2020-02-27 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary 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.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020
7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2020
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approval of the January 28, 2020 regular meeting minutes
5. Public Hearings
a. Case No. 2020-02: Lot Line Adjustment for properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter
Lane. John Cosgriff (in conjunction with the Joy R. Van Trust) – Applicants
b. Case No. 2020-03: Variance for property located at 554 Junction Lane, to encroach 2-
feet into the 10-ft. side-yard setback for proposed addition with attached garage. Rachel
Quick – Applicant
c. Case No. 2020-01: Conditional Use Permit to Amend a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) - proposed mixed-use development consisting of a 48-Unit Senior (55+) Apartment
and Restaurant – located on the city-owned lots in The Village at Mendota Heights at 725
Linden Street & 735 Maple Street. Grand Real Estate Advisors – Applicant/Developer
[TABLED from the January 28, 2020 meeting]
6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
7. Adjourn Meeting
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 28, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January
28, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz.
Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of December 19, 2019 Minutes
Commissioner Katz noted the first page, the first paragraph, it should state, “August 27 December
19, 2019”.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2019.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 3 (Corbett, Noonan, and Toth)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-01
GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, 725 LINDEN STREET & 735 MAPLE
STREET – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Grand Real Estate Advisors is
requesting approval to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Development Plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal for the City-owned
lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to
the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east. Hearing notices were published
and mailed to all properties within 1,320-ft. of the site; one comment was received in support.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 12
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the parking and asked for additional information on the senior
housing referenced in the bullets.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti clarified that the parking requirements were
approved through the original PUD and noted that the senior housing reference is for this project.
He also provided details on the wetland buffer requirement for the West Neighborhood included
in the original PUD. He stated that staff reviewed records and could not find a record of a wetland
in that area. He noted that staff has also visited the site and did not find the wetland on the site,
therefore there is no longer a need for that setback for a wetland permit.
Commissioner Katz referenced the map of the overall area and asked if the original Village concept
was based on a trip analysis or traffic study, which would take into account different variables.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti was unsure if there was a traffic study or report at
that time but assumed that some type of study was completed. He stated that the original intent
was to ensure that all the parking would be shared. He stated that the site currently has more
parking than is used on a daily basis and believed the site could be adequately served by the
underground and surface parking, even with the restaurant use.
Commissioner Toth referenced the parking calculation used for the restaurant use, one stall for
four customers. He noted that most people will travel two people to a vehicle for a restaurant. He
stated that snow conditions also impact the number of available stalls and therefore he would like
to see a snow removal plan from the developer. He referenced the trip generation study and asked
what the peak hours were.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that typically there are a.m., noon, and
p.m. peak hours.
Commissioner Toth stated that he would like to know when the study was done in terms of hours
and what the peak hours are.
Commissioner Corbett asked the process for defining the basis of parking within PUD.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he would assume the ordinance was
used that basis and then provided discount to that number because of the shared uses. He stated
that the ultimate value was most likely negotiated. He explained that typically senior apartment
uses provide one stall per unit because of a lesser demand for that type of residential use. He noted
that specific standards are in place within the PUD for each neighborhood, with the intent of all
the uses fitting together.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the Village has been up for at least 15 years and he has not seen
parking problems at the various times he has been there throughout that time. He stated that the
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 12
standards within the PUD have done the development and the community well. He stated that the
parking standards and recommendations seem to be appropriate.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that in his time with the City he has not
noticed an issue with parking or received complaints. He stated that the mixed-use development
is setup for shared parking with walkability, therefore if you cannot park near the desired location,
you can park within the development and walk to that location.
