community.
The proposed amendment qualifies under #2 above and is required to be approved by the City Council by
conditional use permit.
The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code:
MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to
provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and
nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-
3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD
district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city
council shall have the authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit.
According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD:
The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and
development of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to
preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types
within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development
project, and to permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 4 of 17
and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and
surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD:
Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of
the following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development
possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the
preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough
terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize
with adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to
assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is
presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing
or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
As part of a previous planned unit development (PUD) review process, Mendota Mall Associates, LLC
(Paster Properties) received approval of an overall PUD Master Plan for the entire mixed-use sites in 2009.
Since that time, the original PUD has been amended five separate times, and this amendment will be known
as the Sixth Amendment. The proposed amendment is driven in response to changes in the real estate
market and additional site opportunities since the original PUD was approved.
The 2009 PUD Agreement specifically identified or prescribed the subject parcel Lot 8 with the following
office building standard:
(o) Lot 8: Lot 8, Block 1 containing approximately 2.3 acres (as designated on Exhibit A) upon which
an approximately 36,000 square foot three-story building for office use will be located to be
constructed as illustrated on the Elevation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B-8.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 5 of 17
The building proposed by Gemini Medical, although considered an “office building”, is not entirely
compliant with or similar to the planned design of this proposed office use parcel. As illustrated above, the
plans called for a three story, 36,000 sq. ft. office facility, with similar designs and materials evident in the
existing Mendota Plaza buildings seen today. It would appear the originally proposed 36,000 sf. office use
was intended to serve multiple office-use tenants.
In this case, Gemini Medical intends to build a single story, single user office facility, which will be owned
and occupied by Gemini only. The change from the original 2009 plan to the proposed design under this
application must be acknowledged and approved under this CUP (PUD Amendment) process.
The 2009 PUD Agreement also contained a very detailed Architectural Standard section, which also
identifies certain standards for building orientation, design (architecture), screening, landscaping, parking,
lighting and signage. Some of these relevant standards are noted as follows:
BUILDING MASS
Policy
• Varying scale of buildings should be encouraged.
• Varying roof line to create interest in design styles encouraged.
Standards
• Building coverage of not more than 40 percent may be accepted.
• Large areas of blank wall surface facing the street front is discouraged. Continuous stretch of
a single facade discouraged unless the building has a singular use.
The site plan for the new 17,000 sf. office building shows it will cover only 16.3% of the 2.3 acre site,
which is well under the 40% threshold. The new building’s elevation plan (previous image) appears to
show varying roof-lines, and the outer walls include varying wall materials and articulations along the front
and rear sides of the facility. The side walls appear to be single flat sided features, which may be acceptable
due to the expected “singular use” allowance.
An important part of this PUD Amendment made under this Conditional Use Permit, is the request by the
Applicant to modify or deviate from the approved building design and architectural standards. The 2009
PUD included the following façade design and building material standards for new developments:
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 6 of 17
FACADE DESIGN
Policy
• Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided.
• Undulating facade shall be encouraged.
Standards
• Exterior facade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the
pedestrian.
• Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into facade design.
BUILDING MATERIALS
Policy
• Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which
they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones colors
and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings.
• Materials shall be durable quality.
Standard
• Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete
block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may
be acceptable.
• All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed.
• A minimum of 25 percent of the facade shall be treated with the finished masonry
building material.
• Earth tone colors of exterior materials compatible and complementary to adjacent
buildings shall be encouraged.
• Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25% of decorative masonry variation in color,
texture or surface.
The Applicant provided an elevation image with call-outs or identifiers on the building materials (see image
below):
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 7 of 17
Instead of “…exterior walls with brick, natural stone, decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural
metal panels…” the Applicant is requesting painted, decorative tip-up concrete (smooth) wall panels, with
limestone wall panels and aluminum composite (colorized) panels. The PUD Agreement allows for “Other
similar materials may be acceptable….” when considering future developments.
Although this new building design and architecture, including materials and scale is significantly different
from what was originally intended, Staff does not feel this change negatively impacts the ongoing
development in and around the PUD project site, nor detracts from the original intended purpose of
providing a suitable and effective office use development within this PUD site. Pater Properties has agreed
to allow Gemini to present this new building plan under their own PUD Plan, and despite the deviation
from their own architectural design and standards, they have indicated their support of this project by
separate letter (included herein).
Site Plan Design & Layout (Office Building)
The proposed office development includes a new 17,000 sq. ft. building, with spaces dedicated specifically
for offices, medical classroom, labs, surgeons lounge, breakroom and ancillary facilities. The building will
also have a large space dedicated for shipping and receiving, which will accommodate the medical devices
and equipment they provide and service from this facility.
Building Setbacks
As illustrated in the 2009 PUD Master Plan image below, the original 36,000 sf. office building was initially
designed to sit near the access road coming off South Plaza Drive, with parking all around the building.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 8 of 17
In some cases, a PUD district requires that all new structures/developments comply with the underlying
zoning districts that were present when the PUD was created. In this case, the B-4 Shopping Center zoning
was in place in 2009. However, the MU-PUD designation created under this overall PUD Project,
specifically identified certain building sizes, locations (setback allowances) and parking allowances. The
original office intended to have 30 foot setbacks from the front access road; approx. 90-ft. from South Plaza
Drive; 170-ft. from Dodd Road, and 100-ft. from the north line (Walgreen’s lot). The PUD also allowed a
slight reduction in parking from 180 needed stalls down to 138 stalls provided.
The new plan identifies the front of the building with a 96.7 ft. setback from the established easterly property
line, which is actually the centerline of the access drive for this area (coming off South Plaza Drive). Even
holding back a 20-30-ft. offset from this drive, the building would be well over 64+ feet from the front yard
area. The setbacks off South Plaza Drive to the south are measuring 53+ feet; setback from Dodd Road
(west) measures approx. 105-ft. , and the setback from the north measure 80-ft.
Staff does not have any issues or concerns with the setbacks being established under this new revised PUD
development plan for this site.
Parking Plan
As indicated previously, the original PUD lot was approved with a reduced parking ratio from 180 stalls
down to 138 spaces. The original 180 spaces was derived from current City Code Title 12-1D-16 Off
Street Parking standards for “Office Buildings 6,000 sq. ft. or more” – which must provide 1 space for each
200 sq. ft. of floor area [36,000 sf. / 200 sf. = 180 spaces]. The 2009 PUD Agreement allowed the planned
office use to instead provide approximately 0.8 stalls per 200 sf, which equated to 138 stalls.
For this 17,000 sq. ft. building, Gemini intends to provide 60 parking spaces. Applying the current City
Code standard of 1 space per 200 sf. of floor space would mean 85 spaces are needed. In some cases, cities
may allow the parking based on the calculation or break-out of different (identifiable) areas within a
building. In this case - the office use vs. the warehouse/shipping areas. City Code states “warehousing”
uses can provide up to 1 space per 2,000 sf. of floor area.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 9 of 17
For the Geminin Medical building, staff calculated the following:
• Office/General Area: 11,500 sf. [Calc.: 11,500 / 200 = 57.5, or 56 spaces]
• Warehousing Space: 5,500 sf. [Calc.: 5,500 sf. / 2,000 sf. = 2.75, or 3 spaces]
Utilizing this separation factor, the Gemini Office use would only need to provide 59 spaces, which is just
one space less than what is provided on their plan.
In discussions with Geminin Medical representatives (prior to the official submittal of this application), it
was stated that Gemini currently employs 50 persons, and has plans to expand up to 75 employees in the
next 2-5 years. On a daily basis, the offices of the company normally have on average 10-15 full-time
employees occupying the office and warehouse/shipping areas. The bulk of their employees are sales staff
that normally do not use the facility on a daily basis, but periodically do attend training or seminar style
training at the office facility as needed.
Gemini also indicated that periodically throughout the year, they will invite surgeons and other medical
professionals to attend a seminar or presentations at this new facility, to explain, educate and/or demonstrate
new medical devices or surgical techniques they develop. The plan is to have this facility effectively serve
a wide range of clientele and office/sales staff employees on a rotating basis, with no overlaps that would
over park the site or cause visitors/employees to park off site or on the local adjacent streets.
Even with Gemini being able to effectively manage this rotating activates at this site, city staff requested
they provide or show a proof of parking area, which is illustrated on the attached site plan. The Proof of
Parking is shown with 58 stalls, which would bring the potential number of spaces up to 118 stalls, which
is well over the 85 spaces needed when considering the 1 per 200 sf. standard for an office use.
At this time, Staff does not have any issues or concerns with the parking being provide under this new
development plan, provided the Owners can effectively manage and control the on-site parking needed for
this use. Conditions of approval will be made that should this site experience peak parking demands or
situations that are observed the site is not functioning as planned, or complaints received that that
employees/customers are parking illegally on the access road or local streets, the Owners must agree to
provide or install the “proof of parking” shown on said plans, per City directive.
Access & Loading Plan
Access to and from the site will be off the access road coming off South Plaza Drive. Two access points,
spaced accordingly, should provide adequate vehicle movements in and out of this site from the north and
south ends of the property.
The new office facility is shown with two loading bays or berths on the south side it of the building. The
design submitted herein shows a depressed or reversed ramp driveway to the bay along the building. The
architects however, informed staff that this depressed bay is no longer needed; so both loading bays will be
at-grade with overhead doors in this area.
