2017-08-22 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
August 22, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approval of July 25, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2017-17: Conditional Use Permit to allow an Over-Height Fence in
the Industrial District, located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road (AllTech Engineering –
Applicant)
b. Case No. 2017-18: Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit to allow
certain construction activities in the Critical Area Overlay District, located at
1275 Knollwood Lane (Landscape Architecture Inc.-Applicant AND Peter & Jen
Eisenhuth – Owners)
c. Case No. 2017-19: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and
Wetlands Permit for the proposed Mendota Heights Apartment Development,
located at 2160 & 2180 Highway 13 (Mike Swenson – Michael Development of
MN, LLC – Applicant)
d. Case No. 2017-20: Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for
the City’s New Ground-Mounted Solar Array Field, located at City Hall , 1101
Victoria Curve (Ideal Energies Solar – Applicant AND City of Mendota Heights
– Owners)
6. Unfinished Business – nothing at this time
7. Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
8. Staff and Commission Announcements
9. 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.
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 of 15
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
July 25, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 25,
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 John
Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Doug Hennes,
Christine Costello
Chair Field introduced Mr. John Mazzitello, who was appointed as commissioner in the spot
vacated by Commissioner Roston. Commissioner Mazzitello provided a brief introduction by
noting that he is the former Public Works Director/City Engineer for the City of Mendota Heights,
has been a resident of Mendota Heights for nine years, and currently works for a regional national
consulting firm running municipal services across six states in 14 offices.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 27, 2017 Minutes
Commissioner Noonan pointed out that on Planning Case #2017-13 Commissioner Hennes did not
move and second the same motion. Staff agreed to make the correction.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2017, AS CORRECTED.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
ABSTAIN: 1 (MAZZITELLO)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-16
PRECISION HOMES, LLC ON BEHALF OF JAMES R. HANSON, 796 SIBLEY
MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Tim Benetti, Community Development Director explained that this request was for a Critical
Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway.
The applicant is Precision Homes, LLC on behalf of the owner, Mr. James R. Hanson. This permit
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 of 15
was to approve the removal of an existing single-family dwelling on two lots. This would allow
for the construction of two brand new dwellings, one on each lot. This is located within the
Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and would require a Critical Area Permit; and the
Conditional Use Permit would be for work on slopes greater than 18%.
Being a public hearing item this was duly noticed and notices were also sent to all of the property
owners within 350 feet of the subject parcels. One comment was received from a neighboring
property owner and an email inquiry from a second residential neighbor.
The subject property is located at the corner of Wachtler and Sibley Memorial Highway (Highway
13) and is described as Lots 7 and 6 of Goodrich Happy Hollow. Lot 6 is 1.08 acres and Lot 7 is
1.19 acres, totaling 2.27 acres of land. The site does contain an existing single-family home just
over 3,400 square feet, constructed in 1952. There is a single driveway off of Sibley Memorial
Highway and is zoned R-1, Residential and guided as Low-Density Residential on the Land Use
Plan.
This site is fairly level on the front edge with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway but
begins an upward slope towards the back half of the property, going from 810 feet to roughly 860
feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with mature trees along with buckthorn, box elder,
and other nuisance growth.
Based on the applicable City Code requirements, the proposed project requires the following
requests:
1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities
2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%
Mr. Benetti provided an amended plan set with the house pads remaining the same from the
original. He also shared the utility plan, grading plan, and noted that a detailed survey had been
completed identifying a certain number of significant trees that would be saved/protected under
this new development plan, along with some removals.
Chair Field asked if staff had ben provided with adequate time to review the revised documents
and were assured that any new grading work would be acceptable and suitable for the site and that
all storm water management would be handled accordingly. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek
indicated that staff has had time to review, and were satisfied with the new plans.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards necessary for issuing a Critical Area Permit and a Conditional
Use Permit and explained how this project, with the revised plan sets, met those standards.
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing Condition 7, noted that the Commission typically does not
see a financial security requirement and asked why there was one in this case. Mr. Benetti replied
that staff wanted to ensure that the work being done, even though they have an expert, was done
appropriately. It was more of a security measure in case they start some work and they decide to
walk away.
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 of 15
Commissioner Magnuson then asked if there were any concerns about the way the driveways are
both coming out onto an intersection, which strikes her as problematic. Mr. Benetti replied that
ideally the driveways would have to be reviewed or approved by the County so if these do not
meet certain distance requirements or site distance requirements, they can require alterations to the
plans.
Chair Field stated that it appeared to him that one of the new driveways was located very near to
the location of the old driveway. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Additional discussions occurred regarding
the location of the driveways; however, the Commission concluded that they are not approving
driveway locations with this application. The applicant would have to satisfy both the State and
the County.
Commissioner Magnuson noted that in a critical overlay the building materials are required to be
of natural character and noted that there is a condition regarding the retaining wall. So, when the
building permits were submitted it was her understanding that staff would also look at the building
materials of the homes being proposed to ensure they comply with the critical area requirements.
Mr. Benetti confirmed.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked why Condition 8, requiring a park dedication fee be paid, was
included when a new lot was not being created. Mr. Benetti replied that it was his understanding
that a park dedication fee was applied on each new residential dwelling. The Commission stated
that park dedication fees are typically only for new lots. Mr. Benetti agreed to remove this
condition.
Commissioner Mazzitello then asked if a new condition could be added that a new critical area
permit be applied for with any new developments on the properties. Mr. Benetti replied that this
would be advisable.
Commissioner Noonan asked, as a follow-up to Commissioner Magnuson, if it was the intention
that, in terms of any lot splits that come forward with new development, which the City would be
asking for a financial security in all cases. It seemed to him that asking for a security deposit in
this case where one had never been asked for previously in similar cases was inappropriate.
Ms. Stephanie Cook, representing Precision Homes, LLC located at 3352 Sherman Court, Suite
202 in Eagan came forward and stated that they are just trying to better the area. She has worked
on this project since the time that it was decided that the property was going to be sold. Right now
Precision Homes, LLC is trying to come in and improve the value, to bring in a nicer finish, and
to clean up the area. They fully intend to cooperate with the City, County, and State and follow
through with all of the procedures that are necessary.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 of 15
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-16, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
SUBJECT TO THE DELETION OF CONDITIONS 7 AND 8
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MADE A SUGGESTION THAT A NEW CONDITION 9 BE
ADDED THAT WOULD STATE, WITH THE PROFESSIONAL WORD SMITHING OF THE
CRACK STAFF, THAT CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW HOME WOULD REQUIRE A
FUTURE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS NECESSARY
Commissioner Noonan agreed to this friendly amendment to his motion.
1. The proposed development of the properties with two separate dwelling structures meets
the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District,
including the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any
significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful
planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant
growth in this area; and provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some
significant trees.
4. The grades in excess of 18% and 40% impacted by the proposed project appear to have
been manmade and will not negatively impact the bluff area or any significant or protected
areas of the subject property or surrounding properties.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or
removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on
each lot.
2. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native
stone materials.
3. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must
be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation
is primarily confined to the silt fenced area noted on the “Existing Conditions, Soils,
Landscaping and Demo Plan” map. Any removals beyond this silt fenced area shall be
limited to buckthorn and other similar but smaller invasive plantings [2” or less caliper
size]. The cutting or clearing of any significant trees beyond the silt fence boundary line,
regardless of variety, is prohibited.
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 of 15
4. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit
review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16
trees projected for removal under this development plan.
5. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading
and construction work activities.
6. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor
and/or landscape company.
7. A financial security of $5,000 ($2,500 per lot) shall be held by the City to ensure all
grading, tree and vegetation removals, and any new landscaping work is performed
according to plans. The security shall be held a minimum of one-year after construction
work on each home has been completed, to ensure all plantings have been established and
survived at least one growing season.
8. A park dedication fee of $4,000 shall be paid at time of the first building permit submittal.
7. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
8. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
9. Construction of any new residence will require a critical area permit or conditional use
permit be applied for, as necessary
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 1, 2017 meeting,
which starts at 8:00 p.m.
Unfinished Business
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-14
MARCEL EIBENSTEINER – ROYAL OAKS REALTY, 1136 AND 1140
ORCHARD PLACE
PRELIMINARY PLAT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT
Chair Litton Field, Jr. explained that the public hearing on this application was closed on this
matter. There had been some discussion with staff and they would provide an update.
Mr. Tim Benetti, Community Development Director recapped what was tabled at the last Planning
Commission meeting. This was a Preliminary Plat of Orchard Heights / Variance / Wetlands
Permit for property owned by Marilyn and David Olin. They are seeking to subdivide an existing
single family parcel into 19 new lots, to be titled Orchard Heights of Mendota Heights. At the June
27, 2017 meeting the public hearing was officially closed; however, the Commission could allow
comments from the public, if they chose, without an official public hearing notice.
The application was tabled with the following reasoning statements:
1. Applicant to consider additional road connections to the subdivision
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 of 15
2. The platting and lot size of the subdivision
3. The findings of the wetland delineation presented to the planning commission for their
understanding; a better description of the stormwater management to address some of the
concerns raised, including the functioning of the pond high-water and the balance of the
pond; and
4. A better understanding and justification for sprinklers to be imposed or included in the new
homes
Since the meeting held on June 27, 2017, staff had met with the developer on two occasions and
there has also been follow-up with emails and direct phone calls. The developer has revised the
plans, which were presented to the Commissioners. The civil plans have also been updated that
staff had some concerns with in the previous version.
Mr. Benetti provided a brief background by explaining that the parcel is just under 13.5 acres, is
currently guided LR – low-density residential, and zoned R-1 Residential. There would be no
changes to the land use or the zoning at this time. The main site had been used as a local apple
orchard for some time and all of the dwellings and outbuildings would be removed to make room
for this new development.
The proposed 18 lots, down from the originally proposed 19 lots, would meet the minimum lot
size requirements. This reduction in the number of lots would also decrease the density per acre
from 1.41 units per acre down to 1.34 units per acre. This would be well under the Comprehensive
Plan maximum of 2.9 units per acre.
Mr. Benetti then shared the revised Grading & Stormwater Drainage Plan, Utility Plan, Street
Design & Variances, and a Statement Justifying the Home Fire Sprinkler Systems; all of which
had been provided in the staff report to the Commissioners prior to this meeting and are available
on the City’s website.
Commissioner Magnuson, referencing the study that was done on the road connection to Mallard
Lane, asked if they were looking at a full 30- to 33-foot road and the attendant 60-foot right-of-
way. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was correct.
Commissioner Magnuson then noted that roads are required to be 33 feet, except based on the City
Engineer’s recommendation. She assumed that this recommendation was based on a good reason
other than the developer’s desire for a 30-foot road. She then asked for the justification here for a
30-foot wide road, other than it would allow the developer to fit in more lots. Public Works
Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the revised street design is for a 33-foot wide roadway without
a variance. However, he would be supportive of a reduced width roadway just due to the decrease
in impervious surface with less stormwater run-off. The traffic volumes on this road should not be
such that cars would not be able to maneuver up and down the road without the worry of head-on
collisions or parked cars being a major concern.
Chair Field, asking for clarification, noted that there is a set of drawings dated July 14, 2017 and
these would reflect a 33-foot road width. The reason for the question was that the staff report did
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 of 15
not track with that. Mr. Benetti apologized for the discrepancy and confirmed that the drawings do
reflect a 33-foot road width, not 30-foot.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the drawings in sheet C2.1 reflected a 30-foot road width.
Mr. Ruzek replied that the road width on sheet C2.2 shows the 33-foot road width. Commissioner
Mazzitello then agreed with Mr. Ruzek’s earlier comment that he would approve a 30-foot wide
road, should the developer wish, due to lower traffic volumes and reduction in impervious surface.
All commissioners agreed that the drawings reflected a typical section road width of 33 feet;
however, the plans and drawings reflected a 30-foot width. Clarification on which is desired is a
question for the applicant.
Commissioner Mazzitello, referring to the examples of other cul-de-sac lengths provided in the
packet, stated that many of them were approved before the cul-de-sac length standard came into
being. However, several of these do have an alternate way out, but not by car. He then asked if it
would be possible to explore the installation of a trail as another egress to the subject property. Mr.
Benetti deferred to the applicant.
Commissioner Magnuson moved to re-open the public hearing to allow for discussion with the
applicant and to allow people present, who did not get an opportunity to speak at the previous
public hearing, a chance to comment.
Commissioner Noonan asked, since the Commission had advanced a motion at the last meeting
specifically asking for consideration of five particular issue areas and the staff report had brought
them forward, if the applicant didn’t have the opportunity to address those five areas outside of a
public hearing. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Magnuson put her motion on hold to allow the applicant to respond to the issues.
The applicant, Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty located at 1000 W. County Road E,
Suite 150 in Shoreview, MN, representing the owners came forward to address the Commission.
He stated that it was practically impossible that the road could be extended to the west to exit onto
Hunter Street, so they stayed with the cul-de-sac design as originally presented.
They gave up one lot on the northwest corner for ponding to allow them to make the storm sewer
shallower. Also, they would be installing a force pump into three of the proposed houses on the
south end of the property to allow for reduction of the sanitary sewer depth.
There had been discussions earlier about stubbing into the east property line a 60-foot right-of-
way; however, staff was not in favor of that.
Commissioner Noonan stated that, in terms of the road connection to Hunter Lane, he had not
heard that staff was not in favor of it. What he had heard was that it was technically difficult
because of the amount of fill and the grading that would have to be done on the adjacent property.
Mr. Eibensteiner agreed this was a fair statement; however, if Mallard Street were to be improved
then they would have to go into the private properties on both sides by approximately 15 to 20
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 of 15
feet. The south side property is owned by the City; however, on the north side all of the trees would
need to be removed [60-foot trees] to build the road up and have a 3-to-1 slope. They would also
have to cross some water, which is approximately 12-inches deep currently, and that would take
the Army Corp of Engineers to be involved. Unless the property to the north were to allow some
sort of acquisition, it would be impossible; and even if it were possible it would take approximately
1.5+ years to accomplish.
Commissioner Noonan noted that an individual previously had suggested that, in the fullness of
time, the likelihood would be that they would develop a lesser number of lots. Mr. Eibensteiner
agreed that this was mentioned; however, he has a couple of buyers that might take two lots or 1.5
lots. They have decided to move forward with the request for 18 lots as they do not want to promise
that they would or could reduce the number of lots. If a buyer comes along and wants to purchase
1.5 lots, then the developer can come back and request to split the lots and vacate the easements.
Commissioner Magnuson asked who would be responsible for maintaining the force pumps. Mr.
Ruzek replied that they would be privately owned and noted that they would not be unique to this
development as there are other force pumps located within the City. However, the holding ponds
would be located in the drainage and utility easements and maintenance would be addressed in the
Developers Agreement. Typically the maintenance would fall back onto the City.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the previously abandoned discussion of a road connection to
Mallard Road were changed from a full-width street to a 10-foot wide trail, would that be more in
the realm of possibility. Mr. Eibensteiner replied that he would not be in favor of that.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAZZITELLO, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW ANYONE WHO DID
NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AT THE LAST MEETING TO
PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
Mr. Scott Cottington, 1151 Orchard Circle, stated that Mr. and Mrs. Olin are good neighbors and
they have every right to sell their land and do well on the transaction. Developers who see potential
and take risks and build homes are entitled to their profit. He would support the Olin’s and
reasonable development; however, this plan is not reasonable development. The developer wants
the City to grant him the maximum number of lots and also a variance to jam them onto a road
with only one outlet; that is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood, which is
something that needs to be taken into consideration when granting a variance.
The Commission suspects, as does he, that if 18 houses are approved then 18 houses will be built
because those smaller homes are how developers and real estate agents make the most money with
the fastest turn over and the least risk.
He also submitted, based on the Commission’s own life experiences, that Mr. Benetti’s traffic
estimates of 6 to 8 trips per household per day seems very low. The City of Apple Valley’s website
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 of 15
states that active households can generate up to 20 trips per day. With this estimate, plus the
number of cars from Orchard Circle located nearby and the number of cars just passing through
the neighborhood, the number of trips per day dumping onto Orchard Place could be up to 500+
cars per day – onto a 30-foot wide street with no sidewalks, no bike lanes, no street lights, or even
a center line. He urged the Commission to use their authority to get better answers than what has
been provided.
Mr. Cottington then quoted City Ordinance 12-1D-17A as saying “An applicant for any proposed
development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing
or planned land use may be required to conduct or submit a recently completed traffic study, at the
cost of the applicant and prepared by a licensed engineer, analyzing existing and proposed traffic
patterns of the surrounding area for review and comment as part of any permit application.” He
suggested the requirement of a traffic study be enforced prior to acting on this proposed
development plan.