Commissioner Petschel asked where senior housing it codified in the ordinance, or whether this
speaks to a general standard on senior housing throughout the twin cities.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this number was codified through the
original PUD agreement.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisors, stated that he has reached out to his engineers about
snow storage, noting that three or four locations for snow storage have been identified on the site
that could be used for that purpose. He recognized under high snowfall winters, snow may need
to be hauled offsite. He referenced the discussion related to the wetland delineation. He noted
that his engineers met with City staff in November on site and City staff agreed that it was
determined not to be a wetland. He stated that their traffic analysis used the MnDOT definition of
peak hours of 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 to 5:45 p.m. for the Dodd Road intersection. He stated
that in regard to parking, he believes that as designed there is ample parking for the restaurant and
the residents. He stated that this is a large project and they would not make the investment if they
felt parking would be compromised. He explained that the success of a restaurant and residential
use is dependent on available parking. He noted that there is also a public ramp near to the site,
that is underutilized and could be used by employees to free up additional nearby spaces. He stated
that the restaurant and apartments will be owned by the same party and therefore have an aligned
interest in sufficient parking. He commented that the site is meant to be walkable and he
anticipates some visitors will be pedestrian or cyclists. He stated that there are an additional 23
on-street parking stalls within the proximity of the site that could be available for patrons of the
site. He confirmed that the on-street public parking was not included in the site calculations for
parking.
Commissioner Corbett asked if Grand Real Estate Advisors would be the end owner of the project.
Mr. Fenlon noted that he would be a partner in the end ownership of the project, along with his
partners.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the outdoor seating for the restaurant, which will be 50 to 100
feet from the residential property and asked how those uses would intermix.
Mr. Fenlon stated that the restaurant is anticipated to serve breakfast, lunch and dinner. He
commented that outdoor seating is a continued trend for restaurant operations. He provided
examples of existing restaurants with outdoor seating adjacent residential properties that have been
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 12
able to manage those uses successfully with buffer and hour limitations. He stated that he believes
the restaurant would close at 11:00 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends. He stated that
they have reviewed the option of enclosing the outdoor seating area.
Commissioner Toth stated that it is great that residents of Mendota Heights are excited to build
within the city. He referenced the comment related to the area being accessible to pedestrians and
cyclists and asked if there would be consideration for designated bicycle/moped parking.
Mr. Fenlon confirmed that there would be bicycle racks accessible but noted that they could look
into moped/motorcycle parking as well.
Commissioner Katz referenced the deliveries for the restaurant and asked where the service
entrance for the restaurant would be and where the truck would park.
Mr. Fenlon stated that most of the deliveries do not some in a full semi, that would only happen
perhaps once per week. He identified the service entrance location for the restaurant, noting that
most of the delivery vehicles can handle their deliveries within the site. He identified the area a
full semi could park to access the service entrance.
Commissioner Toth referenced the additional traffic from Maple Street onto Dodd and asked if
there has been consideration of a stoplight to control that intersection.
Mr. Fenlon stated that they have not had that discussion and referenced the comments from the
traffic study that does not feel that the number of trips will make a noticeable difference on the
streets.
A Resident (?), indicating she lived on Dodd Road (address not given) stated she disagrees with
the traffic study. She commended Commissioner Corbett for his comments on the outdoor seating
as that would be a concern for the adjacent residential properties. She stated that she is not against
the project as she would enjoy the restaurant. She disagreed with the trip counter, noting that the
senior use would be 55 plus, noting that most people that age typically work. She stated that the
restaurant estimates are also low as many groups have people that each drive separate and meet at
the restaurant. She commented that she believes there would be a problem with the semi deliveries
and could also be an issue for fire trucks attempting to access the site. She asked that the site be
reviewed by a fire department to obtain additional comments. She commented that there was
previously a wetland/wet space that has since been filled in. She stated that after the Village was
constructed there has been more issues with water flowing onto Dodd Road. She asked that the
City not approve this until the speed on the road is decreased from 40 mph to 30 mph.