Turning movements for delivery trucks, both small and large (i.e. semi-trucks) is important, and we have
requested the Applicant demonstrate that any truck movements and loading in this area does not require the
trucks to use the adjacent access road to maneuver back into the bays. Although they indicated smaller van
type of short-box trucks will primarily be making these deliveries to this site, large semi-truck traffic may
be needed. Staff has communicated that any truck traffic and maneuvering must take place on the site, and
that any truck movements using the access road must be avoided. Moreover, the Owners are encouraged
to have their deliveries at off-peak hours to avoid any impacts or back-ups along this access road.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 10 of 17
Grading & Drainage Plan
The grading plan for most of the site appears to be fairly simple and easy, due to the relatively level surface
grades that exist over most of the site. There is however, a rather steep, sloped embankment that comes off
the easterly edge of Dodd Road leading down to the level areas of the site. A block retaining wall is also
evident in the far northwest corner of the site, which is part of the wall system installed under the Walgreens
site a few years ago (see photos below).
The original 2009 Plan with the 36,000 sf. office building and parking showed the developer would remove
the small section of the retaining wall in this corner, reinstall a new retaining wall along the entire westerly
edge, and connect the parking areas between the office lot and Walgreens (see image below).
Gemini Medical intends to forgo the removal and installation of the retaining wall for now, and simply
regrade/reshape this westerly section of the lot, which will help provide for future and routine maintenance
of this westerly area. Should the proof of parking needed to be installed (noted previously), a retaining wall
would be required; and the City will make a condition that any future changes to the site involving the
expanded parking and retaining wall, will require Planning Commission review and City Council approvals.
Should Gemini purchase the subject lot outright from Mendota Mall Associates, LLC (Paster Properties),
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 11 of 17
there should be an acknowledgement and recognition of the existing retaining wall encroachment, and the
responsibilities of who maintains said wall, if necessary.
The drainage plans are fairly straight-forward as well, with typical catch-basins strategically placed
throughout the site, with all connections made and tied into the overall PUD site’s existing stormwater
systems as needed. A key part of this system is the proposed underground stormwater infiltration/detention
system to be installed on the north edge of the property, which are typical when on-site ponds are not feasible
(see image below).
All of these storm water management systems will be reviewed again at times of building permit submittals,
and approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits.
Landscaping Plan
According to Title 12-1D-13-2-D of the City Code, concerning landscaping requirements in commercial and
industrial districts:
2. Minimum Area And Plant Material Required:
a. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass,
approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees.
b. At least five percent (5%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped.
A majority of the new tree and shrub plantings are proposed around the perimeters of the new parking
surfaces and building. These plantings should help create visual interest and year-round color. Their
placement near the access points and parking areas help to define the entrances. In addition, some of the
plantings will serve as a natural screening for the end parking area and trash enclosures.
The tree plantings include a variety of deciduous trees such as red maples and skyline honey locusts; and a
few evergreens consisting of black hill spruce. A number of shrubs consisting of Knockout rose, Dwarf
Korean Lilacs, Northern Charm Boxwoods and junipers, accented by a large number of decorative grasses
and perennials.
According to the plant schedule included in the Landscape Plan, the proposed plantings appear to be
compliant with the minimum size requirements and area planting percentages.
The regraded sloped area to the west, leading back up to Dodd Road is planned for placement of sod
(typically bluegrass and fescue). Staff recommends this area be revised with a low maintenance sedge
grass, native plantings, pollinator friendly plantings or a combination thereof.
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-13-2-D, and the overall PUD Agreement, the proposed Landscape Plan must be
compliant with the following requirements.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 12 of 17
h. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler
system shall be provided as part of each new development except additions to existing structures
which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be
provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in the natural state.
The proposed plantings will be watered by an underground irrigation system.
3. Maintenance Of Landscaping: The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and
severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are
required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as
seasonal or weather conditions allow.
The applicant has not indicated a landscape guarantee or maintenance responsibilities after the two-year
warranty period. A condition requiring compliance with this regulation is included as a recommendation of
approval.
4. Bond Requirements:
a. When screening, landscaping or similar improvements to property are required by this
chapter, a performance bond shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least
one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements. The bond, with security satisfactory to the city, shall be conditioned upon
reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal or other fees in
connection with making or completing such improvements. The bond shall be provided
prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to
one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may
accept a letter of credit, cash escrow or equivalent in lieu of a bond in an amount and
under such conditions as the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event
construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by the city council,
the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the
surety.
b. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the
delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer.
Extensions, which may not exceed nine (9) months, may be granted due to seasonal or
weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional
security as it deems appropriate.
A condition requiring the appropriate performance guarantee is included as a recommendation of approval.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable landscaping
policies/standards:
• Plant material is to be utilized within the site area as an aid to provide continuity within the
area and to provide a recognized definition of its boundaries
• Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other streetscape
materials and by correlation with adjacent development.
• Entry points into the areas are to be significantly landscaped and are to be designed with a
common theme.
• Plant material is to be utilized as a screening element for parking and building utility areas.
• Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands within the area, grouped massing of
landscape encouraged in parking lots to maximize landscape impact and allow functional snow
removal and storage.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 13 of 17
• All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from all public roads
and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall
achieve 75% opacity year round.
• Lighting provided in landscaped areas is encouraged and should be directed away from the
public right-of-way.
• The landscape design of each area within the site boundaries is to be reviewed to determine if
the landscape treatment helps to beauty and unify the overall area. Despite this approach,
individual landscape designs that help enhance architectural features, promote individuality,
provide shade, strengthen vistas and axis is encouraged.
• Plant material shall be selected in regard to its interesting structure, texture, color, seasonal
interest and its ultimate growth characteristics.
• Where building sites limit planting, the placement of plant materials in planters or within paved
areas is encouraged.
The proposed Landscape Plan appears to be generally consistent with these Design Standards. However, it
appears the loading area to the south of the building is not adequately screened per this noted requirement of
the PUD Agreement:
• All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from all public roads
and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall
achieve 75% opacity year round.
Staff suggest the Applicant provide additional year round screening with a staggered row of evergreen trees,
either Black Hill spruce or some other mix of evergreen varieties. Furthermore, specific building utility
features (such as outdoor electrical and gas meters, junction boxes, etc.) are not shown on the plans and must
be screened appropriately; a condition which is included as a recommendation of approval.
Lighting Plan
According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards:
Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall
create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or
industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared
property line with residentially zoned property.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting
policies/standards:
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 14 of 17
• Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area.
• Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape.
• Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the
buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through
the site.
• Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided.
According to the proposed Photometric Plan, the Developer intends to provide 4 new pole lights within the
parking lot areas; and seven (7) new pack or decorative lights spaced along the outer walls of the new
building. A table containing the proposed light fixtures is included on the plan, but was absent of any style
or details. It is assumed that the proposed fixtures will be down-cast cutoff (sometimes referred to as “shoe-
box” style) lights, but staff recommends more detailed specifications are provided for review at time of
building permit review.
It was noted in the previous PUD Amendment approval of 2015 (for the new apartment development) that
since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is part of a larger mixed-use development, the
foot-candle requirements do not apply to the existing lots in the PUD. Nevertheless, the proposed plan
indicates a large majority of the new lighting for this site meets or is within acceptable parameters of the 0.2
foot-candles at the shared property lines, which is commendable on the Applicants part and hereby
acceptable.
Signage Plan
Signage within the existing Mendota Plaza development is regulated by design standards adopted as an
exhibit to the existing Development Agreement, which supersede the City Code standards if specifically
addressed. The Design Standards include the following general signage policies/standards:
• The use of the site’s area identification signs should be encouraged. Such signs should evoke
the intended character of the subject area.
• A comprehensive signage plan will be required for multi-tenant buildings in the site.
• Signs should be located and constructed in a manner considered visually compatible with the
area and tie together both new and existing signs.
• Signs should fulfill their intended purpose (readable business identification) in a non-obtrusive,
aesthetically pleasing manner.
• Signs that complement the scale of the building should be encouraged.
• Signs must provide appropriate business identity.
• The city’s setback standards are to be met in regard to minimum location standards.
• No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half the
minimum required yard setback.
• Signs should be constructed of internally illuminated individual letters, logo allowed,
considered compatible to prominent building materials.
• Signs should be aesthetically compatible to prominent building materials
• Signs should be aesthetically compatible in both area and building they serve.
• Signs shall be illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at
the sign, or internal to it, without causing glare for motorists, pedestrians, or neighboring
premises.
There are no official signs or sign locations identified under this site plan, except for the two wall signs on
the architectural rendering/elevation plan of said building. All new signage must be approved separately
under Sign Permit reviews, which may be done at time of building permit submittals or thereafter. All new
signs will have to comply with the general standards in the Sign Program Plan of the Plaza PUD and City
Code Title 12-1D-15 Signs.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 15 of 17
ALTERNATIVES to RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit to amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit
Development of 2009, which would allow the development of a new 17,000 sq. ft. office building,
based on the attached finding of fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit to amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit
Development of 2009, based on the finding(s) of fact as determined by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council.
OR
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to amend the Mendota
Plaza Planned Unit Development of 2009, which would allow the development of a new 17,000 sq. ft.
office building, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. The Applicant or Owners shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development
Agreement required by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed for substance and content
by the City Attorney, and approved by the City Council.
2. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety and must be screened from public view.
All ground-level meters, junction boxes, and mechanical utilities shall be screened with either
decorative building materials or natural, year round vegetation screening measures, to be reviewed
by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process.
3. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for building utility areas, but shall not
obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Fire
Departments, and verified as part of the building permit review process.