The developer claims there are no alternatives to a single entrance onto Orchard Place, 43 yards
from Orchard Circle, and if that is the case perhaps the project should be changed to provide for
less density, less traffic, and a safer intersection. He believes this project should not be approved
as is because of too many unanswered questions, denying the plans means it would simply go to
the City Council and they would not have had the benefit of all of the input received by the
Commission; the best option would be for the Commission to use their authority to force the
development of a better plan, with fewer lots, and less traffic. He urged the Commission to rule
only on what they must, and table all they can, to allow time for people to work this out.
He stated that the Commission would have his and his neighbor’s commitment to do all that they
could to move this along so that the Olin’s could sell their property and Mr. Eibensteiner could
build a good neighborhood.
Mr. Bob Fogt, 1145 Orchard Place, noted that this project fills his living room window. He
referenced the discussions had on the length of this cul-de-sac but has not heard any mention made
about the situations that are unique to winter access over a grade that is as steep as this. He believed
that the importance of this issue, pertaining to winter access, is being downplayed. He also pointed
out that there are no other alternatives to driving up this steep grade in the winter; it cannot be
driven around. He provided commentary about witnessing vehicles unable to get up the hill, or
struggling to do so. Some folks have even packed into his driveway to get a running start to make
it up the hill. He was just happy that he had not seen any emergency vehicles trying to navigate
that hill in the winter.
Commissioner Noonan asked Mr. Fogt if he would feel more comfortable with the street being
maintained by the City with sand, ice removal techniques, and plowing. Mr. Fogt stated that he
would be more comfortable in that situation.
Mr. John Huberty, 1140 Orchard Circle, noted that he is the father of two bike riders without
training wheels. He echoed the sentiments made by Mr. Cottington; however, 18 homes in the area
seems high and recommended limitations to that if possible. Chair Field replied that legally 18
homes would be permissible and the zoning would permit that. Mr. Huberty noted that the
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 of 15
allowances being made (i.e., street widths) need to be balanced appropriately and expressed his
concern with the increase in traffic volume.
Ms. Nancy Bartusch, 1890 Hunter Lane, noted that the trees shown in the presentation were planted
by her 27 years ago and she is not interested in taking them down or in selling her property. She
also noted that it has been very nice and quiet where they are and would like for it to remain so.
Mr. Eibensteiner returned and noted that he is aware that there is traffic in the area; however, he
can build up to 18 homes. As for the grading, the top of the hill will come down approximately 12
or 13 feet thus reducing the slope. He did not feel that this would be as much of a concern as was
expressed.
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification on the width of the proposed road. Mr. Eibensteiner
deferred to his engineer, Mr. Adam Ginkel of Plowe Engineering, Inc. located at 6776 Lake Drive
in Lino Lakes. Mr. Ginkel replied that he may have made an error and mislabeled the road;
however, the intent was to install the standard 33-foot width and he would have no objection to
staff modifying the plans to read 33 feet.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAZZITELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING
CASE 2017-14, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS / VARIANCE /
WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:
• Condition 2 should read “In lieu . . . ” instead of “In lies . . . ”
• Delete Condition 3
• Modify Condition 9 to read “The City Engineer recommends the city allow the 33-foot
face-to-face street width as proposed”
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Benetti noted that the math in Condition 2 should be corrected to be “. . . (18 lots – 2 existing
dwellings = 16 x $4,000/unit, or $64,000) . . .”
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING
CASE 2017-14, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ORCHARD HEIGHTS / VARIANCE /
WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED A SUFFICIENT BASIS NOR MET HIS BURDEN OF
PROOF IN ESTABLISHING A VARIANCE FOR A 954 FOOT CUL-DE-SAC IS
WARRANTED.
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 of 15
This motion died for lack of a second.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-14, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
ORCHARD HEIGHTS / VARIANCE / WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
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.
5. 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.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISED 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 lieu lies of land dedication, the Developer/Applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in
the amount of $4,000 per unit (19 18 lots – 2 existing dwellings = 17 16 x $4,000/unit, or
$68,000 $64,000) 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.
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
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 12 of 15
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. [deleted as a friendly amendment by Commissioner Mazzitello as being
unnecessary since the street width would then meet the standard]
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
Discussion: Commissioner Mazzitello stated that it appears that the length of the cul-de-sac is a
huge issue with this proposed development, and having been through this on several different
applications in the past, he had a brief exchange with the Police Chief and Chief McCarthy is not
overly concerned with the length of the cul-de-sac for emergency response. If emergency
responders need to get somewhere, they tend to get there. His bigger concern is the ability for
people to get out in case of an emergency. He requested the opinion of the other Commissioners
on this point.
Chair Field stated that as the motion currently stands, he would vote in opposition. He is not only
reminded of the Lemay Shores development, but also of Hidden Creek, which was developed in
2001. The developers, at considerable expense, bought an outlot that they completely dedicated to
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 13 of 15
the City with no residences whatsoever to avoid the cul-de-sac issue – which is now Nature Way.
He would be willing to look at some sort of entrance and egress at the other end; however, as it is
currently proposed he would not support the motion.
Commissioner Magnuson agreed with Chair Field in that she would not support the motion either.
Her primary concern is that she does not believe that the applicant has met his burden of
demonstrating the appropriateness of a variance. She does not believe that there are practical
difficulties and to the extent that there are, she believes them to be created by the proposed
development itself. They may be overcome with some modifications, including some type of
egress or some other type of access – perhaps even in the reduction in the number of parcels. This
plan, as proposed, does not meet the practical difficulty standard.
She continued by stating that a third issue that needs to be addressed is the affect this development
would have on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. She did not believe that this
development, as proposed, is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Noonan respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Magnuson by expressing that
he believes they have met the burden for the variance. The practical difficulty is the size and shape
of the property, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that an individual does have the right
to develop their property. The fact is that the property is long and narrow, is zoned to allow R-1
Residential, there was a recognition both in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and in terms of the
Zoning Ordinance that this land would eventually be developed. If there were concerns with
respect to the intensity of development, he would submit that the Comprehensive Plan would have
reflected revised standards.
In terms of meeting the practical difficulty of providing a secondary means of egress and ingress,
the Commission heard very clearly from the neighbor that she is not interested in selling any of
her property to allow for the cutting of a road. He shares Commissioner Mazzitello’s concern about
people getting in and out in the case of an emergency; however, he believed that if an emergency
situation existed, backyards would be a tremendous way out. He has a hard time making fire
sprinklers mandatory; however, that is a fundamental belief that he had based on his experience as
a builder. He plans to support this motion to approve.
Chair Field noted that he does not believe that Commissioner Mazzitello’s solution to the
secondary access is a reasonable solution; however, some sort of egress method of much less
intensity is more what he would suggest at this point. He reiterated that during the Hidden Creek
project they spent a lot of money to solve this problem.
AYES: 2 (NOONAN, PETSCHEL)
NAYS: 3 (MAZZITELLO, FIELD, MAGNUSON)
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 1, 2017 meeting,
which begins at 8:00 p.m.
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 14 of 15
Update on Approved or Pending Developments
Mr. Tim Benetti, Community Development Director gave the following updates:
• The Trammell Crow Group out of Chicago held a very well attended public information
meeting at St. Paul United Methodist Church on The Village lots. They are proposing the
four-story, 150 unit, active senior living development on that site. They are still pressing
forward with the application. This item will probably be on next months Planning
Commission meeting agenda.
In response to a question from Chair Field, Mr. Benetti stated that there would be a healthy
group in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff assured the group that the
same quarter mile radius of residents would be informed of the meeting as was informed
of the public information meeting and that they would also be informed of any subsequent
meetings with the City Council.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification that this property is the vacant property
to the north of the medical hospital.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the Council had indicated that they would be willing to
sell to Trammel Crow. Mr. Benetti confirmed that the Council did cancel the Letter of
Intent with them with the understanding that they would still allow Trammel Crow to re-
tweak the plans and still work presenting their plans to the public and also work on
finalizing a proposed traffic study. He also noted that the audience at the public
information meeting was not very receptive.
• Precision Homes, LLC will be submitting another Critical Area Permit for a new spec or
model home at the August Planning Commission meeting
Commissioner Petschel asked if this application needed to go to the DNR before going to
the City Council. Mr. Benetti replied that it already has, as well as to the City of Lilydale,
and St. Paul Parks Department. The DNR had do concerns and no responses were received
from the City of Lilydale or from St. Paul Parks Department.
• Two other items on the agenda include a Critical Area Permit for a tear-down and rebuild
off of Knollwood Lane; and a Conditional Use Permit for All-Tech Engineering to build
a higher than 6-foot high fence for security reasons
• The City Council overturned the Recommendation of Approval on Planning Case 2017-
11. This required a super majority (four-fifths vote) and it only received a three-fifths vote.
• Planning Cases 2017-12, 2017-13, and 2017-15 were all approved as recommended by the
Planning Commission
Staff and Commission Announcements
July 25, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 15 of 15
Chair Field asked that Mr. Benetti include in his staff reports a wider aerial view of the subject
parcel showing all of the adjacent land uses. Mr. Benetti agreed to do so.
National Night Out is scheduled for Tuesday, August 1, 2017.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:38 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (HENNES, COSTELLO)
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-17
Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Alltech Engineering
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2515 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial
ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Alltech Engineering is seeking a conditional use permit to erect an eight-foot tall security fence on a portion
of their industrial based property. Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code requires a conditional use permit for
fences over six (6) feet in the Business and Industrial Districts.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. Notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments have been received.
BACKGROUND
Alltech Engineering has been serving customers as an industrial contractor since 1973. Alltech’s home
office is located in Mendota Heights, with separate office located in Arlington, TX. Alltech serves over
1,200 clients in 39 states and nations, including Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico. The company primarily
utilizes members of the Millwright Trade to accomplish its projects. The company is active in all types of
industrial construction that have machinery installation or maintenance included in the project scope.
The subject parcel consists of 4.34 acres (189,067 square feet) and contains an existing 32,106 sf.
office/warehouse building located on the southwest corner of the Pilot Knob Road/Mendota Heights Road
intersection. The Northland Drive Business Center building is located to the immediate west; and Pilot
Knob Business Center to the immediate south. The parcel is zoned and guided I-Industrial.
The applicant is proposing to erect an eight foot (8’) high steel framed fence around the back loading dock
area on the south side of the main building, due in large part for security reasons. There are two access
points leading to the back parking and loading areas, with one access onto Mendota Heights Road and the
other off Pilot Knob Road.
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 2 of 8
Alltech Engineering stated in their letter of intent: “….a 6’ fence does not serve as a proper deterrent for
the types of criminal activity that have taken place on our property over the last few years. Alltech
Engineering has had numerous thefts on our property at night when no employees are present. These thefts
include; scrap steel, equipment, tires, tailgates, and most recently an employee’s truck. These thefts are
costly to our company, not only in terms of replacement costs, but also employee and management time.
Our fence will be a high-end fence, in terms of quality. This will help us preserve our well maintained
property’s presence on Pilot Knob Road and in the city of Mendota Heights.”
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
Fencing Standards
According to Title 12-1D-6-C-2 of the City Code, regarding fences in Business and Industrial Districts:
Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and with
a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.
The proposed fence does not include the security arm for barbed wire, but will exceed the 6-foot standard.
A horizontal mechanical rolling gate, with a low (passenger vehicles) and high (semi-truck) level security
access pads planned for each driveway entrance into this back loading area. These gates will be left open
during the day, and closed and secured after normal business hours.
According to Title 12-1D-13-2-E of the City Code, regarding screening and buffering in the Business and
Industrial Districts:
External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view from
contiguous properties and adjacent streets, except at access points.
Types Of Screening Or Buffering; Opacity: Required screening or buffering may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. The screen shall provide a
minimum opacity of ninety percent (90%) during all seasons.
As indicated in the aerial and Google Street photos below, the existing loading dock area is not entirely
screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, as is the case with numerous properties in the
Industrial District developed prior to the above-referenced standards being adopted.
The existing loading dock area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets,
as is the case with numerous properties in the Industrial District developed prior to the above-referenced
standards being adopted. As shown in the attached photos, the loading dock area is screened by existing
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 3 of 8
vegetation from Pilot Knob Road. While not “completely screened,” it certainly provides some significant
screening/buffering from this adjacent roadway.
.
Looking West into the Site – from Pilot Knob Road
As shown in this photo below, the rear loading dock area is not entirely screened or visible from Mendota
Heights Road, but is screened effectively by the building itself.
Looking South into the Site – from Mendota Hts. Road
Applicant Proposal
The applicant is proposing the very open “Classic” picket rail fence style as shown in the image below.
This fence provides very little screening as called for under the City Code. Because the current site has
been without any vegetative or structural measures (i.e. up to 90%) for a long time, it must be determined
if the proposed fence would be acceptable, and the screening measures per City Code can be waived or not
made part of this application.
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 4 of 8
If the Planning Commission feels that a screen of 90% or more must be attained, then the Applicant will
have to adjust or offer to provide a new version or style of security fence that meets this standard. The
fence could be modified with tighter (narrower) spindles; or some type of fabric screen or metal mesh screen
could be added, but these added features would likely take away from the overall nice appearance and
quality of the new fence, and is not recommended by Staff.
The Applicant stated this 8-ft. high fence style was chosen not only for their need in protecting their property
and added security measures, but more for the high quality finish and appearance, which Planning Staff
wholeheartedly agrees. Screening can also be attained in the form of berms, landscaping and vegetation,
such as evergreen trees or similar varieties that provide year-round coverage. However, it will take a lot of
trees on this site to make this 90% screen effective.
For all intents and purposes, the loading dock area that they are seeking to fence off is not visible or adjacent
to any residential areas (either single family or multi-family); and the only adjoining properties are all
similar industrial and/or office/warehouse uses that have unscreened loading or storage areas. Staff would
tend to believe or surmise that these surrounding uses should not be too concerned of the higher screening
opacity screening on the new fence; and therefore Staff is inclined to support the proposed security fence
presented, without added measures or meeting the complete 90% opacity standard.
CUP Standards
According to Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code, the following are to be taken into consideration upon
review of a conditional use permit request:
• The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands;
• existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
• the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, the following standards must be met:
• The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
• will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
• will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
• the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
In staff’s opinion, both the applicant’s proposal and staff’s recommendation meet the applicable standards
for granting a conditional use permit and would improve the overall appearance of the industrial property
while providing the desired security and screening.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approval of the conditional use permit request, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions;
2. Denial of the conditional use permit request, based on the finding of fact that the request is not
compliant with the applicable City Code standards; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in
compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 5 of 8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed 8-foot high security fence, based
on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction.
2. The fence shall be located entirely on private property.
3. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become
and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private.
Attachments
1. Applicant Letter of Intent
2. Site Plan / Fence Layout
3. General Fence Information
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 6 of 8
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit
2515 Pilot Knob Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the conditional use permit request in this
case:
1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening the
loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the property
owner.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The existing mature vegetation along Pilot Knob Road right-of-way increases the
screening/buffering of the subject property from this adjacent roadway; and any visual impacts
experienced form Northland Drive along the north side will be reduced by the physical screening
offered by the existing building.
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 7 of 8
2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD – SITE PHOTOS
Looking West – from Pilot Knob Rd.
From Pilot Knob Rd. Entrance
Looking West – from Pilot Knob
Loading Area
Back Lot Line w/ Berm & Pavilion (to be removed) Looking southerly – neighbor’s loading area/berm
Planning Case 2017-17(AllTech) Page 8 of 8
Loading Area Looking southeasterly – back pond
Looking Easterly – Side Entrance of Business
Looking Easterly – Side Entrance of Business
July 27, 2017
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Letter of Intent – 8’ Fence
Attn: Planning Commission and City Council,
Alltech Engineering is asking for a conditional use permit in order to install an 8’ high fence, as
opposed to a 6’ high fence that is allowed in city code. It is our belief that a 6’ fence does not
serve as a proper deterrent for the types of criminal activity that have taken place on our
property over the last few years.
Alltech Engineering has had numerous thefts on our property, at night when no employees are
present. These thefts include; scrap steel, equipment, tires, tailgates, and most recently an
employee’s truck. These thefts are costly to our company, not only in terms of replacement
costs, but also employee and management time. We have filled out multiple police reports
documenting those thefts.
Our fence will be a high end fence, in terms of quality. This will help us preserve our well
maintained property’s presence on Pilot Knob Road and in the city of Mendota Heights.