Brad Wallace, 715 Linden, stated that he is speaking on behalf of his condominium homeowners’
association. He thanked the Commission for their thoughtful questions and commended the
developer for the cooperative spirit they have shown throughout this process. He stated that they
would like to see the tree buffer between the condominium building and the new development,
with removed trees replaced on a one for one basis. He stated that the street parking spots near
Linden are used the townhome residents as overflow and would hope that there would be
something in place to ensure that those parking stalls are not used by restaurant patrons. He
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 12
referenced the parking ramp, which is very underutilized. He stated that he would love to see some
way for the City to direct people into the parking area, as it is virtually empty most of the time.
He stated that people do not know to park in the ramp and perhaps additional education could help
visitors use that ramp more.
The [Dodd Road Resident] asked if there would be something permanent related to the senior
housing or whether that use could be changed in the future to allow housing for all ages.
Mr. Fenlon stated that he has not been aware of a document that would restrict the housing by age
for a period of time. He noted that there is a strong demand for senior housing, and they have
every intention of building and keeping the use as senior housing.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the staff report references the reduced standards for senior
housing, with parking reduced to one space per unit. He explained that market rate apartments
would have a different parking rate and therefore if the use changed from senior to market rate,
the parking would be severely under supplied. He was unsure as to the control the City would
have to limit that use.
Mr. Fenlon stated that he has no intention to do anything other than senior housing, noting that his
comment was simply that he was not aware of that type of document.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the developer would be comfortable with a provision in the
Development Agreement that would restrict the use to senior housing for a period of time.
Mr. Fenlon confirmed that he would be comfortable with that.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there is an agreement that goes along
with a PUD which can include that this building would only be allowed for senior housing. He
explained if the desire were to change to a market rate apartment, the applicant would need to
come back before the Commission and Council to request a change in that use.
Mr. Fenlon explained that the building would not work well as a market rate apartment because of
the differences in number of units, types of amenities, ratio of one- and two-bedroom apartments,
square footage of apartments, and parking needed.
Chair Magnuson stated that as a person that would qualify, by age, to live in this type of housing,
she would agree that people of this age generate multiple trips and have multiple vehicles.
Mr. Fenlon commented that the traffic study was completed by a third party and noted that the
building space is designed to support active use.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 12
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER (THE VILLAGE AT
MENDOTA HEIGHTS), WHICH WOULD ALLOW A NEW MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF A 48-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING WITH A RESTAURANT,
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota
Heights, in a form prepared by the City Attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the
City Council. The Development Agreement shall contain language restricting use of the
building to senior housing. Should the developer propose a change to the use of the
property, or to market rate housing, the developer shall be required to amend the
Development Agreement.
2. Development shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the
separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director.
3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined
by the Public Works Director and if necessary, the Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
4. 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 the
architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural
Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements.
5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances must be screened with vegetation
or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit
process.
6. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with the City
Pollinator Friendly Policy.
7. 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.
8. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit
approvals.
9. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal
to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
10. The developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severely 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.
11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water
Service (SPRWS) standards.
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 12
12. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
13. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in
compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
14. 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.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he appreciates the motion but believes that this should be
tabled tonight. He stated that there were a number of items requested at the concept review that
have not been addressed and additional questions arose tonight. He believed that there is sufficient
time available to table the request to allow for that additional information to be supplied. He stated
that he would like to see the snow storage plan. He noted that he would assume the building would
be sprinkled which would eliminate the need for multiple fire trucks in the case of fire. He stated
that he would like to see the review of the landscaping plan completed by the Master Gardeners
prior to Council review rather than prior to issuance of a building permit. He stated that during
the concept review there was a request for a comparison between the impervious surface and
stormwater treatment for the original PUD versus what is being proposed, and how the stormwater
treatment would handle the runoff for the increased impervious surface and the higher intensity
storms. He stated that he would like to see a comparison between the proposed development traffic
volumes and flows to the traffic study the City completed in 2017 that proposed a different type
of development for this site. He noted that the City’s study identified future improvements along
Dodd Road and if the traffic is going to be changed from the assumptions in that plan, it is possible
that the need for some of those improvements will also change. He commented that he would like
to see the pedestrian connections that would make it possible for pedestrian traffic to flow from
this site to the remainder of the overall site. He referenced the parking calculations for the
restaurant use and did not believe that to be adequate. He suggested that the traffic study use ITE
and data from other Mendota Heights restaurants rather than using the peak times from MnDOT.