4. As an alternative to sod, portions of the westerly sloped area of the subject site should be planted
with sedge grasses, native plantings or pollinator friendly plantings (or combination thereof).
5. All trees and landscaped areas, including parking lot islands shall be maintained with an
underground irrigation/sprinkler system.
6. The loading service bay area along the south edge of the building shall be screened from public
view and roadways. Natural materials are recommended; and the screen shall achieve 75% opacity
year round.
7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at
least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
8. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance
and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site
or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions
allow.
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 16 of 17
9. Should this site experience larger than expected parking demands, or if the city receives numerous
complaints from neighboring property owners of illegal parking on the access road or local streets,
the Owners shall agree to install the “proof of parking” as shown on said plans, per City directive.
10. A final Lighting Plan shall be submitted at time of building permit review that includes all new
proposed building lighting, parking lot lighting, and full details and specifications of luminaire and
light heads.
11. The Applicant (Gemini Medical) and the current property owners (Mendota Mall Associates, LLP)
must acknowledge the existing retaining wall encroachment near the northwest corner of the
subject site, and provide for the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of such wall under the
amended Development Agreement.
12. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water
Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City
Council approval.
13. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
14. The radiuses of the parking lot entrances and parking aisles shall be such that fire truck turning
movements are unimpeded, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
15. The underground storm water structure shall support fire equipment weight if required to be driven
over by a fire truck.
16. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the
building shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
17. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
Attachments
1. Aerial site map
2. Applicant’s Letter of Intent//Owners Letter of Support
3. Gemini Medical Elevation Plan
4. Gemini Medical – Site Plan
5. Mendota Plaza PUD Master Plan (dated 4/29/2009)
Planning Case 2017-12 Page 17 of 17
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment
Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development - 2009
796-820 Highway 110
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the requests:
1. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development.
2. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance
development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural
resources.
3. Approval and construction of the proposed 17,000 sq. ft. office fulfills the intended and planned
development of this lot with an “office building” type use.
4. This office development helps sustains and supports the ongoing financial success of the overall
Mendota Plaza development; ensures the continued economic benefits to the community by
adding another level of commercial property to the tax rolls; and provides another important
employment base and opportunity for the community.
“Your well -built project begins with and endures on Firm Ground”
Firm Ground Architects & Engineers Inc. 612.819.1835
275 Market Street, Suite 368 info@firmgroundae.com
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 www.firmgroundae.com | Follow us on
May 26, 2017
Tim Benetti
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Gemini Medical Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Benetti:
Gemini Medical LLC is seeking a conditional use permit for their new office building located at
796-820 Highway 110. Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices. To
reach their clientele of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area, Gemini requires a new building
that primarily provides space for client hospitality and education. Another primary need is
office space for administration and a sales team to operate out of. The third programmatic
requirement Gemini needs is an area for shipping and receiving for inventory. The proposed
plan includes roughly 2/3 of the building area for client hospitality/education and administration
and sales. The remaining 1/3 of building area is dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
The proposed site is part of a PUD. As an office building, Gemini Medical will fulfill the
objectives of the PUD. While Gemini Medical will be shipping and receiving inventory from the
facility, the building’s primary use is client hospitality, education, and sales offices. Most
deliveries made to the building will be in vans sized similar to UPS or Fedex delivery vehicles.
Their current operation uses no tractor trailers, but they would like to have flexibility for them in
the future. They would not expect this frequency to exceed more than one larger truck a week.
Firm Ground proposes painted decorative tip-up concrete walls as the primary façade of the
building. Facing Dodd Road to the west, there is an upscale patio used for hosting clients
outdoors. Limestone panels will accent the façade at this patio. Additionally, blue metal and
limestone panels will accent the main entrance to the building on the east side of the site.
Proof of parking is provided to meet the required number of stalls, though Gemini’s owners do
not anticipate needing that high of number for their needs. This potential reduction in parking
will reduce impervious surfaces and enhance the appearance of the site.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schuler, AIA
TO Gemini Medical, LLC
DATE: 5/26/17
FROM: Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties
Subject: Gemini Medical’s Office Project
To Whom It May Concern,
Paster Properties welcomes Gemini Medical’s expansion plans to Mendota Heights. We are supportive of an
increase in jobs and pedestrian activity at the Mendota Plaza developments.
Please find this letter as our support of their efforts.
Sincerely,
Mike Sturdivant
Paster Properties
CC: John Kohler
Gemini Medical
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/17REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC0.0TITLE SHEET............GEMINI MEDICALMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEC0.0TITLE SHEETSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION MAPNSITE SURVEYC0.1UTILITY PLANC4.0ISSUED FOR: CITY SUBMITTALMASTER LEGEND:EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALCURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB (GUTTER TOP)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALLSOIL BORING LOCATIONSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALLEMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED MANHOLE STORMPROPOSED GATE VALVEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING LIGHTEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING ELECTRIC BOXEXISTING STOPBOXPROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARYPROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORMDYH
PROPOSED SIGNEXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATIONINLET PROTECTIONSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEDRAINAGE ARROWDEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER:GEMINI MEDICAL531 PHALEN BOULEVARDST. PAUL, MN 55130ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL SITE GROUP4931 W 35TH STREETSUITE 200ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416612-615-0060SURVEYOR:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW1.0GRADING PLANC3.0C5.0C5.1L1.0DETAILSLANDSCAPE PLANSWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSW1.1SWPPP - DETAILSSW1.2C2.0SITE PLANSWPPP - NARRATIVESW1.3DETAILSC1.0REMOVALS PLANC5.2DETAILSCLARK ENGINEERING12755 HWY 55 #100PLYMOUTH, MN 55441763-545-9196GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALSWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW1.4SWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW1.5XXXXXXL1.1LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES & DETAILSEOF=1135.52SB-1TOPROPOSED LIGHTEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATER MAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSILT FENCE / BIOROLL - GRADING LIMITARCHITECT:FIRM GROUND ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS275 MARKET ST #368MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405
REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC0.1SITE SURVEY............01" = 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"N
REMOVE EXISTING CURBAND GUTTER, TYP.REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE, TYP.REMOVE EXISTING CURBAND GUTTER, TYP.EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN, PROVIDETREE PROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN, PROVIDETREE PROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.REMOVE EXISTINGLANDSCAPED AREA, TYP.EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING RETAINING WALLTO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN, PROVIDETREE PROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSREMOVAL NOTES:1.SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION STORM WATERMANAGEMENT PLAN.2.REMOVAL OF MATERIALS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT, STATE ANDLOCAL REGULATIONS.3.REMOVAL OF PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES.4.EXISTING PAVEMENTS SHALL BE SAWCUT IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR THE NEARESTJOINT FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS.5.REMOVED MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TO A LEGAL OFF-SITE LOCATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITHSTATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.6.ABANDON, REMOVAL, CONNECTION, AND PROTECTION NOTES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AREAPPROXIMATE. COORDINATE WITH PROPOSED PLANS.7.EXISTING ON-SITE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT THEDURATION OF THE CONTRACT.8.PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE CONSIDERED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ONTHE DRAWINGS. WORK WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL INCLUDE STAGING,DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.9.MINOR WORK OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS SHOWN ON THEPLAN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.10.DAMAGE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LIMITS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE REPAIRED IN AMANNER APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY.11.PROPOSED WORK (BUILDING AND CIVIL) SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISESHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.12.SITE SECURITY MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROVIDED IN A MANNER TO PROHIBIT VANDALISM, AND THEFT,DURING AND AFTER NORMAL WORK HOURS, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. SECURITYMATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY.13.VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR DELIVERY AND INSPECTION ACCESS DURINGNORMAL OPERATING HOURS. AT NO POINT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT SHALLCIRCULATION OF ADJACENT STREETS BE BLOCKED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.14.ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALLINCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALLPUBLIC STREETS SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BEPERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY.15.SHORING FOR BUILDING EXCAVATION MAY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND ASAPPROVED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.16.STAGING, DEMOLITION, AND CLEAN-UP AREAS SHALL BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REMOVAL NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES.REMOVALS LEGEND:TREE PROTECTIONREMOVAL OF PAVEMENT AND ALL BASE MATERIAL,INCLUDING BIT., CONC., AND GRAVEL PVMTS.REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ALLFOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS.SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5EROSION CONTROL NOTES:TREE REMOVAL - INCLUDING ROOTS AND STUMPSISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC1.0REMOVALS PLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114
104 SF
STORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122
WOMEN
112
MEN213 689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SF
MED ED. OFFICE126
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT10' PARKING SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACKNO
PARKING 17,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDINGPROOF OF PARKING AREA,58 STALLS @ 9'X20'PROOF OF PARKINGSEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLPROPERTY LINENO
PARKING 20.0'20.0'24.0'9.0'9.0'40' BUILDING SETBACK11.6'15.1'17.2'33.5'20.0'20.0'24.0'9.9'8.0'8.0'9.0'9.0'24.0'5.9'4.7'20.0'24.0'20.0'8.0'5.0'9.0'9.0'27.0'R3.0'R
2
0
.
0
'R3.0'R24.0'R3.0
'R3.0'R3.0
'R10.0'R
1
0
.
0
'R3.0'R3.
0
'R3.0'MATCH EXISTING, TYP.TRASH ENCLOSURE, TYP.COORDINATE WITH ARCH.CONCRETE PED. RAMPPERD MNDOT STANDARDS,SEE DETAILS, TYP.STAMPED CONCRETEPATIO, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.BIT. PVMT., TYP.BIT. PVMT., TYP.BIT. PVMT., TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.CONC. WALK, TYP.CONC. WALK, TYP.ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACE, INCL.SIGNAGE, STRIPINGAND RAMPS8.2'5.7'7.9'R
1
0
.