Thank you for your consideration,
Chris Lawrence
Operations Manager
Alltech Engineering Corp
Main: 651-452-7893
Direct: 651-675-4846
Fax: 651-452-5592
Cell: 612-812-6503
www.alltechengineering.com
2515 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 452-7893 Fax (651) 452-5592
www.alltechengineering.com
www.ameristarfence.com
WELDED COMMERCIAL ORNAMENTAL STEEL FENCE
INVINCIBLE™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
j
j
j
GENESIS™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
4" Standard or 3" Pet, Pool & Play Picket Air-Space
j
j
j
j
MAJESTIC ™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
4" Standard or 3" Pet, Pool & Play Picket Air-Space
j
j
j
j
CLASSIC™
7' or 8' Heights
3-Rail or 4-Rail Panels
Extended Picket Panels
4" Standard or 3" Pet, Pool & Play Picket Air-Space
j
j
j
j
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® | Welded Commercial Ornamental Steel Fence
GATE OPTIONS
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® SWING GATES
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® ARCHED GATES
ESTATE ® STEEL ENTRY GATES
TRANSPORT ® CANTILEVER GATES
PASSPORT ®ROLL GATES
j
j
j
j
j
POOL, PET & PLAY ™
Improved Panel Strength & Durability
Increased Safety & Security for Children & Pets
j
j
COLOR OPTIONS ADORNMENTS
BLACK BRONZE QUAD FLARE ROYALTY BUTTERFLY SCROLL DOUBLE RINGSBALL CAPTRIAD
PICKETS RAILS POSTS
¾"sq. x 14 ga.1½" x 1½" x 14 ga.2½" x 14 ga.
Learn more online at ameristarfence.com or by calling 888-333-3422MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® | Welded Commercial Ornamental Steel Fence
Montage Commercial is manufactured
from nearly 96% recycled steel
20 Year Warranty backed by proven
excellence for over 30 years
CLASSIC ™MAJESTIC ™GENESIS ™
MONTAGE COMMERCIAL ® | Welded Commercial Ornamental Steel Fence
www.ameristarfence.com | 888-333-3422
1555 N. Mingo Rd. | Tulsa, Oklahoma 74116
Part #9821 | Revised 05/2013
Acrylic Topcoat
Epoxy Primer
Zinc Phosphate
Galvanic Zinc
Fully rakeable panelsStair-stepping panels
Ameristar's world headquarters, manufacturing & coil processing facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.LEGEND
★ Ameristar Headquarters
● Sales & Service Centers
PROFUSION WELDING
ECOAT FINISH
Superior Strength
No Visible Rivets or Screws
Design Allows Panels to Follow the Grade
Protection Inside and Out
Maintenance-Free Finish
Long-Term Durability
j
j
j
j
j
j
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-18
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Landscape Architecture, Inc.
(on behalf of Peter & Jennifer Eisenhuth Property Owner)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1275 Knollwood Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the removal
of an existing single family dwelling currently situated on the lot, and further allow the construction of a
new single family residence on the lot. The subject property is located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, which is
located partly within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires approval of the proposed
project before any building permit can be issued.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No objections have been received by the city.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a large 1.73 acre parcel, with a 4,037 sq. ft. single family residence. The site contains
a single access, curved driveway from Knollwood Lane, which is scheduled to be relocated. The property
owners intend to remove the existing residential dwelling, and replace with a new, modern-style
architectural home (as illustrated on the attached architectural plans).
Related to this dwelling removal and replacement, additional grading work and tree removal will take place,
with some grading work in and around the bluff-line setbacks areas, and some grading and removal work
outside the critical area overlay district boundaries. Any parcel that lies within the critical area district,
whether partial or whole, is subject to the rules and standards established under Title 12-3-1 of City Code.
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 2 of 9
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Owners will replace the older home with new, modern style home as shown in the site plan below, and
the architectural image on the next page.
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 3 of 9
Based on the applicable City Code requirements, the proposed project requires the following requests:
1. Critical Area Permit for general construction activities.
2. Conditional Use Permit to disturb slopes between 18-40%.
Approval of this critical area permit would allow the developer to remove the older dwelling, commence
grading and tree removal work; and allow the construction of the new home on the lot. There are areas in
and around the new house pad sites that contain slopes greater than 18%, which will be affected by this
new construction work. According to Title 12-3-14-B of the City Code, any work in sloped area between
18% and up to 40% requires a conditional use permit approval.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Under the 2030 Plan’s Future Land Use section, there is a sub-section dedicated to “Infill Sites” – which
although this property is not an infill site per se’, there are a number of objectives and policies for
consideration of development in identifiable sensitive areas, noted as follows:
• Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision
regulations.
• Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties.
• Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing
environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors.
• Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing.
• Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect
a “spot-zoning” pattern.
It is Staff’s belief the Applicant’s request to construct a new single family dwelling is consistent with the
2030 Comp Plan and the related future land use plan for this area.
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 4 of 9
Critical Area Permit
The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay
District.
Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
• Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource
• Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public
areas; and
• Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential
element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems
Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements:
No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for
any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared
and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required
Title 12-3-8: Development Standards:
The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment
of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance
the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to
prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground
water.
• Setbacks.
No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river.
The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic
reasons. The plans indicate a “Bluff-Line Setback” line, which appears to be offset by 40 feet from the
established bluff line. The new house is setback an additional 30-feet +/- from the 40-ft. bluff setback
line. The house also has an approx. 61 foot setback from Knollwood Lane (at its closest point with
attached garage corner).
• Height limits.
• R-1 District: 12-1-E.D (3): Structure Height: No structure or building shall exceed two (2)
stories or twenty five feet (25') in height, whichever is the lesser in height….”
• Critical Area Overly: 12-3-8.C: “All new structures shall be limited to thirty five feet…”
The Owner/Applicants have provided very detailed plans of the new home, which illustrate the home will
be built at 24’- 10” – which would meet the underlying R-1 zone standard of the 25-foot height limitations.
• Retaining Wall
The existing home has two separate retaining walls situated on each side of the tuck-under garage; and
smaller wing walls leading up towards the back yard area. The home also has a large stepped or terraced
features made of large stone and rocks along the front elevation, which are used to contain a garden
plantings.
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 5 of 9
The proposed development plan does not include any retaining walls at this time; instead, the plans show
newly graded yards that complete a gradual sloped yard connections between the front and side yard areas
to the rear yard, which would accommodate the walk out portion of the home (see image below).
The Commission should also be aware the plans identify a “Building/Ruin Wall” structure near the south
edge of the property (along Knollwood Lane). These brick and concrete block ruins appear to be from
either an old dwelling or barn foundation, and are slated to be left alone under this new home project.
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 6 of 9
Title 12-3-14: Process for Construction on Property within the Critical Area:
Critical Area Permit: The construction of any building or structure, or the alteration of any land
consisting of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of fill or excavation, shall require a critical
area permit from the city council.”
The grading and land alteration to accommodate these two new dwelling structures are likely to consist of
more than 100 cubic yards; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required.
Title 12-3-9-F Vegetation Management
The Applicant also provided a detailed Tree Removal Plan for review. The plan identifies three areas for
tree and vegetation removals. The first area is near the back edge of the bluff line, which is inside the
critical area boundary line, and includes 3 green ash; a boxelder; 2 blue spruce; an elm; 2 concolor firs; and
a hackberry tree, along with some buckthorn. Near the upper north side of the lot, 3 Colorado spruces will
be removed, which are also identified by the certified arborist/landscape architect s being in “poor health”.
The third area is identified near the south edge along Knollwood Lane, which includes 2 blue spruces;
lilacs, and elm, 2 ash, 2 boxelders, and some more buckthorn. This third area is targeted due to the location
of the new driveway the owners wish to have installed under this plan. The middle of the site includes the
removal of an 18” blue spruce; a 13” maple; and a 34” basswood, which must be removed for the location
of the new dwelling. The two large majestic oak trees near the north area of the home are to be saved.
Only one tree, an Autumn Gold Ginkgo tree is planned for the site (in the new driveway circle); along with
some new shrubs and planting around the outer edges of the new home.
The removal of over 24 mature trees (regardless of species or health), and plans to install just one single
replacement tree (the 2.5” Ginkgo) does not seem equitable under this proposed development plan.
Therefore, Staff would recommend the Applicant provide an updated and more reasonable tree replacement
plan, which can be considered part of the conditions of approval, which would meet the spirit and intent of
vegetation management within this critical area. Staff would suggest the Planning Commission provide
feedback and comments to the Applicant/Owners on what this replacement plan should include, and ensure
any updated plan will meet your satisfaction.
Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management:
The subject lot appears to have 10-foot dedicated drainage and utility easement along the north and west
edges of the lot, but nothing along the south or east lines.
The most-outer edges of the lot should not be affected by much grading work, with most the new drainage
ways being created under the installation of the new circular driveway near the front of the house; and the
two uniform sloped areas leading away from the south and west sides of the new home. The plan calls for
the westerly one-half of the site to drain naturally back towards the bluff line area; while the remaining
easterly one half is planned to drain outward towards Knollwood Lane. IN both cases, the areas where
surface water is intended to drain is or will remain heavily vegetated, and should be able to withstand any
new stormwater drainage to these areas.
Public Works/Engineering has reviewed the application and does not foresee this new grading plan being
an issue or cause of problems to any neighboring properties or any negative or damaging effect to the nearby
critical area.
Conditional Use Permit
As noted on the Grading Plan, there are some areas that will be replaced with grades ranging from 2:1 up
to 4:1 in some places. Pursuant to Title 12-3-14-B:
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 7 of 9
Any affected activity requiring a critical area permit on slopes greater than eighteen percent (18%) but
less than forty percent (40%) shall require a conditional use permit, and shall be required to meet the
procedural and performance requirements of this section. Conditional use permits under this chapter
shall be considered as follows:
2. On lots where a principal building was present as of September 1, 2006, only accessory or
incidental structures shall be allowed under this clause on slopes greater than eighteen percent
(18%). Examples of such structures include fences, retaining walls, landscape elements, decks
and patios, or similar structures.
The proposed project will disturb slopes between 18% and 40% and the existing principal building was
present prior to 2006. Therefore, a conditional use permit is required for construction of the proposed home
and associated soil disturbance activities.
This same chapter identifies specific and required standards that must be met in order to allow said grades
and work in these areas under Title 12-3-16, which are noted as follows:
A conditional use permit may be granted only when the following findings are made, in addition to
those conditions listed in this zoning ordinance:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the critical area order and the city's comprehensive
plan;
B. The proposed use is compatible with uses in the immediate vicinity; and
C. The proposed use is allowed under the applicable ordinances of the city of Mendota Heights.
D. Any request for a conditional use permit shall include, in addition to other required public notice,
a notification to the appropriate Minnesota department of natural resources staff for review and
comment.
For all intents and purposes, the grading plan as presented appears to be generally consistent with the rules
and standards established under the critical area district and comprehensive plan; and the proposed use will
be consistent and compatible with other single family uses in the area.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no comments.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the
property located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property
located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet
certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the
site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an
additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 8 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit requests for the property
located at 1275 Knollwood Lane, based on the attached findings of fact, and with the following conditions:
1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or removal of
any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on each lot.
2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
3. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree and/or vegetation replacement plan that provides a
reasonable and equitable replacement of trees to be removed under this new development plan.
5. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be
performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation is primarily
confined to the areas identified on the “Tree Removal Plan” as submitted under this joint
application.
6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
7. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor and/or
landscape company.
8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.
9. The final design and location of the new (relocated) driveway must be approved by the City
Engineer; and any portion of the existing driveway that is removed within the Knollwood Lane
right-of-way and inside the subject property must repaired and restored accordingly.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent
2. Aerial/Location map
3. Full Site & Grading Plans
4. Architectural Plans
Planning Case 2017-18 (Eisenhuth) Page 9 of 9
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
1275 Knollwood Lane
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed development of the property with two a new single-family residential structure meets
the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including
the additional conditional use permit standards.
3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any significant
trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful planting provides
a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant growth in this area; and
provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees.
4. The proximity of the new home from the bluff line, along with all new [proposed] grades for this
site, will ensure that no stormwater drainage will negatively impact neighboring residents; and help
lessen any erosion or future degradation of the nearby bluff and critical corridor area.
5. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if
done carefully and professionally.
WACHTLER AVE1ST AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYEMERSON AVE
MEDORA RDKNOLLWOOD LNCLEMENT STCASCADE
L
NW O O D R I D G E D R
M A P L E P A R K C T
SYLVANDALE CT
M E D O R A C T
SYLVANDALE CT S
KNOL
L
WOOD
L
NDakota County GIS
1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE(Eisenhuth Residence)City ofMendotaHeights0400
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/15/2017
2350 BAYLESS PLACE • ST. PAUL, MN • 55114
PHONE: 651.646.1020 • EMAIL: STEPHEN@LAN D ARCINC.COM
JULY 28, 2017
Property Address: 1275 Knollwood Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
LETTER OF INTENT & REPORT: Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
Intent:
Remove existing home and replace with new home per drawings attached.
Report Summary:
Plant Community Analysis: Flora & Fauna on-site is comprised average woodland
typical of this area comprised of mostly non-native and native early successional
ruderals - A ruderal species refers to any plant that is the first to colonize land
after a disturbance removing competition. A few nice older growth trees with
some oaks exist on-site and those trees will be preserved.
Existing Structures: The existing home to be removed to make way for new home.
The existing barn/shed foundation in the wooded area to be left with no
enhancements at this time.
Soils Analysis: Soils are defined as Loam / Silt Loam – per site visit observations
and our experience working in this part of Medota Heights with similar
topography, plant material and proximity to the river.
Loam – A soil texture with moderate amounts of sand, silt, and clay, sometimes in
nearly equal proportions. Good texture for farming and gardening.
Silt – Soil particles in between sand and clay in size. Silt feels like flour (smooth and
velvety). Also refers to a soil texture that consists of at least 80% silt particles.
Summary of Stormwater Management: Drainage patterns are consistent to what
currently exists on-site. The big change from is that our proposed home and
hardcover has been greatly reduced to about 70% of hardcover that exists on-
site at the current time.
SINCERELY,
STEPHEN MASTEY, ASLA, LEED AP
Lilydale
Som ersetElementarySchool DODD RD!(4
ASPEN WAYBIRCH CTRIVERSIDE LN
WACHTLER AVE3RD AV ESYLVANDALE RDLAURA STIV
Y HILL D
R
VANDALL STMEDORA RDIVY FALLS AVE
W OODRIDGE DRC
H
E
R
R
Y
H
IL
L
R
D
FARMDALE RDKNOLLWOOD LNMAPLE PARK DRARCADIA DRCLEMENT STIVY FALLS C TLAU RA C T
M A P L E P A R K C T
BUTLER AVE
SUNSET LN
K
N
O
L
L
W
O
O
D L
N 2ND AVE
1ST AVE
B R O O K S ID E L N
B R O O K S ID E L N
B R O O K S ID E L N
CLEMENT STCASCADE LNCASCADE LNBROMPTO
N
P
L
SYLVANDALE CTFALLS VIEW CTKNOLLW
OOD CT
SOMERSET CTM E D O R A C T
SYLVANDALE CT S
IVY LNVA LLE Y LN
E M E R S O N A V E
.
City of Mendota Heights
CRITICAL AREA MAP
Minnesota
PUBLIC BUILDING
SCHOOL
SECTION LINE
CITY BOUNDARY
LAKE/RIVER
CRITICAL AREA
OTHER MUNICIPALITY
Last updated November 2006City of Mendota Heights Engineering Departmentx:\gis\criticalarea\criticalarea.mxd
^`
!(
Sources:City of Mendota HeightsDakota County Surveying &Land Information Department
08.25.17
01
Material Selections: Precedent Images
NA
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
08.25.17
02
Material Selections: Precedent Images
NA
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
08.25.17
03
Material Selections: Precedent Images
NA
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
08.25.17
04
NA
Material Selections: Southeast View
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
08.25.17
05
NA
Material Selections: Southwest View
DRAWING NO:
DATE:
www.charlieandcodesign.com212 3rd Avenue N. Suite 356 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.333.2246
EISENHUTH RESIDENCE
SCALE:
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-19
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
Applications for New Mendota Heights Apartment Development
APPLICANT: Michael Swenson, Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2180 and 2160-2164 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Hwy.)
[Mendota Motel and Larson Garden Center sites]
ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2017
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Mike Swenson, owner of Michael Development of Minnesota, LLC (hereinafter the “Developer”)
proposes the development of two, 70-unit apartment buildings at 2180 and 2160 Highway 13 in Mendota
Heights, Minnesota. The project proposes to unify two commercial zoned sites, which are currently
occupied by the Mendota Motel and the now closed Larsen Garden Center. The structures on both sites
will be removed or relocated; cleaned-up (as necessary); and cleared to make room for the proposed multi-
family development.