He noted that if the motion from Commission Noonan does not pass, he would be willing to make
a motion to table.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he will withdraw his motion.
Commissioner Corbett supported that action.
Motion withdrawn.
Commissioner Katz noted that some of the questions from Commissioner Mazzitello could be
answered tonight by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 12
Mr. Fenlon confirmed that the building will be fully sprinkled. He stated that the snow storage
plan has been prepared. He stated that he has also scheduled a meeting with the Master Gardeners
in advance of the City Council meeting. He stated that he does not have a copy of the 2017 traffic
study from the City but stated that he would commit to having his traffic consultant update that
study.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he would not require the applicant to update that study, but
simply to update the tables in the study.
Mr. Fenlon stated that he was unsure if his traffic consultant looked at ITE numbers in addition to
MnDOT numbers. He stated that he did push his traffic consultant on the afternoon hours and
noted that the consultant picked a classification a step more casual and faster in order to be more
conservative with the counts. He noted that the classification of restaurant proposed would most
likely reduce those counts.
Joseph Kimbrell, project architect, stated that he cannot provide details on the stormwater question
as the engineers would have to provide that information. He stated that the snow storage areas are
identified in note 17 of the civil site plan. He stated that curb cuts were added to connect the
parking lot on Maple to the main lot. He stated that pedestrian striping was not proposed as the
remainder of the PUD site does not have that element but noted that they would be willing to add
that element for the project.
Commissioner Mazzitello referenced the two areas that he would like to see pedestrian
connectivity provided.
Mr. Fenlon stated that they were able to answer a few of the items and would be willing to engage
his traffic consultant to obtain the additional information requested. He asked if the Commission
would be agreeable to moving this forward with that commitment.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if tabling this request would cause a delay in the developer’s
timeline.
Mr. Fenlon stated that he would like to begin construction in May in order to avoid increased
winter construction conditions, which would be at risk if the action is tabled tonight.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 27, 2019 MEETING.
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 12
Further discussion: Commissioner Katz stated that he visited the site at a time he did not anticipate
being busy and was lucky to find a parking stall. He stated that he would like a more complete
traffic study to be completed using the current traffic that exists and how the additional uses would
impact the current commercial and residential areas. He believed that the current layout causes
congestion and would want to see a more complete review for this site and the overall area.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Petschel)
Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears that Commissioner Katz is requesting a review of the
overall PUD and surrounding area, whereas the applicant provided a study on this project and
increased use from the project.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided details on the City study that was
completed in 2017, along with the report that was presented to the City Council privately for the
original PUD.
Commissioner Petschel asked the type of study Commissioner Katz would like.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the City study is publicly available and used real traffic
counts. He noted that studies for proposed projects would use ITE, or a similar practice. He
clarified that his request was for the applicant to update the tables/traffic models within the City’s
2017 report with the proposed traffic counts for their proposed uses as the original use projected a
different use with different counts.
Commissioner Katz confirmed that could be sufficient. He stated that he would still like to see
2020 data and asked if the applicant would be willing to entertain the cost to complete an actual
traffic stud y for that area. He appreciated what the applicant has done but noted that he would like
additional data.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he believes what he is requesting from the applicant would
answer the questions from Commissioner Katz.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the following items should be addressed by the
developer prior to the February Planning Commission meeting:
• Comparison of the 2017 traffic study (numbers/tables) with the proposed development in
place of the original PUD use
• Impervious surface comparison from the original PUD to the proposed use, taking into
account the change in impervious surface and the change in rainfall intensity
• Master Gardeners review complete
• Traffic Model for Restaurant to be updated
• Pedestrian Connectivity, showing where connectivity to the Village would be provided
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 12
B) PLANNING CASE 2019-29
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 553 – AMENDING CERTAIN
REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS REGARDING KEEPING OF DOMESTIC
CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City is asked to consider a few
amendments to City Code Title 5 – Police Regulations and Title 12 – Zoning regarding certain
provisions and standards related to the keeping of domestic chickens in the city.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the statement that composting will be allowed unless there is a
complaint. He asked what would prevent him from making a complaint that would shut down that
ability for someone.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff would visit the site to complete
a review before making the determination. He confirmed that there would be consistent
enforcement. He stated that the expectation would be on the homeowner completing the
composting to complete the activity in an effective manner. He stated that if there is a complaint,
that staff verifies upon site review, the homeowner would be provided the opportunity to resolve
the issue and if that is not done, staff would remove the ability for the homeowner to compost.