0
'R10.0'R1
0
.
0
'R10.0'B618 C&G PER CITYSTANDARDS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDB618 C&G PER CITYSTANDARDS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDB618 C&G PER CITYSTANDARDS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS8154132020' PARKING SETBACK40' BUILDING SETBACK
20' PARKING SETBACK
40' BUILDING SETBACK 20' PARKING SETBACK
23.2'20.0'20.0'20.0'0.8'10.0'9.5'20.0'11.3'12.0'30.5'40.3'79.2'40.0'B612 C&G, TYP.RETAINING WALL, SEEARCH. PLANS FORSPECIFICATIONSDRIVEWAYENTRANCE PER CITYSTANDARDS, TYP.DRIVEWAYENTRANCE PER CITYSTANDARDS, TYP.1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUTNOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS ANDPAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIREDAFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOOWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFMATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREETOPENING PERMIT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITEIMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.5.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALLBE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OFBUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUTNOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURBRAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.8.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A.REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.9.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDOR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.10.CURB AND GUTTER TYPE SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS-TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.11.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITEIMPROVEMENTS.13.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.14.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.15.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.16.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.17.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEELANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROWSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLYISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN............SITE AREA TABLE:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK)PROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONSTRUCTION LIMITSTO
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114104 SFSTORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122WOMEN112MEN213689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SFMED ED. OFFICE126
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION,EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BYTHE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THESOILS ENGINEER.3.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.4.PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5.GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5% MAX. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1% MIN. AND 2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:17.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEEREDBY A REGISTERED RETAINING WALL ENGINEER. DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPERGRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES.9.IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTEDBY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE.10.EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLSALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OFBUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.11.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENTTRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHEREELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROMSUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER ORHAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THANORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK.12.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTORSHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILSENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THESTREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESOILS ENGINEER. NO TEST ROLL SHALL OCCUR WITHIN 10' OF ANY UNDERGROUND STORM RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEMS.13. TOLERANCES13.1.THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBEDELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.2.THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THEPRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.3.AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTEDOTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.13.4.TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.14.MAINTENANCE14.1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION, AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.14.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THECONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED ANDMULCHED.14.3.WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALLSCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE, AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL GRADING NOTES:1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS GRADING NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES.SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5EROSION CONTROL NOTES:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.0GRADING PLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TO
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114104 SFSTORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122WOMEN112MEN213689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SFMED ED. OFFICE126
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS6" DIP COMBINEDFIRE AND WATERSERVICE STUB TOWITHIN 5' FROMBUILDING, COORD.W/MECH'LEXISTING GATE VALVEAND VALVE BOX(FIELD VERIFY)SANITARY SERVICE.STUB TO 5' FROMBUILDING, COORD.W/MECH'LIE @ STUB=850.19IE @ BLDG=850.2995 LF 6" PVC SDR 26SAN. SERV. @ 2.00%SAN MH ARIM=859.90EX IE (E)=846.05PROP IE (SW)=846.15MAKE CONNECTION TOEXISTING 6" PVC SANITARYSEWER STUB. FIELD VERIFYLOCATION AND INVERTELEVATIONMECHANICAL ROOMMAKE CONNECTION TOEXISTING 6" DIP WATER STUB.FIELD VERIFY LOCATION ANDINVERT ELEVATIONCBMH 11RIM=855.26IE=850.68SUMP=847.68PROVIDE SAFLBAFFLE AND HOODCBMH 1RIM=854.75IE=850.65SUMP=847.65PROVIDE SAFLBAFFLE AND HOODCBMH 2RIM=856.02IE=850.97CBMH 3RIM=856.80IE (N/SW)=851.58IE (W)=852.00CBMH 4RIM=857.54IE=851.92FIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONTRENCH DRAIN 5RIM=854.67BOT=852.3112" IE=852.3178 LF OF 12" RCPSTORM @ 0.50%69 LF OF 12" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%123 LF OF 15" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%65 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%36 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%64 LF OF 15" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%137 LF OF 15" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%CBMH 12RIM=856.15IE=851.00CB 13RIM=855.80IE=851.69MH 1RIM=856.50EX IE (N)=849.11(FIELD VERIFY)PROP IE (S)=850.86 UNDERGROUND STORMWATERINFILTRATION/DETENTION SYSTEM54" PERFORATED CMP (NORTH PIPENON-PERFORATED) 12" SIDE & END STONE, 27" STONEPIPE SEPARATION, 6" STONE COVER AND BASEFOOTPRINT=26.75' X 111.00'BAFFLE WALLS BETWEEN PER. AND NON-PERF PIPES;TOP BAFFLE WALLS=850.50IE STONE=848.50IE 54" CMP=849.00OE 18" ORIFICE=851.00TOP 54" CMP=853.50TOP STONE=854.00100-YR HWL=853.6615" INLETIE=850.5015" INLETIE=850.5011 LF OF 24" PVCSTORM @2.00%(FIELD VERIFYEXISTING MATERIALAND SLOPE)CONNECT TO EXISTING24" PVC STUBIE=828.89 (FIELDVERIFY)18" OUTLETIE=851.007 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 2.00%31 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%83 LF 6" PVC SDR 26SAN. SERV. @ 2.00%SAN MH BRIM=859.95IE (NE)=847.81IE (W)=847.9114 LF 6" PVC SDR 26SAN. SERV. @ 2.00%SAN MH CRIM=860.10IE (E)=849.81IE (N)=849.91DRAW DOWNRISER, TYP.BAFFLE WALL,TYP.TOP=850.50ACCESS RISER,TYP.12" BUILDING STORM CONNECTIONIE @ STUB=853.87IE @ BLDG=854.00STUB TO WITHIN 5' OF BUILDINGCONNECT ALL ROOF DRAINS & DRAIN TILECOORD. WITH MECH'L69 LF 12" PVC SCH40STORM @ 2.70%1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FORUTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT AREDAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.4. UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINEINSTALLATION" AND "SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OFMINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.5. CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER.6. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 26 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.8. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HDPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.9. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLARED END SECTION.10. UTILTIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEFINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS.11. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.15 FEETPER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS.12. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13. HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL.14. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TOMAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS INCIDENTAL.15. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.16. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.17.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCUTRES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED.18. COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS.19. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF.20. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BESAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TOSIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROADCLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY.21. ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHERE REQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALLOWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFICLOADING.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL CORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES.23. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATIONSLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES.24. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETIONOF WORK.25.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT. APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTSMUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES.26.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 1109.0.GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:UTILITY LEGEND:CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS UTILITY NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES.ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.0UTILITY PLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAP
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114
104 SF
STORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122
WOMEN
112
MEN213 689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SFMED ED. OFFICE126
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS201 SF205 SF173 SF129 SF398 SF188 SF95 SF25 - KOR7 - MJ5 - BHS63 - NCB47 - NCB42 - NCB3 - DKL3 - DKL5 - DKL11 - CS10 - CS10 - CS10 - CS11 - CS13 - CS10 - CS13 - SDD7 - SDD5 - SDD7 - SDD7 - SDD7 - SDD7 - SDD1 - SHL1 - NRM1 - SHL1 - NRM1 - SHL1 - SHL1 - NRMEDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.LAWNLAWNLAWNLAWN18" DECORATIVE ROCK MULCHMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.1.ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S REPSHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL.2.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IFAPPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.3.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK,FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIALFOR DURING OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.4.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THEPLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.5.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT.LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION DATE.6.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYER LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDON THE DRAWINGS.7.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS.CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.8.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.9.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.10.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.LANDSCAPE NOTES:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN............PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITESYMQUANT.COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTCOMMENTSDECIDUOUS TREESNRM3NORTHWOOD RED MAPLEAcer rubrum 'Northwood'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHL4SKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMEVERGREEN TREESBHS5BLACK HILLS SPRUCEPicea glauca 'Densata'6' ht.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHRUBS - CONIFEROUS & EVERGREENKNO25KNOCKOUT ROSERosa 'Knock Out'24" HT.CONT.DKL11DWARF KOREAN LILACSyringa meyeri 'Palibin'24" HT.CONT.NCB152NORTHERN CHARM BOXWOODBuxus 'Wilson'24" HT.CONT.MJ7MEDORA JUNIPERJuniperus scopulorum 'Medora'24" HT.CONT.PERENNIALS & GRASSESCS75CARADONNA SALVIASalvia x sylvestris 'Caradonna'#1CONT.SDD53STELLA D'ORO DAYLILYHemerocallis 'Stella D'Oro'#1CONT.LEGENDPROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESSODDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.05/26/17