The applications include a rezoning from B-3 General Business to new HR-PUD – High Density Residential
Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; a conditional use permit
for the establishment of the PUD and development of the proposed multi-family type buildings; and
wetlands permit due to the proximity of work adjacent to Lake Lemay.
Pursuant to Title 12-1K-1 [Planned Unit Developments] of City Code, the provisions noted therein specify
a Developer presenting a new PUD is supposed to present a “Concept Plan”, followed by a separate
“Preliminary Development Plan and “Final Development Plan” for review and consideration. This report
will indicate the “Concept Plan” was already presented at the previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment
review back in May/June of this year; and since the plans under this combined (and comprehensive)
applications are very complete and thorough, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider both the
Preliminary and Final Development plans at this time as one complete submittal.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. Notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
property owners within 1,500 feet or more of the development sites (even though 350-ft. is normally
required) to ensure a large segment of the surrounding neighborhoods were made aware of this new multi-
family housing project.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 2 of 15
BACKGROUND
In November 2015, the Developer sought to develop the Larson Garden Center site with a 70-unit apartment
building, and began the entitlement process for redeveloping the site by applying for a similar
comprehensive plan amendment. This application was later withdrawn and no official action was taken.
In February 2017, the Developer informed the city that he secured the development rights on the Mendota
Motel located at 2180 Hwy. 13, and shortly thereafter secured the rights to acquire (once again) the adjacent
Larson Garden site located at 2160 Hwy 13.
On May 23, 2017, the Planning Commission received and considered an application from the Developer
requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the current land use of “B - Business” to a
proposed “HR - High Density Residential” or “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit
Development. The Planning Commission adopted a favorable recommendation to amend the land use to
“HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development”.
On June 6, 2017, the City Council received this recommendation, and later adopted Resolution No. 2017-
43, which approved the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to re-guide Future Land Use from existing
“B - Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development” on the subject
properties.
On June 20, 2017, the City Council approved the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2,
a redevelopment district within the city’s existing Municipal Development District No. 1. The impetus for
the creation of the TIF District was for the City to financially assist Michael Development with the
acquisition of real property located at 2180 Highway 13, and assist in the funding (of certain eligible costs)
to construct a new market rate apartment building on the site, with surface and underground parking. It
should be noted that the initial TIF funding that was recently approved is only for the first of two phases
planned for this project, with Phase 1 being the “motel site” and Phase 2 the former “greenhouse site”.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The combined subject site is approximately 5.45 acres (total) in size. The site is bounded by Highways 13
and Hwy. 55 to the west, Acacia Boulevard to the north, wooded shoreline along Lemay Lake to the east,
and Victoria Avenue / Furlong Addition to the south. The former Larson Garden Center has been shuttered
for a number of years, while the one-story, Mendota Motel site continues to operate.
Each commercial site has a primary, single access opening directly on to the abutting Hwy. 13 roadway
system to the west. The Larson Center also appears to have an “unofficial” access point off Acacia
Boulevard to the north, but is no longer used. A secondary access or driveway opening was installed on
the north side of Victoria Lane into the motel site, but no driveway extension was ever made or needed by
the motel, so it too remains unused.
The redevelopment site is generally flat along its western border, with slopes increasing steeply moving
east toward Lemay Lake. The site is visually screened from the lake and from homes north of Lemay Lake
Road by thick tree cover.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject site is surrounded by predominantly residential land uses. The Augusta Shores development
northeast of the site is guided as Low Density Residential and comprises 23 duplexes (46 units) zoned R-1
One Family Residential. South of the motel site is the Furlong Addition, which is guided Low Density
Residential and zoned R-1 One Family Residential. All other land uses are separated from the site by a
physical roadway (highway) or Lemay Lake Road.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 3 of 15
West of Highways 55 and 13, land use is primarily guided Industrial, with the exception being land guided
Nature Preserve or Cemetery. An industrial park, the Acacia Park Cemetery, and the Pilot Knob
Preservation Site are the dominant land uses that operate immediately west of the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The overall description of this new development entails the construction of two, twin 70-unit market rate
apartment buildings. The new apartments are planned to have dedicated underground parking areas, as
well as outdoor surface parking spaces.
The two existing access points off Highway 13 for the existing commercial sites will be removed, and the
development will provide a new, divided access driveway at the mid-point area of the combined apartment
development site.
As indicated earlier, the construction of this development will take place under two phases. Phase 1 will
involve the complete demolition and removal of the motel facilities, with construction work on this
southerly apartment building to begin immediately thereafter. The Developer states they hope to have most
of this apartment completed by mid to late summer 2018. When the Developer reaches the 80-90%
completion threshold of this first phase, he intends to begin the demolition and removal of the old garden
center site (Phase 2), and complete the other remaining apartment building by the following year 2019.
Prior to beginning this Phase 2 work, the Developer may request additional TIF funding for similar
construction or clean-up costs that he should be eligible for under the establishment of TIF District #2 in
this area, which would be considered separate funds from the first phase already approved.
The two apartment buildings are essentially twin structures that will face each other, with an internal and
shared surface parking area between both facilities. The buildings are each 3-story, 70-unit structures with
a symmetrical “L-shaped” design. The overall height of the new buildings, measured from the front
elevations is approx. 37 feet (which includes an approx. 2-ft. high parapet wall feature).
Each building measures approx. 245’ x 225’ (longest dimensions) and approx. 72-ft. at the end caps
(narrowest dimension). The footprint (Level 1) of each building is noted as 26,254 sq. ft., with a total
building area of 105,327 sq. ft. on four levels. The four levels include 3 levels of living space and one
lower level for underground parking.
The 70 living units will be a various mix and sizes of 1 bedroom apartments (37 units); 1 bedroom + den
apartments (16 units) and 2-bedroom apartments (17 units). The sizes of these new living units begin at
771 sf. up to 1,329 sf. The layout and details on these living spaces are found under the “Floor Plan” sheets
of the attached plan sets.
The underground parking for each apartment building includes an area for 79 vehicles, which includes
handicap parking and trash enclosure. The surface parking area will contain 56 spaces, or 135 spaces for
each building and 270 spaces total.
The new apartment site also includes new stormwater infiltration ponds along the north, west and south
sides of the site.
ANALYSIS
REZONING from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High Density Residential PUD
As indicated previously, on June 6, 2017, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
re-guide the subject development site from “B - Business” to “HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned
Unit Development.” The site remains under the B-3 General Business zone, and is being considered for
rezoning to a new HR-PUD High Density Residential – Planned Unit Development district in order to
accommodate this new multi-family housing project.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 4 of 15
Pursuant to Title 12-1K-1, the purpose of the PUD is noted as follows:
A. This article establishes provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to provide for a planned
unit development project. The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in
the design and development of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not
limitation, to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing
types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a
development project, and to permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but
nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain
and surrounding land uses.
B. A planned unit development may be created as a base zoning district. The purpose of the planned unit
development district is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land in order to
promote its appropriate use; to facilitate adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to
preserve the natural and scenic qualities for open areas; to encourage a diversity of housing types
within a given development and within the community as a whole; and to limit development to a scale
appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. For such PUD districts, the ten (10)
acre minimum area requirement may be waived at the discretion of the city. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
One of the key provisions of this statement is “…to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land…” which is why most cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning
districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and
cohesive developments within a community. When Staff began working with Mr. Swenson, it was
determined early on that the preliminary design of his housing development may need certain allowances
or “flexibility” in order to make this development succeed; and instead of applying for a number of
variances, the PUD was the logical (and recommended) process to pursue.
Under Title 12-1K-2, a new development site is required to have 10-acres or more of land to be considered
under the PUD process, but a reduction the 10-acre requirement can be made based on the following:
1. The council may reduce the ten (10) acre requirement for a planned unit development, but to no
less than five (5) acres, and only if it finds that the planned unit development, in addition to meeting
all of the standards and objectives of section 12-1K-5 of this article:
a. Is determined by the council to be "infill type development" that would be difficult to develop
under the zoning district or districts comprising the project area.
b. Will not require any wetlands permit.
c. Will not require any critical area variance.
d. Will not increase traffic or parking estimates for the project area above the level reasonably
estimated for a permitted use for the project area's size in the zoning district in which it is
situated.
e. Provides a landscaped buffer around the perimeter of the entire project area unless expressly
waived by the council.
2. The council shall be conservative in exercising its discretion to permit a planned unit development
of less than ten (10) acres. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
As noted herein, the development site is 5.45 acres, which can be considered under this code section. Staff
will note however, that although the statement “Will not require any wetlands permit” – this particular
application does include a wetlands permit, due to the proximity of the project to nearby Lemay Lake. This
project is not expected to impact any part of Lemay, so the consideration of allowing this reduced PUD
size, regardless of the Wetlands Permit is recommended by City Staff to continue.
Under Title 12-1K-3, and new HR-PUD District is recommended to comply with the following:
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 5 of 15
A. HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development District: The HR-PUD district is
intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development of a nature and intensity
equivalent to the R-3 zoning district. The permitted, conditional, and accessory uses in this district
are the same as those for the R-3 district.
Title 12-1K-5: PUD APPROVAL AND ADMINISTRATION provides the following:
A. The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities
on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize
with adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure
completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and
deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
The guiding R-3 Multiple Family Residential District provides a standard of 8.54 units/acre. Based on this
R-3 standard, only 46 units on this 5.45 acre site would be allowed. However, the benefit of the PUD
process is it allows the developer to request or present a higher density allowance than normally prescribed
under straight R-3 zoning, in this case the density recalculates to 25.7, or 26 units per acres. The allowance
of the higher density is something the Planning Commission needs to consider very closely. Overall, the
size of the development on the planned site seems reasonable, and Staff has indicated in previous
discussions with the Commission that the 8.54 units/acre may be a bit too low for similar or typical “high
density residential” zoned areas in other metro communities. Some cities have densities up or near the 20
– 30 units per acre, and some do not place limits, provided the overall development and/or buildings work
for setbacks, parking, open-space, landscaping, etc.
Statements on Density
This section was made part of the comprehensive plan report at the May 23, 2017 meeting. Again, this
information is important to provide reasoning or justification for allowing the Developer a reasonable
request to increase the density under this new PUD.
As stated earlier, the High Density residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan only allows
a maximum density of 8.5 units per acre. This designation is very low compared to many other suburban
cities in the region. The following table depicts guided densities in peer communities’ highest density land
use designations:
Eagan 12+ units/acre
Richfield 24 units/acre
Edina 12-30 units/acre
Roseville 12+ units/acre
New Brighton 12+ units/acre
Burnsville 9-14 units/acre
Woodbury 10-15 units/acre
Maplewood 10.1-25 units/acre
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 6 of 15
The trend in this metro area and most other cities in the U.S. is towards higher density in appropriate
locations. Such sites would include good access and compatibility with surrounding land uses. The subject
site meets those criteria. The maximum densities in the table above – 25-30 units/acre – are typical of
suburban maximum and can readily be achieved with three- or four-story construction. These densities do
not approach what the central cities see in high density projects – 100 units/acre or more.
It was noted in the land use amendment application, that the existing commercial use is struggling at this
location; and replacing it with a multi-family residential use would not need the same level of access and
visibility that a commercial use needs. Multi-family uses typically need to be buffered from lower intensity
residential uses and this site makes that relatively easy.
In 2016, the City approved a PUD Amendment for the At Homes Apartment development inside the
Mendota Mall properties near Hwy. 110 and Dodd Road. This development consisted of 139 market rate
rental units on a 2.2 acre site, which equates to a density of almost 63 units/acre.
Under Title 12-1K-3: Specific Planned Unit Development Districts, the City possesses the right to create
certain planned unit development districts for specific developments. The PUD Ordinance is meant to
provide greater flexibility to the developer with certain aspects of the development, including site design,
reduced setbacks, reduced parking spaces, and even higher (housing) density allotments. The PUD also
provides a wide range of autonomy and latitude to the City to allow these reduced standards and/or approve
higher density numbers, if it so chooses.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code, the “number of Dwelling Units” is allowed under the
following standard:
“In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire
site shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning
district(s) in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3
zoning district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide.
If the residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of
allowable dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit
development that is in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of
dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in
the MU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council
shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of
the planned unit development. Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the
standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council.”
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3 of the City Code, the Planning Commission may determine the approved
density under the following provision:
The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed
within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required
lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which
the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less
the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for
public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the
city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density.
For all intents and purposes, Staff believes this PUD may be allowed and approved with the higher density
proposed, because it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; the development plan
includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities; financing is available to the applicant
on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development
and evidence to support those facts is presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission
and the council under the TIF District No. 2 consideration, which was heavily vetted by the city’s financial
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 7 of 15
consultants with Ehlers; the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and the PUD can be and will
be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding
the project site.
PRELIMINARY/FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN – SITE PLAN & SPECIFICS REVIEW
Living Area: The proposed high-density residential apartments will have 70 units per building.
Each building contains a centralized lobby area, fitness center, club room and office area. Virtually
all units will have private at-grade patio or upper balconies
Unit Size: All units meet the R-3 area per unit minimum standard of 750 sf. per unit. The single,
1-bedroom units are all at 771 sq. ft. in size. The 1-bedroom + den range in size from 876 sf. to
988 sf.; and the 2-bedroom units range in size from 1,131 sf. to 1,329 sf.
Levels: Each building consists of 3 stories of living space, with one underground level dedicated
to parking. The lower level consists of 26,722 sf.; the 1st floor (apartments and general areas) is
26,254 sf, the 2nd level is 26,178 sf. and the 3rd level is 26,173 sf., for an area of 105,327 total sf.
Height: the building height is estimated at approximately 37-feet in height (at the front elevation).
The R-3 Zone does not place a limit on the height of buildings in this district.
Setbacks Standards: The R-3 District requires the following setback standards:
o Front Yard: 50-ft. + 1 ft. per each foot of building height over 60-ft.
o Side/Rear Yards: 40-ft. + 1 ft. per each foot of building height over 75-ft.
o No principal building shall be less than 60 feet from each other.
o Minimum Lot Width shall be 150-feet.
Phase 1 (south building) is shown with a front yard setback of 44.9 feet; 75 ft. from the side (south)
line; 88.1 feet from the rear (east) line; and 30-ft. from the north side yard line.
Phase 2 (north building) is shown with a front yard setback of 30 ft.; 30-ft. from the north line;
90.5 ft. from the rear (east) line; and approx. 17 ft. from the south side line.
The two buildings are separated by approximately 47 feet between both principal buildings.
Once again, the PUD can be used to provide some flexibility to allowing or accepting these
reduced setbacks in this development plan. The front yard setbacks along Hwy. 13 are reduced
by 5.1-ft. and 20-ft. respectively. The reduction of these setbacks along this highway (frontage
road system) should cause minimal if any impacts to the area, and does not pose any threat to the
general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties, and is of no concern to city staff.
The reduced setback from 40 feet to 30 feet along Acacia Blvd. is also of no concern due to the
large excess right-of-way and buffer space along the north edge of the development site, and again,
this reduced setback does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding properties, and is of no concern to city staff.
The reduced separation between buildings is also of no concern, as the 47 foot spacing seems and
appears appropriate, and this separation, and all reduced setbacks as proposed under this
development plan, are acceptable and recommended for approval by city staff.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The R-3 District does not require or include a standard for FAR; however
the Developer has provided a calculation showing the FAR for this site as follows:
o 157,210 sf. of total living space / 237,453 sf. of lot area = 0.66 percent
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 8 of 15
Site Data Calculations: The Site Plan data includes existing vs. proposed site area calculations:
Site Area Calculations Existing Proposed
Bldg. Coverage 44,571 sf. 18.8% 53,301 sf. 22.4%
All Pavements 40,765 sf 17.2% 64,638 sf. 27.2%
All Non Pavement 152,125 sf. 64.1% 119,513 sf. 50.3%
TOTAL SITE AREA 237,452 sf 100% 237,452 sf. 100%
Impervious Surface
Existing Condition 85,327 sf. 35.9%
Proposed Conditions 117,939 sf. 49.7%
Difference + 32,612 sf. + 13.7%
Design: The building architectural design and materials call for a varying mix of earth tone colors,
with brick, decorative rock-face CMU (concrete masonry units) stone lintels and stone sills, and
prefinished aluminum deck railings. Other wall treatments include a variety of different colored
cement fiber board panels and siding materials.
The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible, but should be reviewed against the
standards for similar-zoned uses. While the development is being considered under the HR-PUD,
the proposed plans are being reviewed under the R-3 High Density Residential District standards.
The Planning Commission and City Council has the discretion to recommend increased (but
reasonable) standards and adopt any conditions as deemed necessary.