Commissioner Noonan noted that there are specific criteria/tests listed in the ordinance that would
be used for regulation as well.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he feels comfortable with the criteria included and the staff
process described, noting that his concern was simply that there was a consistent manner in which
enforcement would occur.
Commissioner Toth asked if a half acre lot could have an accessory building of 144 square feet
and a chicken coop sized up to 144 square feet.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that any lot under four acres could have
one accessory building up to 144 square feet and could be allowed an additional 81 square feet for
the chicken coop, for a total of up to 225 square feet.
Commissioner Toth asked why the increase is proposed from four to six chickens and what the
recommended living area is for one chicken.
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 12
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the request was received from current
chicken permit holders to increase the number of allowed chickens. He noted that the staff report
includes the detailed information on the recommended living space for each chicken.
Commissioner Toth stated that perhaps many residents choose to have chickens over the next two
years and asked if there have been considerations on the other impacts the keeping of chickens
could have on rodents, predators, and other elements of that nature.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the City has only received 12 permits
out of the over 5,000 households, which is a very limited scope. He did not foresee a proliferation
of chicken keeping throughout the city in the future.
Chair Magnuson referenced the language related to composting and suggested that the language
to be amended to a complaint from a resident, as the currently proposed language could be
interpreted to require complaints from multiple residents.
Commissioner Noonan asked if a resident could construct a chicken coop of 225 square feet if they
do not have any other accessory structures.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the size of the chicken coop is limited
and therefore a coop of that size would not be allowed.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Noonan stated that he does not support the keeping of chickens in an urban
environment.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY TOTH, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 553 AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 2 (Noonan and Toth)
NAYS: 5
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE No. 553 AS WITH THE
MODIFICATION NOTED BY CHAIR MAGNUSON.
January 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 12
AYES: 5
NAYS: 2 (Noonan and Toth)
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
• Appointment of new and incumbent Planning Commissioners
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Litton Field will join the Commission
at its meeting in February. He reported that Commissioner Mazzitello was reappointed by the
Council.
• Recognition of Commissioner Michael Noonan for his service to the Commission
Chair Magnuson stated that it is with great regret that this is Commissioner Noonan’s last meeting
and thanked him for all of his input and experience. She stated that the contributions from
Commissioner Noonan have furthered the business of the Commission over the past nine years.
She presented Commissioner Noonan with a plaque thanking his for his service to the Commission.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Planning Staff Report
DATE: February 27, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-02
Lot Line Adjustment
APPLICANT: John Cosgriff / Joy Van
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1875 & 1885 Hunter Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: May 26, 2020 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Mr. John Cosgriff, in cooperation with Ms. Joy Van, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line
adjustment between two properties located at 1875 and 1885 Hunter Lane.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received one letter/email of support from a neighboring
resident (appended to this report); and no other comments or objections on this item.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. & Mrs. Cosgriff recently purchased 1875 Hunter
Lane, and are now in the process of completing the
construction of a new single-family dwelling at this
location. In 2019, the Cosgriff’s requested a critical
area permit and variance to construct this new
residential dwelling, which was approved the city under
Resolution No. 2019-24 (April 2, 2019).