1.ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE FULLY IRRIGATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT IRRIGATION SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2.SEE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRRIGATION WATER, METER, AND POWERCONNECTIONS.3.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION/INSTALLATION. ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CORRECTING DAMAGES SHALL BE BORNEENTIRELY BY THE CONTRACTOR.4.SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE PER LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY STANDARDS AND SHALL BE PERNATIONAL AND LOCAL CODES. EXACT LOCATION OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUIVALENT AT THE JOB SITE.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY FOR THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SERVICE ANDMETERING FACILITIES.6.IRRIGATION WATER LINE CONNECTION SIZE IS 1-12" AT BUILDING. VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL PLANS.COVAGE.7.ALL MAIN LINES SHALL BE 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE.8.ALL LATERAL LINES SHALL BE 12" BELLOW FINISHED GRADE.9.ALL EXPOSED PVC RISERS, IF ANY, SHALL BE GRAY IN COLOR.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT AT 2'-0" BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE TOP OF PAVEMENT.EXTEND SLEEVES TO 2'-0" BEYOND PAVEMENT.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK THE LOCATION OF ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT WITH THE SLEEVING MATERIAL "ELLED" TO2'-0" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AND CAPPED.12.FABRICATE ALL PIPE TO MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH CLEAN AND SQUARE CUT JOINTS. USE QUALITY GRADEPRIMER AND SOLVENT CEMENT FORMULATED FOR INTENDED TYPE OF CONNECTION.13.BACKFILL ALL TRENCHES WITH SOIL FREE OF SHARP OBJECTS AND DEBRIS.14.ALL VALVE BOXES AND COVERS SHALL BE BLACK IN COLOR.15.GROUP VALVE BOXES TOGETHER FOR EASE WHEN SERVICE IS REQUIRED. LOCATE IN PLANT BED AREAS WHENEVERPOSSIBLE.16.IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION SHALL BE VERIFIED ON-SITE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.17.CONTROL WIRES: 14 GAUGE DIRECT BURIAL, SOLID COPPER IRRIGATION WIRE. RUN UNDER MAIN LINE. USEMOISTURE-PROOF SPLICES AND SPLICE ONLY AT VALVES OR PULL BOXES. RUN SEPARATE HOT AND COMMON WIRE TOEACH VALVE AND ONE (1) SPARE WIRE AND GROUND TO FURTHEST VALVE FROM CONTROLLER. LABEL OR COLOR CODEALL WIRES.18.AVOID OVER SPRAY ON BUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, WALLS AND ROADWAYS BY INDIVIDUALLY ADJUSTING RADIUS OR ARCON SPRINKLER HEADS AND FLOW CONTROL ON AUTOMATIC VALVE.19.ADJUST PRESSURE REGULATING VALVES FOR OPTIMUM PRESSURE ON SITE.20.USE SCREENS ON ALL HEADS.21.A SET OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON-SITE AT ALL TIMES IN AN UPDATED CONDITION.22.ALL PIPE 3" AND OVER SHALL HAVE THRUST BLOCKING AT EACH TURN.23.ALL AUTOMATIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVES WILL HAVE 3" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4" WASHED GRAVEL UNDERNEATHVALVE AND VALVE BOX. GRAVEL SHALL EXTENT 3" BEYOND PERIMETER OF VALVE BOX.24.THERE SHALL BE 3" MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF VALVE BOX COVER AND TOP OF VALVE STRUCTURE.IRRIGATION NOTES:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.1LANDSCAPE PLANNOTES & DETAILS............PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESFACE OF BUILDING, WALL, OR STRUCTUREMIN. 3" LAYER OF ROCK MULCH AS SPECIFIED. PROVIDE SAMPLE TOLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONFINISHED GRADECOMPACTED SUBGRADEWATER PERMEABLE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AS SPECIFIED18" - VERIFY W/ PLANAGGREGATE MAINTANENCE STRIPN T SSTAKED LANDSCAPE EDGER AS SPECIFIED, SEE MANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS AND SPECS. FOR INSTALLATION AND PLACEMENTSLOPE - MIN. 2%, MAX. 5:1VERIFY W/ GRADING PLAN1GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALPERENNIAL BED PLANTINGN T SPLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVESURROUNDING GRADEROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TOENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACTSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDEXISTING GRADEROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPENOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEPMULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT STEMBACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATIONDO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.SIZE VARIESSEE LANDSCAPE PLANMODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON LOCATION OF PLANTMATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OR OVERALL PLANTPLACEMENT4DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANTINGN T SPRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAINNORMAL SHAPE FOR SPECIES)PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVESURROUNDING GRADEROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TOENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACTSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDEXISTING GRADEROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPENOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEPMULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT TRUNKBACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATIONDO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.THREE TIMES WIDTHOF ROOTBALLRULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ONLOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDSOR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT3THREE TIMES WIDTHOF ROOTBALLDECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTINGN T SPRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAINNORMAL TREE SHAPE)THREE 2"X4"X8' WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWNWITH TWO STRANDS OF WIRE TWISTED TOGETHER.STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120° TO ONE ANOTHER.WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBERHOSE COLLARS. ALTERNATE STABILIZING METHODSMAY BE PROPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1"-2" ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OFPLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ROCK OR ORGANICMULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLANNOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2" FROMPLANT TRUNKEXISTING GRADECUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL. IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELYSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDBACKFILL AS SPECIFIEDCOMPACT BOTTOM OF PIT, TYP.RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ONLOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDSOR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENTLEGENDSOD1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.05/26/17
Revisions# Date CommentsDate:5/25/2017These drawings are for conceptual use onlyand are not intended for construction. Valuesrepresented are an approximation generated frommanufacturers photometric inhouse or independentlab tests with data supplied by lamp manufacturers.17x22LS952-2656Sales Agent: Steve HahnDrawn By: Joe FreyScale: 1" = 30'Gemini MedicalSite LightingLuminaire ScheduleCalculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinSymbolQtyLabelAvg/MinMax/MinProp LineIlluminanceFc0.191.7ArrangementLum. LumensLLFDescriptionLum. WattsArr. WattsTotal Watts7XWMSINGLE45530.900XWM-2-LED-04-4038382660.0N.A.N.A.SiteIlluminanceFc1.977.60.36.573XALMSINGLE188740.900XALM-3-LED-SS-40154.1154.1462.31XALM-2SINGLE196660.900XALM-2-LED-SS-4015415415425.33Scale: 1 inch= 30 Ft.MH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMXALMMH: 30MH: 30XALMXALM-2MH: 30MH: 30XALM1.8 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.63.2 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.95.1 3.4 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.66.6 4.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.52.1 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.63.2 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 0.94.7 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.15.3 3.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.23.9 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.32.3 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.90.7 1.0 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.71.30.4 1.1 1.8 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.32.91.1 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.44.63.1 3.1 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.64.85.7 4.0 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.53.26.0 4.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.31.73.4 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.52.0 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.91.0 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.1 1.50.8 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.20.3 0.3 0.7 1.9 3.2 4.1 4.1 3.4 3.4 4.1 6.4 7.6 6.8 5.3 3.4 2.8 2.52.1 2.0 1.30.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.5 2.22.5 2.2 2.20.7 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.92.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.0 0.60.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.61.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.30.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.21.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.30.8 0.9 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.4 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.21.10.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.90.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.71.2 1.61.7 1.30.80.4 0.30.2 0.20.2 0.40.50.5 0.40.3 0.20.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.70.60.70.60.40.20.20.10.10.20.30.50.70.60.70.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-13
Interim Use Permit for Temporary Outdoor Storage Yard in the B-1A
Business Park District
APPLICANT: Brian Sullivan (on behalf of Northern States Power Co. – Xcel Energy)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 800 Sibley Memorial Highway
ZONING/GUIDED: B-1A Business Park District / LB-Limited Business
ACTION DEADLINE: August 4, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow the temporary outdoor storage of gas pipes and other
construction materials on the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway. The site is locally referred
to as the Sibley Gas Plant site, owned and operated by Northern States Power Company (now Xcel Energy).
BACKGROUND
The Sibley Gas Plant site is approximately 26 acres in size, located just off Sibley Memorial Highway
(HWY 13), directly across from the River Bluffs Center/The Moose/Joke Joint in Lilydale; and just west
of the Summit of Mendota Heights development (see attached site map).
The site is currently zoned B-1A Business Park. This commercial business district allows for “Essential
Services” such as this gas plant utility site; however, other business uses are somewhat restricted and
limited, and no outdoor storage is either permitted as an accessory use or conditional use.
In 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allows an interim use(s) by permit in certain zoning
districts. The interim use designation allows an identifiable use for a limited period of time that reasonably
utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the
comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The applicant submitted a narrative that explains the need and justification or this permit request:
“Over the past few years Xcel Energy has been in the process of upgrading and rebuilding the
natural gas system that serve the communities in Dakota and Ramsey Counties. The current project
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 2 of 9
is to rebuild two lines that exit our station near the intersection of Lilydale Road and Sibley
Memorial Parkway. The pipelines in question cross Sibley Memorial Highway passing near the
Yacht Club and proceed to points east, eventually crossing the river into St. Paul.
The request is to use an existing paved area outside of the secured compound as a staging and
laydown yard. It is anticipated that the construction would start in the summer of 2017 and be
completed by the end of the current year. Proposed uses will include a job trailer, storage of pipe
and equipment and parking for construction workers.”
The proposed storage area space (illustrated below) is approximately 0.4 acres in size, and appears to have
been used for surface parking at one time. It consists of a mix of asphalt and crushed rock surfaces. There
are some mature trees along the south boundary, and wide open or no plantings along the west frontage of
Sibley Mem. Hwy. or the easterly edge. A very large overgrown evergreen is present on the north corner.
The entire gas plant site is accessed from one single two-way driveway directly off Sibley Memorial Hwy.
The entire east edge of this rough paved surface connects directly onto the driveway. Farther down the
driveway the site is secured with a security gate and fence that only permits Xcel workers to enter.