Parking: The proposed residential development includes 79 spaces underneath each building or
158 total. Each site will also have 56 outdoor surface parking or 112 total. The combined total
number of spaces for both sites is 270 spaces.
The R-3 District also provides a setback standard for parking areas of at least 40-feet from any public
roadway; and at least 10-feet from any principal building. The parking on the site plans indicate the
parking lot for the north building will meet the 40-ft. setback, but the south parking lot (at its closest
point) is approximately 35 feet from Hwy 13 frontage road.
According to Title 12-1E-E of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces in the
R-3 District is as follows:
Number And Design Of Parking Spaces: A minimum of two and one-half (21/2) parking spaces
shall be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall
comply with all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards.
Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 140 units, strict application of the Code
standard would require a minimum of 350 parking spaces.
It is Planning Staff’s professional opinion that this 2.5 space per unit appears to be too high and
extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer multi-family residential
development needs throughout the metro area and nation.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 9 of 15
When At Homes/Paster Properties presented the 149 unit (now 139 unit) “The Reserves of Mendota
Plaza” market rate apartment development in the Mendota Plaza center in 2016, the issue of 2.5
spaces/unit was discussed, and a professional analysis was performed by the city’s planning
consultants from Stantec, which are excerpted and highlighted below:
• Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched (except
Apple Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit, but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit.
• Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking
requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own
published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high.
• The average for nine projects (not in transit-friendly areas) is 1.59/unit.
• Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since,
according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (see table on the following page), so
even without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars
today than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going
down and that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi-
family projects.
• The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes a manual on parking demand, citing
studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual (2010) shows a range of 1.10-1.37 spaces
per unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large, some studies
in the mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects
studied, so we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide.
Apartment Parking – Conclusion & Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project
in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the
mix of 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided
that both the 20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are
guaranteed to be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement.
Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by
the City in 2016 for The Reserves) the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows:
Parking at 1.6/Unit: 140 units x 1.6 = 224 spaces
Parking at 1.2/bedroom: 53 one bedroom units @ 1.2 = 63.6
17 two bedroom units @ 1.2 = 20.4
TOTAL 84 per building, or 168 total
It is the professional opinion of planning staff that the 270 spaces proposed under this developments
plan is more than adequate, and is based on the previous analysis performed on the Reserves of MH
development just one year ago; and should be supported due to the strong desire to preserve or
encourage more open space on this site, and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional
parking would require. The slight reduction of the 35-ft. setback on the corner of the south building
parking lot is of little or no concern, and can be recommend for approval.
Sidewalk/Trail: The plans call for a five foot (5’) concrete walk along Highway 13. Staff is
recommending this walkway be revised to an eight-foot (8’) bituminous trail with a minimum of a 5’
boulevard. This should extend south to Victory Avenue, with ADA complaint ramps and crosswalks
including on Acacia Drive. All private walkway connections into the PUD site may be left as concrete
surfaces.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 10 of 15
Signage: The development plans and elevation plans identify a freestanding monument sign near the
front entrance. The plans are absent of any details or specific, but staff wishes to provide the following
standard and recommendations:
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-15, by conditional use permit, a use in a residential zoning district which is
allowed either as a permitted or conditional use may qualify for a wall sign in addition to a nameplate
sign, provided that each of the following requirements are met:
a. The parcel on which such a sign is proposed may be no less than five (5) acres in size.
b. The sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area.
c. The sign may be illuminated, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right
of way or adjacent residential district.
By definition, a Nameplate Sign is “any sign which states the name or address, or both, of the business
or occupant of the lot where the sign is placed or may be a directory listing the names, addresses, and
business of occupants.”
The sign standards for “institutional uses” located in the R-1 and R-2 zones provide an allowance of
one large freestanding electronic message board sign up to 100 sq. ft. and 9 feet in height. Staff is not
advocating or suggesting an electronic sign for this use, but would recommend this development be
afforded the right to install a 100-sq. ft. sign, not to exceed 9-ft. in height. The final location of the sign
would need to meet the 10-foot setback standard and located outside of any easements. The City will
also give favorable consideration if the sign is able to be installed in the center island (as illustrated on
the Elevation Plans SD601 and 602), provided it does not impact or impair the nearby easement rights
being platted under the plat.
Landscaping Plans: The development plans include a well-designed and very detailed landscape and
planting plan for the outside areas of this housing development.
The plans call for a number of deciduous trees consisting of Northwood maples, white oaks, lindens,
and honey locusts. Ornamental tress consisting of flowering crabs and river birches will also be
included. Evergreen trees consisting of Black Hill spruces and Colorado spruce will also be provided.
Shrubs consisting of junipers, sumacs, boxwoods, chokeberries and dogwoods will be added along with
a number of perennial plantings such as hostas, daylilies and blue and white asters.
The removal plans show that a large number of trees will be removed inside the garden center site, and
only a few trees on the motel site (since this site is absent of many trees and landscaping). Under the
first phase, the plan includes a number of new and various types of trees along the south and west edges
of the property. The central parking areas are designed with wide islands to accommodate various trees
and shrubs and plantings in these areas as well. The pans do not show or provide any new plantings
along the east side of the building next to the Lemay Lake frontage. Staff assumes since most of this
tree-line buffered area will remain intact, it does not seem necessary to place a number of new trees in
this area.
The Phase 2 (garden center) site is also similarly planted with a variety of new trees and plantings, and
does include additional trees along the back side (east side) of the new building. This area is planned
to have some extensive re-grading due the severe sloped area in the existing site.
Because the City has begun to embrace and support “pollinator friendly” plantings in the community,
Staff is recommending the Developer meet with or share this plan with the Master Gardener consultants
from the Univ. of MN Extension Services, whom will provide helpful advice and input in identifying
and selecting varieties of materials that encourage and support the city-wide initiative and re-pollination
efforts in this area.
For all intents and purposes, this landscape and planting plan again meets the satisfaction of City Staff,
and should be recommended for approval.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 11 of 15
Public Safety Review: The city’s fire department suggested the Developer attempt to provide a safety
access or fire lane access road to the rear sections of the new apartment buildings. At this time, the fire
personnel have not provided planning staff with details or specifications on what they require, such as
paved/unpaved surface, weight loads, width, locations, etc. The Developer was made aware of this
recommendation, and indicated he will work in full cooperation with the fire department and provide
whatever fire safety measures or improvements they recommend.
WETLANDS PERMIT
According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to:
1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-
related areas;
2. Maintain the natural drainage system;
3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss
of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or
from excessive sedimentation;
4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
5. Ensure safety from floods.
The proposed project includes grading and construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water
resource-related area, which in this case is Lemay Lake. As indicated on the Grading Plans (Sheet 3.0), the
Developer is making a concerted effort not to grade this area near Lemay Lake, and is limiting most of the
new construction work in and near the building site only, which will help avoid any impacts or disturbance
in this lakeshore area. The stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) indicate the extraordinary
measures of protecting this area with double row of silt fence and bio-rolls.
Staff is confident the Developer will provide adequate protection and safeguards throughout the duration of
the project, and will ensure these and all other environmental and habitat protection measures are maintained.
AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION
Pursuant to Title 12-4-1, the City finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by
aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses
of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate
aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or
inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate
aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this
chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.
Review of the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s Noise Contour Map – 2016 indicates the subject PUD
site appears to be partially inside the established “60 DNL” noise contour line. The DNL is defined as:
“The day-night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time
averaged A-weighted sound level) from twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight to twelve o'clock (12:00)
midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from ten o'clock (10:00)
P.M. to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M.”
Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise
zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such
permit. In this particular case, any “Multiplex/apartment with a shared entrance” must attain a 25 lesser
or more reading from the established Leq factor of 60-70. The Leq is defined as follows: “The
equivalent continuous sound level which, over the period of one hour, has the same A-weighted sound
energy as the time varying sound.”
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 12 of 15
What this means is that all plans and specification for new buildings in this aircraft noise zone must
comply with the following [additional] standards:
a. All applicants for a building or occupancy permit shall include with the application all plans,
specifications or other information required by this chapter. The plans and specifications shall
describe in sufficient detail all pertinent features of the building, building materials, heating and
ventilation systems, including, but not limited to, the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, walls,
windows, and doors; and other pertinent data as may be requested by the city to indicate
conformance with the applicable noise reduction level requirements as specified in the noise
compatibility tables. To assure the elimination of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall
demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
(1) A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the minimum air circulation
and fresh air supply requirements as provided in the state and uniform building code for the
proposed occupancy without the need to open any exterior doors or windows.
(2) The perimeter of all exterior windows and doorframes shall be sealed airtight to the exterior
wall construction.
(3) Fireplaces shall be equipped with well fitted chimney closing devices.
(4) All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space to outdoors shall be
provided with a bend such that no direct line of sight exists from exterior to interior through
the vent duct.
(5) Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close fitting. Weather stripping seals
shall be incorporated to eliminate all edge gaps.
(6) All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and the like shall be caulked
airtight to the exterior construction.
b. The city shall require that plans and specifications be certified by a recognized acoustical
specialist for compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 420, 1-20-2009
These standards are typically reviewed for full compliance by the City’s Building Official, who is well-
versed and experienced in working with architects, engineers, contractors, residents and developers in
making sure their plans reflect or incorporate these additional noise standards if needed.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of a new subdivision to be titled “Mendota Heights
Apartments”. This plat will provide two separate parcels - Lot 1 and Lot 2, which will be used to develop
this housing project site into the two separate phases noted previously.
This subdivision will involve the re-platting of the singular (but combined) Mendota Motel property; along
with the old Larson Garden Center property, which consists of a number of separated parcels of record that
were never combined. This plat also includes a segment of unused/undeveloped platted road right-of-way
situated between the motel and garden center sites, identified as Hilltop Avenue, f/k/a Doughty Street. This
platted section of Hilltop Avenue must be officially vacated by the City and then allowed to be conveyed
or added into the plat before the future final plat is approved.
The plat will help greatly resolve and “clean-up” a number of parcel line encroachments and parcel areas
that extend out into the Highway 13 roadway system, and provide for drainage and utility easements as
required by the Subdivision Code.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 13 of 15
The preliminary plat as presented is acceptable to city staff; and staff will work with the Developer in
processing the street vacation needed for this plat.
MnDOT Review
In conjunction with the previous land use amendment process, the Developer submitted the concept
development plans to MnDOT for their review and consideration. On or around June 29, 2017, the city
received a preliminary review letter of the proposed PUD site.
The Developer will be required to apply for and obtain MnDOT right-of-way permits for any work in their
roadway systems, which will include the removal and replacement of the two driveways to the motel and
garden center sties; the new shared single access drive off Hwy 13 into the PUD; and the recommended
right turn lane, that is currently shown on these updated plans. This letter is appended to this report for the
commissioner’s review.
Park Dedication
If this PUD is approved, the Developer is required to contribute either 10% of final plat gross area for
dedication to a public use (typically park space or open space), or contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount
established by the city.
The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not identify any park space or needs in this PUD site area,
therefore Staff is recommending the Developer pay a park dedication fee instead of dedicating public land.
In accordance with current Fee Schedule, the applicable fees are as follows:
• Single and Multi-Family Residential: $4,000/dwelling unit
• Commercial/Industrial: 10% of assessed value of unimproved land
Payment of the required park dedication fees is included as a condition of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat, and wetlands permit
requests, including drainage and utility easement vacations, based on the attached finding of fact,
with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat, and wetlands permit
requests, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City
Council; or
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
applications for New Mendota Heights Apartment Development, based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), along with the following suggested conditions of approval:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights.
2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the
Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 14 of 15
3. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by
a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and
building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G –
Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements.
4. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical
utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the
materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning
Department and verified as part of the building permit review process.
5. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with city pollinator
friendly ordinance.
6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not
obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire
Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process.
7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at
least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements,
to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
8. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance
and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site
or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions
allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated.
9. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access onto State
Highway 13, as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval.
10. Provide outlet velocity from underground infiltration area (energy dissipation)
11. Rainfall intensity shall be by Atlas 14.
12. Provide water quality model.
13. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City Council
approval.
14. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement.
15. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
16. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the
buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
17. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title
12-4-1 of City Code.
18. The Developer with work with the fire department personnel in determining final design, location
and specifications to the fire safety access road to the rear sections of the new buildings.
Planning Case 2017-19 (MH Apts.) Page 15 of 15
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit
For the
Mendota Heights Apartment PUD
2160 – 2180 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan, both preliminary and final plans, are consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a planned
development in this area.
2. The proposed PUD should be approved the higher density, because:
a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities;
c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient
to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the
comprehensive plan; and
d. the PUD can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
3. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance
development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural
resources.
4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety
and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development
of this property.
5. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage
more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking
would require.
6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant
amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases.
7. The proposed project is specifically designed to minimize impacts on the nearby wetland areas
(Lemay Lake) and will meet all requirements of the Wetlands Overlay Ordinances.
8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will
facilitate recreational opportunities.
9. High Density Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and
the existing vegetation and adjacent commercial uses, due to the added setbacks and natural
buffering between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing.
10. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would
allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
11. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and
would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
Page 1 of 2
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd. East,Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
ProjectProjectProjectProject NNNNaaaarrrrrrrraaaattttiiiivvvveeee
Date: Date: Date: Date:
July 31, 2017
Reference: Reference: Reference: Reference:
Mendota Heights Apartments
Attention: Attention: Attention: Attention:
Tim Benetti – City of Mendota Heights
Mark McNeill – City of Mendota Heights
Summary:Summary:Summary:Summary:
The Mendota Heights apartment project proposes two, 70 Unit, market rate apartment buildings constructed
at 2180 and 2160 Highway 13, between Acacia Drive and Victory Ave. The proposal seeks to demolish the
existing buildings to make way for the construction of the new apartment buildings. The current business
located on the site that are proposed to be demolished are the Larson Green House and Mendota Heights
Motel. The Green house has been closed for a number of the years and is in disrepair. The Mendota heights
motel is in operation but the property of generates a high volume of police calls annually.
Rezoning:Rezoning:Rezoning:Rezoning:
The existing site is zoned Business B-3, and it is proposed to change it to High Density Residential R-3
SetbackSetbackSetbackSetbackssss::::
Both Buildings are setback from the property line a minimum of 30’-0” which is consistent with the existing
buildings on the site. However, the majority of each building is set back much further. Additionally, the South,
Phase I Building is completely outside the Transmission easement.
Size of the Proposed Development:Size of the Proposed Development:Size of the Proposed Development:Size of the Proposed Development:
Each apartment building contains 70 market-rate apartment units, or 140 total when both buildings are
constructed. The buildings shall be 3 stories above grade with an underground garage. From the level 1
entry, the buildings will be approximately 36’-0” Tall to the top of the Parapet. Each building has a footprint
of 26,722 SF, and an overall building area of 105,327 SF including the underground Garage. The two
phases combined have a Floor Area Ratio of .66, with 157,210 total square feet of above ground housing on
237,453 square feet of site.
TimingTimingTimingTiming of Developmentof Developmentof Developmentof Development::::
This project includes two separate, but similar buildings and it is being proposed that the two buildings be built
in two phases - the Phase I building is scheduled to begin construction and the Phase II is estimated to begin
construction in August 2017.
Page 2 of 2
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd. East,Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
Parking:Parking:Parking:Parking:
Each apartment building contains 70 market-rate units, with 140 total when both buildings are constructed.
Each 70 Unit building would have approximately 135 dedicated parking stalls - 79 below grade garage
stalls, and 56 on the surface lot. Giving the final parking ratio of 1.93 Stalls per unit. This is slightly below the
city code which specifies 2.0 Stalls per unit. However, given the high number of 1 bedroom units (64/140)
and 1BR + Dens, (32/140), the proposed parking is adequate for both residents and guests.
Similar Market Rate Apartment Projects done recently by our office also indicate a trend for less parking being
needed than 2.0 Stalls Per Unit for Example:
• Villages of Frost English Apartments – Maplewood, MN – Currently Under construction
o 107 Units, 122 Stalls (1.14 Stalls Per Unit)
• Elevate Apartments – Eden Prairie, MN – In for HUD Financing Review
o 220 Units, 345 Stalls (1.57 Stalls Per Unit)
• Axis Apartments – Plymouth, MN – Construction completed Winter 2017
o 155 Units, 345 Stalls (1.57 Stalls Per Unit)
• Urban Park Apartments Phase II – St. Louis Park, MN – Preliminary Design
o 90 Units, 118 Stalls (1.31 Stalls Per Unit)
City Requires 1 stall per bedroom, plus 10% of that for guests
Additionally, we have room on the site to provide proof of parking concept to get to the required 2.0 Stalls
per unit if parking issues arise after the project is built and occupied.