The larger Van property (1885 Hunter Lane) to the
south of Cosgriffs, is an “L”-shaped parcel with an
approximate 154’ x 154’ square-shaped area located
directly behind Cosgriff’s property. The Cosgriff’s
have agreed to purchase this rear parcel area from Mrs.
Van, with the expressed purpose of combining this land
area with their 1875 Hunter Lane tax parcel. The parcel
created by this line adjustment will not be used create a
new, buildable lot for a future residential dwelling or
any other development.
Planning Report: Case #2020-02 Page 2
ANALYSIS
The 1875 Hunter Lane property is relatively rectangular in shape, consisting of 87,531-sf. of area, which
includes a new home under construction (light brown shaded area -below). The 1885 Hunter Lane property
is an “L” shaped parcel consisting of over 194,364-sf. (5-acres) of area, with a 2,670-sf. single-story
residence and a 34’ x 36’ accessory structure in the back (SW) corner (light-blue shaded area-below).
Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided
the following standards are met:
Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to
permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not
cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance.
This request to modify the Van parcel boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting parcel is
being added to an abutting parcel; and the resulting adjustment does not cause the other remaining lots to
be in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Planning Report: Case #2020-02 Page 3
The Applicant’s properties remain unchanged along the public street frontage; and each lot will easily
exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for parcels in the R-1 One-Family Residential district.
This lot line adjustment will have little, if any impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel,
nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the entire Hunter Lane neighborhood.
It should be noted that both properties are situated in the current Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area
overlay district; and these rear yards of both parcels are impacted by steep bluffs that drop down to the
west. Since the Applicant does not plan to perform any major changes to the subject land parcel (i.e.
grading, tree removals, or development requiring a building permit), this lot line adjustment does not require
a critical area permit.
The Cosgriffs wish to keep the added parcel as an untouched and preserved natural extension to their current
rear yard area. No new development will occur in this area, and the city has conditioned that this new
parcel must be combined with the Cosgriff’s main tax parcel to avoid any creation of a “non-conforming
parcel” without any access or frontage on a public roadway system.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a negative
impact on surrounding properties; or
1. Table the request; request additional information if required, and extend the application review
period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
Planning Report: Case #2020-02 Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact supporting the
request, with conditions noted as follows:
1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the new
parcel created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1875 Hunter Lane
property, Parcel ID Number 27-18200-00-050.
2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
3) No development activities, including grading/filling work, landscaping, tree removals, retaining
walls, fencing, stairway or walkways, or any structure requiring a zoning and/or building permit
will be allowed unless authorized under a separate critical area permit application.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment
1875 & 1885 Hunter Lane
(Cosgriff & Van properties)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses
no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood or the Mississippi
River Critical Corridor area.
3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements.
1875 & 1885 HUNTER LANE
Property Information
Febru ary 20, 2020
0 225 450112.5 ft
0 60 12030 m
1:2,400
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
2020-02 500.00 500.00
01/26/2020 03/26/2020
From:Tim Bartusch
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Lot Line Adjustment
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:50:17 AM
After receiving the notice regarding the Cosgriff-Van application, Nancy and Tim Bartusch 1890 Hunter
Lane have no objection to this request.
Kind Regards
Tim Bartusch
1875 HUNTER LANE (COSGRIFF)1885HUNTER LANE (VAN)
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: February 27, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-03
VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Rachel Quick
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 554 Junction Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: March 27, 2020 (60-Day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Rachel Quick, owner of 554 Junction Lane, is requesting consideration of a variance of 2-feet from the 10-
foot side-yard setback requirements, in order to provide an addition and connection to a new two-car garage.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed
to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The Applicants have submitted three
letters of support from neighboring residents (appended to this report), including the immediate neighbor
to the east; along with one verbal comment of support from another neighboring resident; and one objection
from the immediate neighbor to the west.