Looking South
Looking South/Southeast
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 3 of 9
Looking Westerly (towards SMH)
Looking Northerly
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LB-Limited Business in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Xcel’s request to
establish a temporary outdoor storage yard in this area may be in compliance with the City Code
requirements, subject to meeting certain standards under City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses.
Interim Use Permit
Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use (Staff
response or comments are noted after each standard):
A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate
surrounding property value.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed interim use at this location would be detrimental to
the health, safety and welfare of the community, as this will be a tightly controlled and monitored area.
Access will be limited to Xcel vehicles and contractors only, and since most of the gas line replacement
work is being done in this area, traffic movement should be limited and not cause any hazards to the
surrounding properties.
Xcel does not have any plan to fence or screen the site at this time, due to the temporary nature of this
interim use permit. Although open along the highway side, the area across the street is dense mix of
commercial uses, which should not be affected. To the east is The Summit of Mendota Heights
townhome development. As noted in the site photo below,
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 4 of 9
B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going
basis.
Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses states that an interim use is allowed for a
limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the
manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The report acknowledged the subject site is located in the B-1A Business Park zone, which allows for
certain and somewhat limited commercial uses, including “Essential Services” such as this gas plant
utility.
It seems reasonable that as part of Xcel’s efforts to replace and upgrade its main gas line services in
Dakota and Ramsey County areas, that it should be afforded some amount of leeway or courtesy to
provide on-site storage of their equipment, materials and job site trailers to help facilitate and serve
their needs for conducting this project. The proximity of this Xcel gas plant site provides a very
reasonable, suitable and adequate are to properly stage and secure the materials needed for their
project. Since this Interim Use Permit is only granted for a short and limited period of time, there will
be no long-term impacts or concerns by the City that this activity will be expanded, or the site will
become a long-term storage facility that is not normally allowed under this B-1A District.
Staff believe the proposed interim use at this location conforms to the general purpose and intent of the
city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in
conflict on an on-going basis.
C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
Staff Response: The Applicant has indicated the gas line replacement work will begin in “… summer
of 2017 and completed by end of the current year [2017].” Staff is recommending the IUP will be valid
from date of City Council approval (planned date of review July 5, 2017) to December 31, 2017.
D. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the City would be burdened by any additional costs or expects
any need for the public to take this property in the future. Xcel is a very well-established and successful
utility company operating and serving this community, metro area and state, so it seem highly unlikely
the city would ever need to take this or any other utility site over at this or any other time in the future.
Xcel Energy’s goal in this case is to be quick with the gas line replacement project, and return the
vacant space to be used under this permit back to its original form.
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 5 of 9
E. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost
of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use
permit.
Staff Response: This report provides certain conditions that will be imposed upon the Applicant as
part of any interim use permit approval on this subject site. Most of these conditions are very
reasonable; and Staff does not have any reason to believe Xcel will not comply or follow these
conditions as part of any approval related to this permit.
Staff has not finalized any financial surety at this time, but does plan to negotiate a fair and reasonable
amount to ensure that this IUP does cease and desist at the agreed upon expiration date, and the site
is cleaned, restored and returned to its original condition (as needed).
F. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes Xcel does not have any long-term plans to
sell or offer this site for development by third parties; so this IUP should not affect or cause any delay
to any anticipated development, since there is nothing planned at this time.
G. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes the subject property on which the use will
be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards.
H. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
Staff Response: The specific interim use requested by Xcel Energy on this site is not specifically
identified or a use allowed as an interim use under the B-1A Zone; however, the interim use ordinance
provides for limited/seasonal allowance of certain uses, provided they are reviewed and given full
consideration by the Planning Commission under the standard public hearing process, and approved
by the City Council. The use must also meet certain standards as noted herein; fulfill the conditions as
prescribed by the City; and said use or operations must cease upon the approved deadline date.
Critical Area Consideration
Although this site is located within the Critical Area of the city, and since no new development, permanent
structures, grading work, or removal of vegetation is taking place under this interim use permit, Staff elected
to forgo the need or processing of a separate critical area permit or review at this time.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3. Table the request.
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 6 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit request in this case, based on the findings of fact that
the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1), with the following conditions:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between Xcel and the City
Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or
revocation of the interim use permit
3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council.
4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the permit, the outdoor
storage site shall be restored to its original condition.
5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no
dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept on the site. All gas main
pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away from the trail
system along Sibley Memorial Highway.
6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured and well
maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of weeds, and well
maintained throughout the duration of the permit term.
7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded
light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential area to the east.
8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between 7:00 am
and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any
expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved by the City Council.
9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM
USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure
compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site Plan
2. Planning applications, including supporting materials
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 7 of 9
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy
Sibley Gas Plant Facility
800 Sibley Memorial Highway
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed interim storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and
comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met
and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction.
3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 8 of 9
12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES:
A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to:
1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent
location is under construction.
2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable
to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code.
3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will
not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use
allowed within the respective zoning district.
4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature.
B. Application For Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in
subsection 12-1L-6B of this chapter.
C. Referral To Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the
requirements in subsection 12-1L-6C of this chapter.
D. Planning Commission Hearing And Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are
subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6D of this chapter.
E. Action By City Council:
1. Grant Of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the
council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of
the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing
and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the
proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of
all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if:
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding
property value.
b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an ongoing
basis.
c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is
necessary for the public to take the property in the future.
e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
Planning Case 2017-13 Page 9 of 9
2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution
shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No
application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a
period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or
proof of change of conditions found to be valid upon recommendation of the planning commission to
the city council.
F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs
first:
1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a
violation of this code.
2. A violation of laws of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or this code.
3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent
information.
4. An amendment to this code which prohibits the use.
5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use.
7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been
issued within one year after approval.
G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit,
the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six
(6) months after the date of such notice.
H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The
issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right.
I. Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion
that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination
has been met or any other unintended consequences.
J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional
periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. (Ord. 479, 7-7-2015)
I-3
5
E WACHTLER AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYLILYDALE RDI-3
5
E
R
A
M
P FARMDALE RDSIBLEY MEMORIAL RAMP
PARK PLACE DR
VIC
T
O
RIA R
D PARK CIRSTONEBRIDGE RDU P P E R C O L O N I A L D R
L O W E R C O L O N I A L D R KNOLLWOOD LNBLUFF CIR
I-3
5
E
Dakota County GIS
Xcel Energy Sibley Gas Plant800 Sibley Memorial Highway
City ofMendotaHeights0490
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/12/2017
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.
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-14
Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance /Wetlands Permit
APPLICANT: Marcel Eibensteiner, Royal Oaks Realty (on behalf of David Olin / Marilyn
Olin – Property Owners
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1136 and 1140 Orchard Place
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty, acting on behalf of the property owners Marilyn
Olin and David Olin, is seeking to subdivide an existing single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled
“Orchard Heights” of Mendota Heights.
This preliminary plat request also includes a request for a variance to exceed the maximum length of cul-de-
sac roadway (that serves this development), along with a wetlands permit due to work taking place nearby the
established pond, which is a recognized water feature in this area.
This item is being presented as a public hearing item. Notices were mailed to all surrounding property owners
within 350-feet of the site; and a notice was published in the local newspaper.
BACKGROUND
The subject plat is essentially a combination of two existing parcels, locally addressed as 1140 Orchard Place
and 1136 Orchard Place. The main larger site has been used as a local apple orchard (hence the plat name)
for quite some time, and the Olin family is no longer interested in operating or maintaining the orchard upon
the close of this growing season (see aerial image below).
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 2 of 12
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 3 of 12
• The 1140 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing single family residential dwelling with 3,377
finished square feet of living space, a double-car tuck-under garage, and was built in 1959. A
separate detached accessory or outbuilding is nearby (see photos below).
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 4 of 12
• The 1136 Orchard Pl. parcel contains an existing two-story, single family residential dwelling, with
attached two car garage, built in 1992 (see photo below).
• The combined area of the subject properties is 585,843 sq. ft., or 13.45 acres in area.
• The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan.
• The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential.
• No change in land use or zoning is proposed.
• All dwellings and out-buildings will be removed as part of this new housing development.
ANALYSIS
1) Lot Size. The R-1 District requires minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft.
All 19 proposed new lots will meet or exceed these minimums:
A majority of the lots along the Orchard Heights Lane roadway (Lots 2 thru 7 and Lots 12 thru 18) are
established with 107-ft. lot widths and 141.25 ft. depths.
Lot 8 is slightly larger; and lots 9 (0.96 ac.), 10 (4.02 ac.) and 11 (1.46 ac.) are much larger due to their
location at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Most of the adjacent lots platted to the west in Sun View Hills Addition, located off Hunter Lane were
platted with approximately 150-ft. lot widths. The lots to the east along the Orchard Hill roadway
(Swansons 2nd Addition) are also wide due to their layout along the end of their own cul-de-sac; and the
lots farther south (accessed from Lexington Avenue) range in width from approx. 190-ft. (Rolf parcel),
200 ft. (Illetschko parcel) up to 485 feet (Kelly parcel).
2) Density. The density of the new plat is 1.41 units/acre, which is much less than the Comprehensive Plan
maximum of 2.9 units/acres. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss or determine if the scale of
the proposed plat and lot dimensions are consistent with the City’s Comp Plan and in keeping with the
surrounding (adjacent) residential uses.
3) Grading and Trees. When entering the property from the north off Orchard Place, the grades start out
even with the road bed, but once you enter the site, the gradient begins to increase dramatically once you
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 5 of 12
begin to traverses up the long asphalt driveway leading back to the 1140 homestead. The grade difference
is approx. 900 feet at the entrance, and roughly 952-feet at the existing house pad. The house appears to
be at or near the highest point of this property.