BuiBuiBuiBuilding Design/Materialslding Design/Materialslding Design/Materialslding Design/Materials::::
The two phases both include an aesthetic of high-quality, modern building materials. A variety of brick and
cement fiber board lap and panel siding cover the facades. A concentration of brick has been focused on the
more public faces of the building, looking out on Highway 13 with a mix of lap and panel siding on the more
wooded, less visible sides. Colored, rockface concrete masonry units cover the visible areas of the below-
grade garage. Most apartments units also have access to balconies, overlooking Highway 13 and the
surrounding lakes, Lemay and Augusta.
BuiBuiBuiBuilding lding lding lding Amenities:Amenities:Amenities:Amenities:
Each building also includes a full package of amenities, available to all residents. A large, open lobby with
direct access to resident mail as you walk in as well as offices and management support being immediately
accessible. A fitness center with plenty of equipment and club room perfect for entertaining guests. A
secondary club room sits on the third floor, accompanied by an outdoor deck overlooking the Lemay and
Augusta Lakes.
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
June 29, 2017
Mr. Tim Benetti
Community Development Director, Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
SUBJECT: Michael Development
MnDOT Review CPA17-005
SE Quad MN 13 and Acacia Drive
Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Control Section 1902
Dear Mr. Benetti,
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced comprehensive plan
amendment. Before any further development, please address the following issues:
Planning:
It appears that the plan will eliminate an access (existing hotel access) to MN 13, however it is difficult to tell if
the remaining access (existing garden center access) will stay in its current location or is being moved. Please
provide clarification regarding whether the development in question is proposing to remove both accesses and
develop a new access to the property, or use an existing access.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Jennifer Wiltgen at (651) 234-7788 or
jennifer.wiltgen@state.mn.us
Permits:
This development involves a change of use, therefore MnDOT requires a new access permit. In addition, any use
of or work within or affecting MnDOT right of way requires a permit.
Permit forms are available from MnDOT’s utility website at
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/maintenance/permits.html
Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please submit/send all
permit applications and 11X17plan sets to: metropermitapps.dot@state.mn.us. Please direct any questions
regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911) of MnDOT’s Metro Permits Section.
Right of way:
This development is considered a change of use and would need a new access permit to allow access from MN13.
As stated above please provide clarification regarding whether the development in question is proposing to
remove both accesses and develop a new access to the property, or use an existing access.
As the development progresses, contact from the developer should be made with the MnDOT Surveys Contact,
Matt Wernet (651) 366-4345, or matt.wernet@state.mn.us. This will ensure that the developer is using MnDOT’s
right of way in the correct location.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Matt Aguirre at (651) 234-7599, or
matt.aguirre@state.mn.us
Traffic:
Per the ITE trip generation manual, the proposed development will generate approximately 1,000 daily trips. This
is over the 100 daily trips that warrants a right turn lane per the MnDOT Access Management Manual guidelines.
MnDOT will require a right turn lane as a part of the permitting process.
For questions regarding these comments please contact Merlin Kent at (651) 234-7825, or
merlin.kent@state.mn.us
Design:
Construction drawings will need to be submitted for review. Please make sure the following items are included in
the construction plans:
MnDOT right of way
TH 13 highway
Profile grade of the new access
Pavement section
Drainage features
Show all proposed grading
Dimensions
The detail accompanying this letter will provide access guidance. For questions regarding these comments please
contact Nancy Jacobson at (651) 234-7647, or nancy.l.jacobson@state.mn.us
Noise:
MnDOT’s policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways.
Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise
from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to
prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of
the land use would result in violations of established noise standards.
MnDOT’s policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway
funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and
take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise.
If you have any questions regarding MnDOT’s noise policy please contact Natalie Ries in our Noise/Air Quality
section at (651) 234-7681.
Review Submittal Options:
MnDOT’s goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be
turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us provided that each separate e-mail is under 20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans wil l expedite the
review process. Plans can be sent to:
MnDOT – Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disc.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT’s External FTP Site. Please send files to:
ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning
Internet Explorer doesn’t work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My
Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans
have been submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review please contact me at (651) 234-7788.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Wiltgen
Senior Planner
Copy sent via E -Mail:
Molly Kline, Area Engineer
Matt Wernet, Surveys
Clare Lackey, Traffic
Merlin Kent , Traffic
Buck Craig, Permits
Matt Aguirre , Right of way
Alan Rindels , Water Resources
Natalie Ries, Noise/Air Quality
Nancy Jacobson, Design
STANDARD
PLATE
NO.
SPECIFICATION
REFERENCE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
R/W LINE
30’
0’ TO 1.5’32’
1
HIGHW AY <
HIGHW AY <
CULVERT IF NECESSARY
VAR.
VAR.
3
3
APPROACHES AND ENTRANCES
9000E
CROSS SECTIONS
FILL SECTION
CUT SECTION
1
2
3 8% M AXIM UM COMMERCIAL; 15% MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL.
R/W LINE
30’
35’ R.
0’ TO 1.5’
24’1
HIGHWAY LC
LOW VOLUME ROAD40’12’ TURN LANE
NOTE: USE 1:6 SIDE SLOPES
NOTE: USE 1:6 SIDE SLOPES
BITUMINOUS SURFACING
16’16’
COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - FARM ENTRANCES
R/W LINE
74’
HIGHWAY <
25’ R.
24’1
37’
RURAL RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE
R/W LINE
80’
HIGHWAY LC
20’ R.20’
1
FIELD ENTRANCES
2
40’SHOULDER
VARIABLE
25’ R.
RECOM M ENDED STANDARDS
0’ TO 1.5’
SURFACING
BITUMINOUS
SURFACING
BITUMINOUS
142’
71’
4
4
4
30’
SURFACING TO R/W LINE.
IS NO SURFACING, PLACE GRAVEL BEYOND BITUMINOUS
SURFACING TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS. WHERE THERE
25’ RECOMM ENDED FOR ENTRANCES - ( 15’ M IN. )
50’ RECOMMENDED FOR ROADS - ( 25’ MIN. )
SHOULDER
VARIABLE
SHOULDER
VARIABLE
HIGHW AY <
0.5’ MIN.
0.5’ MIN.
BY ENGINEER.
PLACE 2 FT. WIDE BITUM INOUS SURFACING AS DIRECTED
VARIABLE SHOULDER
IN PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR SOM E RESIDENCES - AS SHOWN
THE USE OF PAVING SIM ILAR TO COMMERCIAL ENTRANCES
STATE DESIGN ENGINEER
APPROVED SEPT. 27, 2012
kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD010Existing Site Plan
kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD100Site Plan
kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD600Perspective 1
kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD601Perspective 2
kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD602Aerial Perspective
190 ft²STAIR25,818 ft²Underground Garage227 ft²STAIRColor LegendCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003TrashCL7'-0"Elev.EquipmentElev. LobbyA5012SD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD300Garage Level Floor Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level -1 - PHASE II SIM.Parking Schedule (Both Phases)Comments CountPhase 1 - Garage 79Phase 1 - Surface 56Phase 2 - Garage 79Phase 2 - Surface 56Grand total: 270Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1 771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1 958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2 876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4 988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D1 1,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D3 1,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D4 1,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)Level AreaLevel -1 26,722 ft²Level 1 26,254 ft²Level 2 26,178 ft²Level 3 26,173 ft²105,327 ft²
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²FitnessColor Legend1BR1BR + Den2BRCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003CL150 ft²Office200 ft²Conf. Rm.1,051 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3177 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech71 ft²Elec./LV179 ft²Office250 ft²Work Rm.A5012771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ASD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD310Level 1 Floor PlanParking Schedule (Both Phases)Comments CountPhase 1 - Garage 79Phase 1 - Surface 56Phase 2 - Garage 79Phase 2 - Surface 56Grand total: 270Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1 771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1 958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2 876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4 988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D1 1,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D3 1,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D4 1,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level 1 - PHASE II SIM.Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)Level AreaLevel -1 26,722 ft²Level 1 26,254 ft²Level 2 26,178 ft²Level 3 26,173 ft²105,327 ft²
Color Legend1BR1BR + Den2BRCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1CL280 ft²STAIR276 ft²STAIR958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,131 ft²Unit D1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LVA5012876 ft²Unit C2771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1SD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD320Level 2 Floor Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level 2 - PHASE II SIM.Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1 771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1 958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2 876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4 988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D1 1,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D3 1,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D4 1,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)Level AreaLevel -1 26,722 ft²Level 1 26,254 ft²Level 2 26,178 ft²Level 3 26,173 ft²105,327 ft²
Color Legend1BR1BR + Den2BRCommonBECD2534AA50011A5002A5004A5011A5003CL276 ft²STAIR276 ft²STAIR958 ft²Unit C1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,131 ft²Unit D1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV719 ft²Club Room517 ft²Outdoor DeckA5012771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C2771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1988 ft²Unit C4SD5003SD5012SD5011SD5004SD5002SD5001F.A.R. CALCULATIONS:SITE AREA = 237,453 SFBUILDING AREA =PHASE I - 78,605 SFPHASE II - 78,605 SFTOTAL - 157,210 SFF.A.R. = 157,210 SF/237,453 SFF.A.R. = .66kaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD330Level 3 Floor Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1Level 3 - PHASE II SIM.Unit Mix Phase I (Phase II Similar)Name Area Unit Type CountUnit A1 771 ft² 1BR 371BR: 37Unit C1 958 ft² 1BR + Den 11Unit C2 876 ft² 1BR + Den 2Unit C3 - Type A 876 ft² 1BR + Den 1Unit C4 988 ft² 1BR + Den 21BR + Den: 16Unit D1 1,131 ft² 2BR 2Unit D2 - Type A 1,131 ft² 2BR 1Unit D3 1,215 ft² 2BR 12Unit D4 1,329 ft² 2BR 22BR: 17PHASE 1: 70Grand total: 70Phase I Building Area (Phase II Similar)Level AreaLevel -1 26,722 ft²Level 1 26,254 ft²Level 2 26,178 ft²Level 3 26,173 ft²105,327 ft²
Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"7.47.24.27.97.94.67.14.17.57.17.105.95.34.64.75.5Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"4.37.1CFB PANEL - COLOR 1: TBDEXTERIOR MATERIALS TAG KEY5.3ALUMINUM BALCONY - COLOR: TBD5.5METAL ENTRY CANOPY - COLOR: TBD4.1BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:BUTTERNUT VELOUR4.3COLORED CMU - ROCK FACE - COLOR: EXPRESSO4.6PRECAST STONE LINTEL4.7STONE SILL4.2BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:CASTILE GRAY7.2CFB PANEL - COLOR 2: TBD7.3CFB PANEL - COLOR 3: TBD7.4CFB LAP - COLOR 1: TBD7.5CFB LAP - COLOR 2: TBD7.6CFB LAP - COLOR 3: TBD7.7CFB LAP - COLOR 4: TBD7.8CFB LAP - COLOR 5: TBD7.9CFB TRIM - COLOR 1: TBD7.10CFB TRIM - COLOR 2: TBDkaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD500Exterior Elevations 1/8" = 1'-0"1Elevation 2 - a Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2Elevation 2 - d Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"3Elevation 6 - a Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"4Elevation 3 - a Copy 1
Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"Level 1100'-0"Level 2110'-7 7/8"Level -189'-4"Level 3122'-3 3/4"Truss Brg.131'-5 5/8"4.27.47.27.97.97.57.87.37.107.77.67.54.37.14.64.24.77.17.1CFB PANEL - COLOR 1: TBDEXTERIOR MATERIALS TAG KEY5.3ALUMINUM BALCONY - COLOR: TBD5.5METAL ENTRY CANOPY - COLOR: TBD4.1BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:BUTTERNUT VELOUR4.3COLORED CMU - ROCK FACE - COLOR: EXPRESSO4.6PRECAST STONE LINTEL4.7STONE SILL4.2BRICK 1 - UTILITY (SIOUX CITY BRICK) - COLOR:CASTILE GRAY7.2CFB PANEL - COLOR 2: TBD7.3CFB PANEL - COLOR 3: TBD7.4CFB LAP - COLOR 1: TBD7.5CFB LAP - COLOR 2: TBD7.6CFB LAP - COLOR 3: TBD7.7CFB LAP - COLOR 4: TBD7.8CFB LAP - COLOR 5: TBD7.9CFB TRIM - COLOR 1: TBD7.10CFB TRIM - COLOR 2: TBDkaas wilson architectsMichael DevelopmentMendota Heights ApartmentsSD501Exterior Elevations 1/8" = 1'-0"1Elevation 4 - a Copy 1 1/8" = 1'-0"2Elevation 5 - a Copy 1
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/17REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC0.0TITLE SHEET............MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEC0.0TITLE SHEETSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION MAPNSITE SURVEYC0.1UTILITY PLANC4.0ISSUED FOR: CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETMASTER LEGEND:EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALCURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB (GUTTER TOP)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALLSOIL BORING LOCATIONSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALLEMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED MANHOLE STORMPROPOSED GATE VALVEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING LIGHTEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING ELECTRIC BOXEXISTING STOPBOXPROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARYPROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORMDYH
PROPOSED SIGNEXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATIONINLET PROTECTIONSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEDRAINAGE ARROWDEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER:MICHAEL PROPERTIES971 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY #300ST. PAUL, MN 55118651-698-3452ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL SITE GROUP4931 W 35TH STREETSUITE 200ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416612-615-0060SURVEYOR:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW1.0GRADING PLANC3.0C5.0C5.1L1.0DETAILSLANDSCAPE PLANSWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSW2.0SWPPP - DETAILSSW3.0C2.0SITE PLANSWPPP - NARRATIVESW4.0DETAILSC1.0REMOVALS PLANC5.2DETAILSCLARK ENGINEERING12755 HIGHWAY 55, SUITE 100MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422763-545-9196GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALSWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW5.0SWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW5.1TBDL1.1NORTH LANDSCAPE PLANEOF=1135.52SB-1TOPROPOSED LIGHTEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATER MAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSILT FENCE / BIOROLL - GRADING LIMITARCHITECT:KAAS WILSON ARCHITECTS1301 AMERICAN BOULEVARD EASTBLOOMINGTON, MN 55425612-879-6000C1.1NORTH REMOVALS PLANC1.2SOUTH REMOVALS PLANC2.1NORTH SITE PLANC2.2SOUTH SITE PLANC3.1NORTH GRADING PLANC3.2SOUTH GRADING PLANC4.1NORTH UTILITY PLANC4.2SOUTH UTILITY PLANL1.2SOUTH LANDSCAPE PLANL1.3LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES & DETAILSSW1.1NORTH SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW1.2SOUTH SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW2.1NORTH SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSW2.2SOUTH SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSITE SURVEYC0.2PRELIMINARY PLATC0.3
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTYLINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTERCOMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFFOOTING MATERIALS.5.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITEIMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THEOWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.8.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.9.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENTMARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.10.CURB AND GUTTER TYPE SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS-TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.11.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.13.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.14.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.15.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.16.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.17.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROWSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLYISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN............SITE AREA TABLE:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK)PROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOSHEET C2.1SHEET C2.2
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION, EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTINGSHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILSENGINEER.3.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THENATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS &PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.4.PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.5.GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5% MAX. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1% MIN. AND2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS.MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:17.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPESGREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED RETAININGWALL ENGINEER. DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES.9.IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALLEXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORTSUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE.10.EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE INAREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FORRESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENTAREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLSUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREADTOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.11.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREASWITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTHFINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPESBETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTINGGRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENTCONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOMERUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALLAREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL ORBETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK.12.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THESTREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADEDTANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THEDIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THESOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET ORPARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED INACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. NO TEST ROLL SHALL OCCURWITHIN 10' OF ANY UNDERGROUND STORM RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEMS.13. TOLERANCES13.1.THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHEREMEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.2.THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARYBY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OFANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.3.AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE ORBELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.13.4.TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.14.MAINTENANCE14.1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION,AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.14.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTEDAREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURINGTHE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BERESEEDED AND MULCHED.14.3.WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTIONOPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE,AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL GRADING NOTES:1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS GRADING NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES.SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW5.1EROSION CONTROL NOTES:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.0GRADING PLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOSHEET C3.1SHEET C3.2
1,215 ft²Unit D3771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ACONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 1BOTTOM EL.=888.50OE=890.00EOF=890.00100-YR HWL=889.65INFIL. VOL (888.50-890.00)=1,230CFINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL.=877.00OE=878.00EOF=878.00100-YR HWL=878.25INFIL. VOL (877.00-878.00)=267CFNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.1NORTH GRADINGPLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TO
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²
Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A1,215 ft²Unit D3CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 3BOTTOM EL.=887.50OE=889.50EOF=889.50100-YR HWL=888.76INFIL. VOL (887.50-889.50)=8,172CFNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.2SOUTH GRADINGPLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TO