From the back of the house, the grades begin to gradually drop down southward towards the pond and
wetlands area located at the southernmost end of the lot, from 952 feet to approx. 894 feet, or a 58 foot
decrease (see photo below).
Due to the need to create new and suitable house pads, the installation of a new main access roadway, new
utilities and additional on-site storm ponds, it is expected that a vast and intensive level of grading work
will be required to re-grade and re-shape this site; and it appears many of the existing trees on the site,
including every apple tree, will be removed under this new development plan. Some trees and vegetation
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 6 of 12
may be saved and protected along the outer edges of the site, and some will probably be protected in and
around the existing pond and wetland to the south.
4) Concept Grading & Drainage Plan: The grading plan indicates the property will be shaved down (at
the high pint) almost 14 to 15 feet, which is necessary to make the road grades and new house pad
elevations feasible.
The grading directs the drainage from the northerly 600 feet of the development (from about Lot 6 and
14) northward down to the storm systems that eventually connect into the existing city-owned systems in
Orchard Place (note: plans are mislabeled as Orchard Lane).
The drainage plan calls for what appears to be new storm catch basins along the back sides of Lots 1 & 2;
Lots 2 &3; and Lots 17 &18.
The southerly half of the development (Lots 7 thru 13) then drain southward towards the new ponding
areas to be installed by the developer.
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 7 of 12
Stormwater drainage will be captured by new storm inlets installed within the roadway system, and in
some cases along the back sides of some residences. Many of the rear yards of these lots have a drainage
swale incorporated into their designs, with U-shaped rock check dams spaced about 50 to 100 feet apart
from each, which are designed to essentially slow the high flow rates of water in these areas.
Plans show the new pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft. maximum depth.
The top of the berm around pond must also be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and new elevations to
the plans must be approved by the City Engineer.
The new development also calls for the installation of a new retaining wall along the back side of lots 11,
12 and 13. There are no details on this wall at this time. The City Engineer recommends that any new
wall(s) over 4-feet in height must have engineered designs and approved by the City Engineer and Building
Official.
The proposed grading plan is only required to show that a potential new dwelling could be constructed that
meets the applicable Code standards, and is not meant to bind a future property owner into a specific
location or design.
Subdivision Code requires that no construction or grading on slopes 33% or greater. There does not appear
to be any slopes over 33% percent on site.
5) Utility Plan. Sanitary sewer main extension and water main extensions for all lots will come from the
existing systems under Orchard Place. Each main service line essentially runs south down to the end of
the cul-de-sac, with individual service lines to each lot to be determined later.
The utility service mains (sanitary and water) feeding this development are shown with depths greater than
20 feet in some areas. The City Engineer has expressed great concerns with having sewer lines that deep;
and is especially alarmed with taking on maintenance and repairs of these systems in the future, once the
roadway is dedicated to the City (note: service lines that deep would require an enormous open
trench/excavation pit with massive shoring devices in order to gain safe access for repairs, and would
likely impact and disturb abutting residential lots and yard spaces).
Due to the complicated topography of this existing site, and the Developers wish to minimize as much
grading and reshaping the site for this area, the City Engineer is electing to have the City Council approve
these new utility line depths. Should the City Council disapprove of these utility plans, the Developer will
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 8 of 12
be required to re-submit new grading/drainage and utility plans which must be acceptable to the City
Engineer and City Council.
Three fire hydrants are being installed along the new Orchard Heights Drive roadway, which we assume
meets all required Fire Department’s needs. Final locations and details of these hydrants will be approved
by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of any grading and/or utility permits.
Drainage and utility easements on the perimeters of all lots are show as 10-foot along the front lot; 5-foot
along the shared side lot lines, and 25 feet along the back lot lines. The larger rear yard easements are to
ensure the larger drainage swale and infrastructure improvements necessary under this development plat.
These easements will be provided or officially dedicated under the final plat approval and recording.
Street Design & Variances
City Code Title 11 – General Subdivision Provision provides for all the required standards related to new
subdivisions, including streets, utilities, easement, drainage, etc.
As illustrated on the preliminary plat maps and grading/utility plans, the subdivision will be served by a single
access, two-way traffic cul-de-sac roadway. The developer intends to dedicate the road back to the City, which
will then become a public road once completed and accepted by the City Engineer. The road meets the
minimum 60-foot wide platted width, but is only shown with a 30-foot wide curb-to-curb width, whereas a 33-
foot width is required.
Pursuant to City Code Title 11-3-3, Streets may not exceed 6% in grade, unless the city engineer recommends
or allows excess street grades should the topography warrant a greater maximum. The grading/drainage plan
shows street grades in certain areas range from 1% up to 8% along the length of the roadway. The City
Engineer is allowing the Developer to exceed the 6% street grades in certain (limited) areas of this
development; and accepts the 3-foot difference (down to 30-feet) in street width.
The cul-de-sac however, measures well over 950 feet from the beginning point off Orchard Place to the center-
point of the end circle. Pursuant to Title 11-3-3 Streets and Alleys, the following standard applies to cul-de-
sacs type roadways:
D. Dead End and Cul-De-Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only
where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five
hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an
outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60').
When city staff initially met with the Developers on this plat layout, we indicated the concerns of having a
roadway that length, and suggested they explore options of providing a secondary access into the site, either
off Veronica Lane or the undeveloped segment of Mallard Road, both located near the south end of the
subdivision site and directly off Hunter Lane (see highlighted image below).
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 9 of 12
It was determined (and later supported by city staff) that having a roadway extension through these right-of-
way segments would likely upset abutting homeowners; the grades coming off these short roadway segments
do not work well and would be challenging; an enormous amount of fill would be needed to bring roadway
connection grades back into the development; and impacts to the wetlands would be significant.
There are no available road connections to the east. (Note: there is however, anecdotal statements and evidence
of a video-taped discussion from a 1995(?) City Council meeting, while considering the adjacent Swansons
2nd Addition plat, that a road connection or ROW extension was recommended to be platted over to the Olin
property. However, the council elected not to enjoin the developer to provide said right-of-way connection at
that time, thereby excluding any possible road connections to the east). Because there are no real viable
alternatives in providing a secondary access to the subdivision, Staff allowed the Developer to present a request
for the single access and longer cul-de-sac roadway.
Pursuant to Title 11-1-9, Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title (i.e. Title 11 –
General Subdivision Provision) can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of the City Code.
To approve this over-length cul-de-sac, a variance to this standard is in order.
Under section 12-1L-5 of City Code: “The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions
of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical
difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter.” Practical difficulties", as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.”
Staff is forgoing a full-breadth analysis on this variance request, due to the simple fact that the City currently
has a number of other residential subdivisions with single-access cul-de-sacs that either exceed 500-feet
throughout the city; and there does not appear to be any reasons given (other than general city council approval)
that these longer cul-de-sacs were given less or more favorable considerations than what is being asked under
this application. For all intents and purposes, the variance can be supported based on the following statements:
1) Practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so the longer cul-de-sac seems a
reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner;
2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection provided when
surrounding properties were being platted; and
3) The variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
When the initial concept plan of this plat was presented to the Fire Dept. for review, the initial statement was
they wanted to see a roadway no more than 500 feet, due to safety concerns and lack of secondary access for
emergency situations. When the Developer met with the city’s Fire Chief and Fire Marshal afterwards, a
reasonable alternative (and solution) was negotiated, in that the Developer has agreed to require all new homes
in this development will have automatic fire sprinkling systems, which although can prove expensive, will
hopefully provide added fire safeguards and response times if needed.
Staff does not object or have any concerns with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac as designed.
Wetland Impacts
A wetland delineation report is currently underway and was not yet completed as the preparation of this report.
Once the report is finished and submitted to the city for review, staff will be able to gage any impacts or assess
any mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete any work in or around the wetlands. The initial
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 10 of 12
grading pans show that most of the new ponding and grading work will be done within the confines of the
newly developed lots.
For any work within 100 feet of this wetland and ponds, a wetlands permit is required for approval. As stated
previously, staff will ensure that all elements of the wetland report are investigated and studied; the wetland
boundaries will be clearly marked and protected during all phases of construction, and no part of the wetlands
will be negatively impacts by this development.
Since the properties located at the end of the cul-de-sac (Lots 9, 10 and 11) extend into or will encompass part
of the pond and wetland areas, Staff is also providing a condition that the developer should provide a 25-foot
wide natural vegetation buffer strip, with no mowing requirements from all delineated edges of wetlands, to
ensure any runoff or pollutants are trapped or impeded as much as possible prior to reaching the wetlands.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, based on the attached findings of
fact with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights, with findings of fact as determined
by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council to approve the Preliminary
Plat of Orchard Heights, with the following conditions:
1. The existing single family dwellings and detached accessory buildings must be removed prior to the
Final Plat being recorded by Dakota County.
2. In lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of
$4,000 per unit (19 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 17 x $4,000/unit, or $68,000) is collected after City
Council approval and before the Final Plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any permits.
3. All new homes within this development shall have an automatic fire sprinkler/fire suppression system,
reviewed and approved by the City Building Official.
4. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of any building
permits.
5. The final grading plan must be submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or land
disturbance permit.
6. Full erosion control plans and measures, including silt fence, bales and/or bio-filtration rolls must be
in place prior to any construction and maintained throughout the duration of project.
7. Streets and utilities shall have approved profiles showing final street grades, horizontal curves, pipe
lengths, pipe slopes, pipe materials, and elevations.
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 11 of 12
8. Street grades in excess of 6% - but no more than 8% are hereby allowed in certain locations as shown
on the submitted Plans. In the event the Plans are revised in the future, the Developer must make every
effort to meet the 6% grade standard along this roadway section. Any changes to the Plans must be
resubmitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
9. The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 30-ft. face-to-face street width as proposed.
10. Plans must be revised on the pond with a 10-ft. depth, whereby City Code permits only an 8-ft.
maximum depth; and the top of the berm around pond shall be 1.5 feet above HWL. All revisions and
new elevations to the plans must be approved by the City Engineer.
11. A SWPPP shall be developed for the project. Protected waters shall have a double silt fence/redundant
BMP per MPCA rules, and a separate NPDES permit is required.
12. The Developer/Applicant shall submit a wetland delineation report to the City for review. Any impacts
or mitigation measures (if needed) in order to complete construction work in or around the wetlands
must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits.
13. No disturbances shall occur within a 25-foot wide wetland buffer, which shall include provisions for
no cutting (non-mowing) and a natural vegetation buffer area around the delineated edges of the
wetland. The buffer strip shall be shown and dedicated on the final plat.
14. Provide treatment from structures 301, 302, 303, 304. The proposed “Rain Guardian” is not an
approved BMP.
15. Final drainage structure along streets shall have a minimum of 3-foot sump (301, 103).
16. Any utilities greater than 20 feet in depth will require council approval.
17. The Developer/Applicant shall provide subsurface drainage, per geotechnical report.
18. Temporary sediment basins will be required during construction.
19. Any proposed retaining wall(s) greater than 4 feet in height require engineered drawings.
20. All Plans shall be reviewed by St. Paul Regional Water Service.
21. The Developer/Applicant shall submit final grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Engineering
Department as part of any building permit application.
22. All grading and construction activity as part of the proposed development 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.
23. Future construction on the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code and
Building Code provisions
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial Site Map
2. Planning Applications, including supporting materials
3. Existing Conditions (Survey) Map
4. Preliminary Plat Map of Orchard Heights
5. Grading & Drainage Plan Map
6. Storm Sewer Plan Map
7. Sanitary Sewer & Water Plan Map
Planning Case 2017-14 Page 12 of 12
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Preliminary Plat, Variance and Wetlands Permit for
Orchard Heights
1136 and 1140 Orchard Place
1. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Title 11 - Subdivision Code; and
meets the general policies and goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan regarding LR-Low Density
Residential areas.
2. The proposed lots meet the minimum standards in the R-1 Zoning District.
3. The City Council accepts the depths of the utility service lines presented under this preliminary plat
request.
4. The Variance for an elongated cul-de-sac roadway section is approved based on the following added
findings:
a. practical difficulties are evident in this proposed development area, so a longer cul-de-sac is
a reasonable request and will be used in a reasonable manner;
b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner, especially the difficulties of not having a secondary access point connection
provided when surrounding properties were being platted; and
c. the variance to allow this longer roadway system will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
4) Any impacts to the wetlands will be determined upon submittal and review of a wetland delineation
report; whereby city staff will ensure any mitigation measures (if needed) to complete work under this
development in or around the wetlands will be done in accordance with State Laws and City
Ordinances.
1136-1140 ORCHARD PLACE
BasemapProperty Information
Ju ne 12, 2017
0 875 1,750437.5 ft
0 270 540135 m
1:9,600
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-15
Request for Wetlands Permit
APPLICANT: Mike Fritz, M & M Homes (on behalf of Bob & Jane Reidell)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 751 Willow Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. Mike Fritz with M & M Homes, acting on behalf of the owners Bob and Jane Reidell, are seeking
approval of a new Wetlands Permit for property located at 751 Willow Lane (see attached property map).
This permit will facilitate the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool, concrete pool deck, small
pool house (accessory structure), and new landscaping (see attached survey and layout plan). All new
construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within a wetland/water resource-
related area requires a wetlands permit.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 25,866 sq. ft., or 0.59 acres in size, and contains an existing (new) single-family
residential dwelling. The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development.
The northwest corner of the subject parcel is traversed by Marie Creek, which is the wetland/water resource
area that necessitates this permit.
On March 24, 2015, Elevation Homes presented a request for Lot Split and Wetlands Permit for the original
property at 747 Willow Lane. This original lot (Lot 4, Somerset Hills) was a 1.2 acre parcel that was
roughly split into two equal sized lots. As indicated previously, the wetlands permit was needed due to the
proximity of Marie Creek to the rear, which requires any development work within 100-feet of said
waterway features must be approved with a wetlands permit.
Planning Case 2017-15 Page 2 of 5
At the April 7, 2015 meeting, the City Council approved the lot split and wetlands permit under Resolution
No. 2015-27 (attached herein).
The first (original) wetlands permit only approved the general layout and expected construction activity of
the two new single family dwellings under the related lot split application. No other activities or
improvements noted under this application were approved in 2015.
The dwelling structure is raised a bit from the front grades coming off Willow Lane. The grades around
the sides of the home are also somewhat steep, and required landscaped boulder walls and terraces between
both neighboring properties. The rear portion of the dwelling has a small sitting area/concrete patio, with
stairs leading down to the current open back yard space, which is where the new swimming pool is planned
to be built. The rear yard slopes away from the back of the home down towards the northwest corner of the
lot, and towards Marie Creek (see photos below):
Planning Case 2017-15 Page 3 of 5
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to:
• Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related
areas;
• Maintain the natural drainage system;
• Minimize disturbance which may 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;
• Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
• Ensure safety from floods.
As shown in the attached survey map, the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area encompasses almost
the upper 1/3 (northerly) portion of the subject parcel. Due to this water resource area, along with the
proposed in-ground pool, deck, pool house and landscaping, all of these new improvements require an
approved wetlands permit.
After construction, all disturbed areas will be restored with new vegetation, including three new white pines
along the back edge of the lot. All necessary erosion control measures will be required prior to start of any
construction work, which will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department as part of the
building permit application.
Stream bank erosion has taken place along Marie Creek in the past. The 25-foot non-disturb buffer area
that is now part of the wetlands permit review process helps to protect stream banks from surface runoff
caused by impervious surfaces. With the non-disturb area in place, erosion is more likely to be caused by
the velocity of water moving within the creek itself than is likely from surface runoff.
As part of the City’s continued efforts to control further erosion in and around the creek and surrounding
properties, the City requested and conditioned under the 2015 Lot Split/Wetlands Permit applications a 25-
foot wide buffer strip from the Marie Creek edge, along with standard (10-ft. and 5-ft.) drainage and utility
easements on the outer perimeter of the new lot. However, it appears through discussions with the
contractor (same as Applicant), that the protective buffer strip easement and drainage/utility easements were
never provided or dedicated prior to the issuance of the new home permit in 2016. The City has once again
re-conditioned the approval of this new Wetlands Permit with the requirement that all easements will be
provided or dedicated prior to the issuance of any new permits for any work requested under this
application.
The City is also requesting a small bond or security be delivered or deposited to the city to ensure all work
covered under this permit approval has been completed to the satisfaction of the city.
Per City Code Title 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, all pool areas must be enclosed with fencing at least five feet
(5') in height, but not exceeding six feet (6'), to prevent uncontrolled access from the street or adjacent
property. The pool site plan does not appear to show a fence or barrier. The Applicant’s plans must be
revised to show said fence.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the subdivision and wetlands permit requests, based on the attached
findings of fact that, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the subdivision and wetlands permit request, based on the finding of fact that
the proposed subdivision and associated construction activities are not consistent with the City
Code or Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3. Table the request.
Planning Case 2017-15 Page 4 of 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit request based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie Creek; along
with a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the front and rear property line; and 5-foot
wide easements along the two side property lines.
2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated
easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any
building permit application.
3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall occur
within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
document.
5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation to be
re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area after construction.
6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of the City Code.
The pol site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations of all fencing.
7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane neighborhood, the
City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its workers to park personal vehicles and/or
equipment in front of the subject property only, or farther down the road at Valley Curve Road and
Willow Lane. Parking in front of neighboring residence shall be discouraged and avoided.
8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall be submitted and
held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all work, to ensure all new
landscaping has survived, the buffer/vegetation strip is well established, easements dedicated, and
necessary restoration work to the site has been completed in accordance with this permit approvals
and City Code standards.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial/Location Property Map
2. Property Survey (2017)
3. Original Lot Split/Wetlands Permit Survey (2015)
4. Swimming Pool and Landscape Plan
5. Planning Application - including supporting materials
Planning Case 2017-15 Page 5 of 5
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool and related Improvements
747 Willow Lane
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the purpose
and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements
will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property
owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed.
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will occur as
part of the proposed construction projects.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
747
755
765
724
737
748
727765
775
720
WILLOW LN
VALLEY CURVE RDDakota County GIS
75 1 W i ll o w L an e(R e i d e l l Res .)City ofMendotaHeights060
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/16/2017
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.
757 Willow Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
N
5’
10’
20’SCALE
POOL
HOUSE
P O O L
entry
G A R A G ED R I V E W A Y
HOUSE
Existing oak
40’Existing creek line vegtation
Qty: 3 Pinus Strobus
white pine
Perennials,
shrubs
& small trees
Quercus ‘Regal Prince’
columnar oak
Amelanch eir
‘autumn brillance’
serviceberry 1224364860