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES ANDTOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELYNOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONECALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILTIES THAT AREDAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.4. UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION" AND "SANITARY SEWER ANDSTORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OFMINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THEPROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.5. CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT THEDIRECTION OF THE OWNER.6. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 26 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.8. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HDPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.9. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLAREDEND SECTION.10. UTILTIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THECONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES.COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS.11. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCHBASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THISPLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS.12. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.13. HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL.14. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICALSEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS INCIDENTAL.15. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATIONIS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.16. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS ANDCOORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.17.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCUTRES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED.18. COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICALDRAWINGS.19. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITHADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF.20. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THECITY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BEPROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THISSHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS ASNEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURESSHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY.21. ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHEREREQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEINGRESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL CORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES.23. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES.COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACTINSTALLATION OF UTILITIES.24. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMITTHESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK.25.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT.APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TOMANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES.26.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING ORWATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714,SECTION 1109.0.GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:UTILITY LEGEND:CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS UTILITY NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES.ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.0UTILITY PLAN............INSET ASEE INSET AGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAPSHEET C4.1SHEET C4.2
1,215 ft²Unit D3771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ACONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 1BOTTOM EL.=888.50OE=890.00EOF=890.00100-YR HWL=889.65INFIL. VOL (888.50-890.00)=1,230CFINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL.=877.00OE=878.00EOF=878.00100-YR HWL=878.25INFIL. VOL (877.00-878.00)=267CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVEREXIST SANITARY SEWERSAN MH 1RIM=857.00EX IE(E/W)=850.17PROP IE (N)=850.27COORD. W/ CITYSAN MH 2RIM=871.20IE(W/S)=855.15244 LF 8" PVC SDR 26@2.00%30 LF 8" PVC SDR 26@2.00%STUB SANITARY TO 5'FROM BLDG.STUB IE=855.75BLDG IE=855.85COORD. W/ MECH'LRE-USE EXISTING 10" PVC SANITARYSERVICE. STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.STUB IE=865.57BLDG IE=866.58COORD. W/ MECH'LEXISTING 76 LF 10"PVC SANITARY@20.20%6"X6" TEEMAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTINGWATER STUB. FIELD VERIFY SIZEAND LOCATION PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. COORD. W/ CITY6" DIP COMBINE FIRE ANDDOMESTIC WATER SERVICE.STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.COORD. W/ MECH'LFIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONHYDRANT AND GV,TYP.6"X6" TEEUNDERGROUND STORMWATERINFILTRATION SYSTEM 172" PERF. AND NON-PERF. CMPWITH BAFFLE WALLS BETWEEN(SOLID HEADER ON WEST)12" SIDE & END STONE, 36" STONEPIPE SEPARATION, 6" STONECOVER AND BASEFOOTPRINT=54.0' X 17.0'TOP BAFFLE WALLS=874.00IE STONE=871.50IE 72" CMP=872.00TOP 72" CMP=878.00TOP STONE=878.50100-YR HWL=877.85VARYING OUTLETS, SEEOUTLET NOTECB 13RIM=889.47IE=885.47113 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 2.00%112 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 3.31%106 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 3.50%CB 1RIM=884.97IE=879.50SUMP=876.50CB 11RIM=884.97IE=879.50SUMP=876.50CB 12RIM=889.18IE=883.21CB 20RIM=879.52IE=876.22SUMP=873.22MH/OS 31RIM=871.20IE 6"=868.00IE 12"=866.60IE 21"=866.00IE 24" (E)=865.8058 LF 21" HDPESTORM @ 16.81%24 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.58%ACCESS RISER,TYP. (2)DRAWDOWN RISER25 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.00%INLET IE=876.00TOP OF WEIRWALL=874.0058 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 10.00%6" OE=872.2512" OE=872.4021" OE=875.75INLET IE=876.0022 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 1.00%58 LF 6" PVC SDR26STORM @ 7.33%28 LF 24" HDPESTORM @ 10.71%FES 30IE=±862.00PROVIDE RIPRAP &TRASH GUARD ATOUTLETUTILITY LEGEND:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.1NORTH UTILITY PLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAP
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²
Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A1,215 ft²Unit D3CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 3BOTTOM EL.=887.50OE=889.50EOF=889.50100-YR HWL=888.76INFIL. VOL (887.50-889.50)=8,172CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVEREXIST SANITARY SEWERSAN MH 1RIM=857.00EX IE(E/W)=850.17PROP IE (N)=850.27COORD. W/ CITYRE-USE EXISTING 10" PVC SANITARYSERVICE. STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.STUB IE=865.57BLDG IE=866.58COORD. W/ MECH'LEXISTING 76 LF 10"PVC SANITARY@20.20%6"X6" TEEMAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTINGWATER STUB. FIELD VERIFY SIZEAND LOCATION PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. COORD. W/ CITY6" DIP COMBINE FIRE ANDDOMESTIC WATER SERVICE.STUB TO 5' FROM BLDG.COORD. W/ MECH'LFIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONHYDRANT AND GV,TYP.6"X6" TEE100-YR HWL=877.85VARYING OUTLETS, SEEOUTLET NOTE113 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 2.00%106 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 3.50%CB 1RIM=884.97IE=879.50SUMP=876.50CB 2RIM=889.18IE=883.21CB 2RIM=889.47IE=885.47CB 20RIM=879.52IE=876.22SUMP=873.22MH/OS 31RIM=871.20IE 6"=868.00IE 12"=866.60IE 21"=866.00IE 24" (E)=865.8058 LF 21" HDPESTORM @ 16.81%24 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.58%ACCESS RISER,TYP. (2)DRAWDOWN RISER25 LF 15" HDPESTORM @ 14.00%INLET IE=876.00TOP OF WEIRWALL=874.0058 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 10.00%6" OE=872.2512" OE=872.4021" OE=875.75INLET IE=876.0022 LF 12" HDPESTORM @ 1.00%58 LF 6" PVC SDR26STORM @ 7.33%28 LF 24" HDPESTORM @ 10.71%FES 30IE=±862.00PROVIDE RIPRAP &TRASH GUARD ATOUTLETUTILITY LEGEND:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.07/31/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.2SOUTH UTILITY PLAN............GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAP
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ANOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKINGNOPARKING1.ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S REP SHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TOINSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL.2.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN AMINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.3.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE ANDDISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.4.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.5.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACTSHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE.6.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYER LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.7.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINALLOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.8.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.9.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.10.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.LANDSCAPE NOTES:01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN............PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITESYMQUANT.COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTCOMMENTSDECIDUOUS TREESNRM11NORTHWOOD RED MAPLEAcer rubrum 'Northwood'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMWO15WHITE OAKQuercus alba2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMGSL12GREENSPIRE LINDENTilia cordata 'Greenspire'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHL11SKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMORNAMENTAL TREESPFC8PRAIRIEFIRE FLOWERING CRABMalus 'Prairiefire'1.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSSRB11SHILOH SPLASH RIVER BIRCHBetula nigra 'Shiloh Splash'1.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMEVERGREEN TREESBHS11BLACK HILLS SPRUCEPicea glauca 'Densata'6' ht.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMCBS11COLORADO SPRUCEPicea pungens6' ht.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHRUBS - CONIFEROUS & EVERGREENMJ14MEDORA JUNIPERJuniperus scopulorum 'Medora'36" HT.CONT.GLS88GRO-LOW SUMACRhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'24" HT.CONT.NCB72NORTHERN CHARM BOXWOODBuxus 'Wilson'24" HT.CONT.BCB21BLACK CHOKEBERRYAronia melanocarpa 'Morton'24" HT.CONT.AFD20ARCTIC FIRE DOGWOODCornus sericea 'Farrow'24" HT.CONT.PERENNIALS & GRASSESBAH16BLUE ANGEL HOSTAHosta 'Blue Angel'#1CONT.HGVG52HAKONECHLOA GOLDEN VARIEGATED GRASSHakonechloa macra 'Aureola'#1CONT.RA34RHEINLAND ASTILBEAstilbe japonica 'Rheinland'#1CONT.SSD348STELLA SUPREME DAYLILYHemerocallis 'Stella Supreme'#1CONT.WBA36WOODS BLUE ASTERAster 'Woods Blue'#1CONT.YWA40YOUNIQUE WHITE ASTILBEAstilbe 'Verswhite'#1CONT.LEGENDPROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESSODDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/31/17SHEET L1.1SHEET L1.2SEED TYPE 2 - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL, PERMNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)SEED TYPE 1 - MNDOT 34-262 WET PRAIRIE, PER MNDOTSEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)
1,215 ft²Unit D3771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type ACONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 1BOTTOM EL.=888.50OE=890.00EOF=890.00100-YR HWL=889.65INFIL. VOL (888.50-890.00)=1,230CFINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL.=877.00OE=878.00EOF=878.00100-YR HWL=878.25INFIL. VOL (877.00-878.00)=267CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGLAWNLAWNLAWNLAWNLAWNEDGING, TYP.DECORATIVE BOULDER, TYP.DECORATIVE BOULDER, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP,TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.37 - NCB35 - NCB6 - GLS3 - GLS3 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS10 - GLS12 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLSSEED TYPE 2SEED TYPE 11 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL6 - SSRB5 - SSRB11 - BCB11 - AFD9 - AFD15 - WBA3 - WBA1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL2 - GSL2 - GSLSEED TYPE 1SEED TYPE 24 - NRM4 - NRM7 - CBS4 - BHS2 - WO3 - WO3 - WO2 - WO3 - NRM26 - HGVG17 - RA3 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS8 - BAH20 - YWA3 - PFC2 - PFC3 - PFC124 - SSD92 - SSD132 - SSD14 - MJ01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.1NORTH LANDSCAPEPLAN............PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/31/17LEGENDSOD1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSEED TYPE 2 - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL, PERMNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)SEED TYPE 1 - MNDOT 34-262 WET PRAIRIE, PER MNDOTSEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)
958 ft²Club Room769 ft²Fitness120 ft²Office210 ft²
Conf. Rm.1,234 ft²Lobby1,215 ft²Unit D31,215 ft²Unit D31,329 ft²Unit D4958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A11,215 ft²Unit D3173 ft²Trash81 ft²Elev.Lobby80 ft²JC/Mech68 ft²Elec./LV121 ft²Office234 ft²Work Rm.771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1958 ft²Unit C1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1771 ft²Unit A1876 ft²Unit C3 - Type A1,131 ft²Unit D2 - Type A1,215 ft²Unit D3CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSINFILTRATION BASIN 3BOTTOM EL.=887.50OE=889.50EOF=889.50100-YR HWL=888.76INFIL. VOL (887.50-889.50)=8,172CFNOPARKINGNOPARKINGLAWNLAWNLAWNEDGING, TYP.DECORATIVE BOULDER, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.18" DECORATIVE ROCKMAINTENANCE STRIP,TYP.37 - NCB35 - NCB6 - GLS6 - GLS10 - GLS12 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS3 - GLS3 - GLSSEED TYPE 1SEED TYPE 2SEED TYPE 21 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL1 - SHL5 - SSRB10 - BCB11 - AFD12 - WBA6 - WBA1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL1 - GSL2 - GSL2 - GSL4 - NRM7 - BHS4 - CBS2 - WO3 - WO3 - SHL3 - WO26 - HGVG17 - RA3 - GLS6 - GLS6 - GLS8 - BAH20 - YWA3 - PFC2 - PFC3 - PFC124 - SSD92 - SSD132 - SSD14 - MJ01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.2SOUTH LANDSCAPEPLAN............PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONMENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
2160 HIGHWAY 13, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
971 SIBLEY HIGHWAY #300, St. Paul, MN 55118
MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
........................4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200307/31/17CITY ENTITLEMENTS SETPROJECT NO.: 17081COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.07/31/17LEGENDSOD1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSEED TYPE 2 - MNDOT 35-221 DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL, PERMNDOT SEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)SEED TYPE 1 - MNDOT 34-262 WET PRAIRIE, PER MNDOTSEEDING MANUAL SPECIFICATIONS (2014)
PAGE 1 OF 1Drawn By: SANDYDate:7/26/2017Scale: AS NOTEDRevisions# Date CommentsA. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION ORCOMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERALLIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES.GENERAL NOTES:B. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERFORMANCEOF THE PRODUCT.C. ALL READINGS/CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ONOBJECTS/SURFACES.MENDOTA HEIGHTS APTSChecked By: ROSSLuminaire ScheduleLuminaire Location SummaryLumNoLabelXYZOrientCalculation SummarySymbolQtyLabelLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinArrangementLLFDescriptionArr. WattsLum. LumensTilt24AA2540082247718.122Avg/MinMax/MinPROPERTY LINEIlluminanceFc0.040.20.00025AA2540082247826.86AA2BACK-BACK0.900LUMARK PRV-A40-D-UNV-T5-BZ MOUNT ON 20FT POLE WITH 2FT BASE28615697220N.A.026AA2N.A.SITE GROUNDIlluminanceFc540082247945221.6310.30.12BBSINGLE0.900LUMARK XTOR3B MOUNT AT 10FT25.500275127AA2539995247717.4220028AA2539993.1247943.4220029AA2539994.6247826.916.30220030BB540184.9247805.8103.00PARKING10900IlluminanceFc2.223.30.82.784.1331BB540184.2247858102700Plan ViewScale: 1 inch= 40 Ft.BBBBAA2AA2AA2AA2AA2AA21.73.1 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.00.1 0.2 0.3 0.52.91.33.02.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.81.10.80.23.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.63.10.13.00.3 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.02.61.01.90.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.92.92.01.22.0 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.70.2 0.3 0.4 0.52.02.72.3 1.9 1.4 0.90.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.70.22.60.82.5 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.8 1.62.92.12.30.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.43.12.31.12.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.90.1 0.22.32.11.0 0.80.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.50.12.00.82.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.30.61.82.30.32.6 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.01.82.71.41.9 1.4 1.00.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.6 2.81.13.02.62.90.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.52.32.40.42.9 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.90.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.92.51.10.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.00.41.11.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.50.7 0.91.01.61.31.10.31.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.80.20.21.50.61.01.21.41.61.61.60.12.2 1.1 0.72.7 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.00.10.20.1 0.13.20.1 0.30.20.83.00.3 0.4 0.60.50.40.9 1.4 2.0 3.22.82.93.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.12.50.31.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.10.1 0.10.70.21.60.4 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.90.22.82.30.13.20.9 1.4 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.20.43.30.63.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.23.32.51.9 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.60.72.60.82.7 2.92.12.42.71.7 1.42.02.60.72.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.61.61.01.20.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.60.11.30.63.2 3.1 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.01.00.52.93.8 10.3 1.7 0.2 0.10.1 0.1 0.10.72.20.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.93.01.82.92.6 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.90.11.30.92.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.62.21.12.10.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.01.40.83.01.5 1.3 0.90.1 0.1 0.2 0.32.20.62.21.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.21.50.41.81.10.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.60.31.80.21.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.41.81.82.51.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.90.41.81.31.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.80.1 0.11.80.80.2 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.31.80.60.71.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.60.42.83.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.10.43.00.82.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.52.73.12.62.60.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.70.12.40.12.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.62.00.63.02.6 2.8 3.12.52.51.41.70.21.02.70.5 0.6 2.6 4.5 1.1 0.2 0.10.11.42.83.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.10.33.02.72.5 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.60.1 0.10.93.10.12.8 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.93.00.12.90.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.40.50.62.30.60.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.80.21.82.22.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.11.33.20.8 1.4 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.11.03.21.63.2 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.72.73.21.61.00.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.92.61.41.41.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.81.21.41.30.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.01.21.31.31.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.41.91.21.61.92.5 2.1 1.70.1 0.2 0.3 0.52.31.22.22.0 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.63.10.71.62.61.7 1.40.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.72.51.42.02.0 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.21.02.11.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.22.32.21.32.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.70.1 0.1 0.12.20.13.12.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.91.70.11.50.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.40.70.80.20.9 0.70.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.31.40.61.61.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.40.42.22.40.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.01.22.20.32.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.92.22.62.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.92.43.02.42.1 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.60.1 0.1 0.23.10.22.43.0 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.63.10.12.90.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.00.60.11.40.30.70.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.61.31.11.61.6 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.40.82.53.10.8 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.71.02.50.42.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.92.60.0 0.00.10.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.00.10.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.20.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.20.20.20.20.20.00.20.00.10.10.20.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fcPREVAIL SERIESCROSSTOUR SERIES
Planning Staff Report
DATE: August 22, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-20
Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights / Ideal Energies Solar
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 Victoria Curve – City Hall
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Ideal Energies, working in conjunction with the City of Mendota Heights, is seeking a Conditional Use
Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit, to allow the installation of a new solar array field next to the existing
City Hall facilities.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. Notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
property owners within 1,500 feet (approx.) of City Hall – even though 350-ft. is normally required – to
ensure a large segment of the surrounding neighborhoods were made aware of this new municipal
improvement project. As of the preparation of this report, no comments have been received.
BACKGROUND
The City Hall facilities (administration, police
department, baseball field, and parking lot) all lie within
two large separate parcels, with a total combined acreage
of 17.4 acres. A majority of this land area however,
consists of nearby wetlands and road right-of-ways,
which results in a net “developable” area of
approximately 6 acres (see image – right).
City Hall is located in the R-1 One Family Residential
district.
Alternative Energy Systems and their standards are
provided under City Code Title 12-1D-18.
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 2 of 9
Under City Zoning Code Title 12-1E-3 R-1 One Family Residential District, “Ground mounted solar energy
systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are designed to supply energy to on-site
uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter.” are allowed by conditional use only. Pursuant to
the same Title 12-1D-18, any solar energy system development is limited to the location, size and area to
the maximum requirements allowed for accessory structures in any residential district. This issue will be
analyzed later in this report.
On February 21, 2017, the City Council authorized city staff to work with Ideal Energies in seeking two
separate solar energy grant applications offered by Made in Minnesota and Xcel Energy. Under the MiM
program, the City would receive a 25% savings in its electrical bills for the first 12 years; after that time a
100% of the electrical benefit would go to the City. The Xcel program has similar payback times.
The MiM grant program would pay for the cost of installation, and the maintenance for the initial 12 year
period. After 12 years, the City would become the owner of the system. Maintenance costs after that time
would be negotiated. The design life of the solar system is typically 25-30 years, but the practical lifespan
of systems can be as long as 40 years. So far, there have been no costs borne by the city on this project,
other than tree removal costs. The costs to install the solar panels will be covered by the two grants.
ANALYSIS
Project Description
The City is processing a conditional use permit for the construction of an accessory, ground-mounted solar
array system along the west side of city hall, which can be considered the rear yard under this case (see
image – below). Ideal Energies has been working with city staff to develop a solar array and site plan that
meets the needs of the City, and which meet all City regulations.
A description of the proposed solar array includes:
• 60 kW in total power generation
• Solar arrays mounted to the ground in concrete pilings or posts
• Sizes: there will be three (3) sets or arrays:
o #1 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 106.6 ft.;
o #2 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 130-ft.
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 3 of 9
o #3 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 80-ft.
• Maximum of approx. 9 feet in height
• Blue and silver in color and featuring anti-glare technology
The City originally explored the option of mounting the new solar array panels to the southerly facing roof
of City Hall, which would ideally captured much of the sunlight throughout the year, and avoided the need
to remove some trees on the city property. However, it was determined early on that over 1,000 holes or
penetrations to the roof structure would be needed in order to safely secure the panels; thus this option was
abandoned, and the stand-alone solar filed became the preferred option.
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided CC-City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall under the broad category of
Institutional in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City’s request to establish this alternative energy
system project on this property must be in general compliance with the City Code requirements, and is
subject to meeting certain standards under City Code Title 12-1D-18 (Alternative Energy Systems); Title
12-1E-3 (One Family Residential District); Title 12-1L-5 (Variances); Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Uses; and
Title 12-2-6 (Wetlands Systems-Permit Required).
Alternative energy or solar power systems are noted under the 20130 Comprehensive Plan with the
following statements of support; goals and policies:
Solar Access Protection
The City of Mendota Heights has historically planned for solar access protection within its
Comprehensive Plans. The rationale for including a solar access protection element in the
Comprehensive Plan is to assure the availability of direct sunlight to solar energy systems. A
large share of the energy consumed in Minnesota is used for purposes that solar energy could
well serve such as space heating and cooling, domestic hot water heating and low-temperature
industrial processes. Collection of solar energy requires protection of solar collectors’ sky
space. Solar sky space is the portion of the sky that must be free of intervening trees or
structures for a collector to receive unobstructed sunlight. According to the Minnesota Energy
Agency, “simple flat plate collectors have the potential to supply one-half of Minnesota’s space
heating, cooling, water heating and low-temperature industrial process heat requirements.”
Solar Access Goals and Policies:
Goal 1: Protect reasonable access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Policies:
• Consider modification of existing ordinances to protect access of direct sunlight to rooftops
of all principal structures.
• Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the development and use
of active and/or passive solar energy systems.
• Encourage buildings and developers to offer solar energy system options, to the extent
practical, for space heating and cooling and hot water heating in new residential,
commercial and industrial developments.
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 4 of 9
Section 12-1D-18: Alternative Energy Systems
We have analyzed this application for a conditional use permit according to Section 12-1D-18:
4. Ground Mounted Systems
a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed fifteen feet (15’) in height from the
average natural grade at the base of the system.
The proposed maximum height is approximately 9-ft., so this is acceptable.
b. Setbacks: The system shall be set back a minimum on fifteen feet (15’) from all property boundary
lines and thirty feet (30’) from all dwellings located on adjacent lots, including appurtenant
equipment.
The applicant stated in their “Letter of Intent” that the solar system is set back at least 15 feet from
all property lines and at least 30 feet from all dwellings located on adjacent lots. The two array
fields nearest to City Hall appears to be approximately 15-feet from the building. Because there
is a need to keep the array panels separated from each other; and because this westerly rear yard
area of City Hall property was the only suitable space to install the solar field, the location of these
panels will not be an issue.
c. Location: The system shall be limited to rear yards in all zoning districts.
The applicant is requesting that the system be located in the rear (west) yard of City Hall, which
staff finds acceptable.
d. Maximum Areas (1) Residential Districts: The system shall be limited in size to the maximum
requirements allowed for accessory structures.
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures (other than detached, private garages) in all
residential districts shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. For those properties in excess of 4 acres,
the total area cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (425) square feet, provided:
(A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet.
(B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected.
The approximate dimensional standards of the separated arrays are as follows:
o #1 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 106.6 ft. = 1,378 sf.
o #2 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 130-ft. = 1,690 sf.
o #3 – consisting of approx. 13-ft. x 80-ft. = 1,040 sf.
Approx. 4,108 sq. ft. of accessory structure area
The 425 sq. ft. standard above relates to a single structure. Since all three solar array systems
exceed the 1,000 sf. total area standard, and exceed the 425 sf. single structure area standards, a
variance is needed, which will be analyzed in the following sub-section of this report.
5. Screening: Solar energy systems will be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting
their function. Systems located within the business and industrial zoning districts may be required
to comply with the standards in subsection 12-1D-13-2C7 of this article where practical.
The site layout plan does not include or indicate any screening measures will be installed for this
project. Screening is typically used to hide or eliminate any visual impacts to surrounding properties,
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 5 of 9
especially single family residential. Although city hall is located in the R-1 One Family Residential
districts, there are no abutting residences that would likely see or be impacted (visually) by these solar
panels. The nearest single family residences are located over 500 and 750 feet from the solar field area.
Beth Jacob synagogue is located to the west; Mendota Corporate Center offices to the south (across the
highway); and Holy Family Church to the east.
In order to make room for these the solar panels, the city had to remove 5 medium to large sized trees
in this area, and has targeted 3 smaller trees to be moved to the back side of city hall near the police
department entrance. The solar panels however, will be effectively screened virtually all year round
along the west and north sides by the wooded wetland area adjacent to City Hall. Since the field of
panels are situated deep inside the city owned properties, and will be partially screened by City Hall
itself, the City is forgoing any screening measures in order to provide a more effective means of
providing solar light to the panels, and because there are no neighboring properties that will be visually
impacted by the filed, no screening is recommended.
6. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that are not visually incompatible with the color of the
roof material on which the system is mounted or other structures.
The proposed solar panels are blue and silver. The applicant states that these colors will “blend in
nicely with the existing site improvements”.
7. Glare: Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows
and minimize glare toward vehicular traffic and adjacent properties. Where necessary, the city may
require additional screening to address glare.
The proposed panels use anti-glare technology.
8. Utility Connection
The applicant states that the array will “meet all utility connection and safety standards”.
9. Safety
The applicant states that the array will “meet all utility connection and safety standards”.
10. Easements: Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon any public drainage, utility, roadway or
trail easements.
There are no easements in this area.
11. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which remains non-functional or inoperable for a
continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a
public nuisance. The owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire structure
and transmission equipment, at their expense after a demolition permit.
The applicant states that “…[typical] solar array should last at least 40 years, so abandonment
should not be an issue”.
Section 12-1L-5 Variances.
When considering a variance request, the City is required to find facts for supporting the following
statements of understanding, which are noted as follows:
a) The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
comprehensive plan; and the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner.
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 6 of 9
Response: The City’s desire to install these solar panels is a reasonable use of the property and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (as noted earlier in this report). The solar energy created
by these panels will help reduce the energy consumption created by the day-to day (24-hours) of
service operated from this facility, which will help reduce the taxpayer costs to operate such
facility over the course of many years. The operation of this solar field is a reasonable use and
should be supported.
b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner;
Response: When Ideal Energies approached the City of Mendota Heights to seek out these grants
and provide separate solar projects in various locations throughout the city, it was deemed
favorable by the City Council to have any new solar system installed on the south roof line of the
city hall building. However, after a comprehensive architectural and structural (engineering)
review of roof mounted panels and systems to city hall, it was determined that the existing roof was
not designed or built with adequate truss structures; and even if we beefed up these trusses, the
system would require a large number (over 1,000) of holes or penetrations to hold and secure the
panels to the roof. The City just recently invested a lot of money on water mitigation measures in
and around the building, and staff did not want to damage or add any potential problems to an
already taxed facility. In order to keep the grant funding, the city sought the second option of
placing the field next to City Hall, which was one of three options explored earlier for this site.
Staff does believe the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and
therefore the variance to exceed the allowable size of accessory structures in the R-1 Zone can be
supported and approved.
c) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Response: It is Staff’s belief that the variance to exceed the accessory structure limitations, will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, due in part by the large separation of these
surrounding uses from the city hall facility; and the City’s belief that the solar array panels will be
screened by the building and the nearby wooded wetlands, so no visual impacts should be evident.
Section 12-1L-6: Conditional Uses
Staff analyzed this application for a conditional use permit according to Section 12-1L-6.B.2:
Site Development Plan
1. Location of all buildings on the property in question, including both existing and proposed
structures
These structures are shown in the attached Site Play/Solar Field Layout.
2. Location of all adjacent buildings located within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the exterior
boundaries of the property in question.
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 7 of 9
City Hall is surrounded by Beth Jacob Synagogue to the west; Mendota Corporate Center and
Super-America gas station to the south and southeast; Holy Family church and a few single
family residences along Vail Drive to the east; and the city owned ponds/wetlands to the north. .
3. Floor Area Ratio
Not applicable
4. Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces
Not applicable
5. Vehicular Circulation
Not applicable
6. Architectural elevations (type and materials used of all external surfaces).
A rendering of the proposed arrays is shown in Figure 3.
7. Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed
Not applicable
8. Location and candle power of all luminaries
Not applicable
9. Location of all existing easements
There are no easements on the property.
Grading Plan
Not applicable. The applicant does not intend to grade materials to install solar arrays.
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 8 of 9
Landscape Plan
1. Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed
Approximately 6 trees were removed by the city to make room for the solar field. There are no
plans by the City to replace or replant trees at this time.
2. Location, type and diameter of proposed plantings
Not applicable. The applicant does not propose plantings.
3. Location and material used of all screening devices
Not applicable. The applicant does not propose screening devices.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies
with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is not
compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit for New
Alternative Energy (Solar) System, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with
the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1),
with the following conditions:
1) The City’s contractor/consultant for this new Alternative Energy (Solar) System must provide
proper utility connection and safety documentation to the City Building Official and Public
Works Director.
2) The City’s contractor/consultant applies for any required building permits, including electrical
permits.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site Plan
2. Planning applications, including supporting materials
Planning Case 2017-20 (City Solar Proj.) Page 9 of 9
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Wetlands Permit
For an Alternative Energy (Solar) System
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the community, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System conforms to the general purpose and intent of this
code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all
conditions are met and upheld by the property owners.
3. The installation and implementation of this new Alternative Energy system at the City Hall will help
reduce the overall energy consumed by the facility, and is in the best interests of the City’s residents
and businesses (taxpayers) by helping to reduce annual operating costs of City Hall and other
facilities.
4. The City intends to install and use the Alternative Energy System on the property in a reasonable
manner; the plight of the landowner in selecting this area for its new Alternative Energy System was
due to circumstances unique to the property; and the new Alternative Energy System will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood.
5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
1140
11011179
1101
1905
1960
1101
1903 1901
1092
1890
1088
1084
1158
1095 1085
1090
1092
1162
1163
1082
1901 10851091
1916
1895
1908
10871895
HWY 110 LEXINGTON AVEVICTORIA CUR
V A I L D R
VICTORIA RD
HWY 110
Dakota County GIS
CIty Hall Property(Wetland Boundary Map)City ofMendotaHeights0190
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/16/2017
GROUND FIXED TILT (GFT) has evolved from more than 12 years of experience meeting a variety of project
requirements. A synergy of steel components and aluminum parts deliver performance with the lowest system
cost. Installation savings are captured through efficiently engineered components, optional pre-assembled parts
and integrated bonding for optimized construction sequencing. GFT delivers engineered cost savings to meet your
project needs.
GROUND FIXED TILT
SCALABLE TO ANY SIZE PROJECT
LESS STEPS • FEWER PARTS • BEST SERVICE • QUALITY PROVIDER
UNIRAC CUSTOMER SERVICE MEANS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PRODUCT SUPPORT
ENGINEERING
EXCELLENCE
UNMATCHED
EXPERIENCE
PERMIT
DOCUMENTATION
DESIGN
TOOLS
CERTIFIED
QUALITY
BANKABLE
WARRANTY
PROTECT YOUR REPUTATION WITH QUALITY RACKING SOLUTIONS BACKED BY ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AND A SUPERIOR SUPPLY CHAIN
ON-TIME DELIVERY
No waiting. Our goal is simple: Consistently deliver
solutions and services correctly, efficiently and
dependably to exceed your expectations. Our
world-class operations provide a 99% on-time
delivery to help you meet your commitment dates.
BANKABLE WARRANTY
Unirac has the financial strength to back our products and
reduce your risk. Have peace of mind knowing you are
receiving products of exceptional quality. GFT is covered by a
20-year manufacturing warranty on all parts.
CERTIFIED QUALITY PROVIDER
Unirac is the only PV mounting vendor with ISO certifications
for 9001:2008, 14001:2004 and OHSAS 18001:2007, which
means we deliver the highest standards for fit, form, and
function. These certifications demonstrate our excellence
and our commitment to first class business practices.
TOP MOUNTING
MODULE CLAMPS
W/ INTEGRATED BONDING
ALUMINUM
BEAM SPLICE
4.5” X 6”
C-PILE
FOUNDATION
DIAGONAL BRACE
ASSEMBLY
ALUMINUM
MODULE
SUPPORT BEAM
SNAP-0N
WIRE MANAGEMENT
SCALABLE TO ANY SIZE PROJECT
ALUMINUM BEAMS WITH MAXIMUM ADJUSTABILITY
East-West aluminum beams include a top mounting slot to accommodate a variety of
module sizes without customizing a design for your project. Attachment to North-South
top chords is simple and quick with slots yielding maximum construction tolerances
throughout the array. A series of pre-drilled holes on the foundation channel and steel
top chord ease the assembly process with fewer tools and less labor.
ENGINEERED COST SAVINGS
PRE-ASSEMBLY & WIRE MANAGEMENT
When project optimization outweighs component costs, Unirac will pre-assemble
the top mounting clamps, shifting part of the installation process to our factory and
saving labor steps on the job site. Wire management simply snaps anywhere onto the
aluminum beam, holding bundles of wire up to 2 inches in diameter.
PROJECT SUPPORT SERVICES
DESIGN & QUOTATION ASSISTANCE
Every project receives standard drawings and calculations to aid permitting and system
installation. We provide top notch project management services including design &
quotation assistance, site-specific construction drawings and 3rd party structural
design documentation.
ELECTRICAL
BONDING &
GROUNDINGUL2703
GROUND FIXED TILT
PUB2016SEP08 - PRINTED UPDATE