BACKGROUND / SITE
DESCRIPTION
The subject parcel is located within one
of older R-1 One Family Residential
Zoning Districts in the community, and
generally identified as the “North End”
neighborhood. This district and
neighborhood is comprised of smaller,
single-family residential lots and
properties, that were platted in and
around the 1940’s. When observing this
property and the surrounding properties,
there appears to be a number of sites that
do not conform to many of the setback
standards or minimum lot-size
standards under the R-1 zoning district.
The neighborhood in which the subject
property is located features a number of
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 2
homes that were originally built with single car or smaller two-car garages. The subject property is a pie-
shaped lot, located along the tightly curved-road section on Junction Lane. The property consists of 10,740-
sf. (0.25 acres); with a 1,728-sf. one-story dwelling (built in 1947) along with a 22’ x 22’ detached two-car
garage, which sits just behind the home (see images-below).
Street View of Dwelling/Garage (Google Maps)
According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits 40-ft. off front lot line along Junction Lane;
and 5-ft. off the south lot line at the closest corner of the home. The existing 22’ x 22’ detached garage
structure sits a few feet behind the home, slightly askew from the back wall of the home, and sits at least
10-ft. from the adjacent side lot line. The small shed located behind the garage is a chicken coop.
The plan calls for an addition to the back of the home, consisting of a new mud-room and laundry room,
with a small walkway connection to the newly constructed and slightly larger 24’ x 22’ garage (highlighted
in green – image below). In order to match the lines off the back of the home with the addition and garage
attachment, the new garage needs to sit approximately 2-feet closer to the side-lot line, which necessitates
this variance. The applicant has provided a narrative explaining their reasons for making this request.
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 3
ANALYSIS
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when
recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
• Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
• Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
• Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
• Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
• Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City
Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has
not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a
recommendation of denial must be determined.
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 4
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response:
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the zoning ordinance.
Applicant’s Response: The owner would like to build a new, attached garage to replace the existing
detached garage. By building a new garage, the garage slab can be raised to mitigate a current
drainage issue that results in standing water at the foundation of the home. The use of the property
remains the same.
Staff’s Response: The subject property as it exists today, with a typical single family dwelling and
detached garage, can easily be determined as being used in a “reasonable manner” permitted by the
zoning code. The city must now give careful consideration of whether or not the use of the property as
altered by the variance, is reasonable or will remain reasonable after requested improvements are made.
The proposed garage to be re-built under this plan is not excessive (in size) compared to the old one
scheduled for removal; and can be recognized as a wise choice by the homeowner wishing to limit the
mass and scale of the new garage project on this smaller-sized lot.
The Applicants request to construct the addition and garage “parallel” to the back of the home, which
essentially shifts the small portion of the back corner of garage slightly outward and into the adjacent
10-ft. side-yard setback area, appears minimal and reasonable, and does not impact the neighboring
property. Based on aerial mapping review and interpretation of this neighborhood area, it appears a
number of homes and accessory garage structures (including the subject property) do not meet some of
the required setbacks under the R-1 District standards.
The owners request to allow the small addition and new physical connection to the re-built garage
structure is consistent with many other homes and properties throughout the community. Staff finds
the overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change; and the Applicant’s desire to
construct a small addition/connection to the rear portion of the existing house, even one that requires
this variance, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: The lot, Lot 2 Block 1, Kirchner Addition, 554 Junction Lane, is a pie shaped lot,
wider at the front (street) and narrower at the rear. The location of the house requires the garage to
be behind the house in order to successfully build the new garage and connect it to the home, it will
be parallel to the home (the current two car garage is detached and parallel to the property line). The
rear corner of the proposed garage, will encroach on the side yard setback approximately 2’. The
existing garage of the lot to the immediate north is only 6’ from the property line encroaching on the
side yard setback 4’.
Staff’s Response: Staff finds that there may be some unique circumstances to this property,
particularly with the “pie-shaped” formation of the lot, which was created by the original platting in
1944. This smaller, odd shaped lot creates some constraints that limit the full use of the property by
the owner, especially towards the rear yard space; and does not provide the added allowances normally
afforded to a typical rectangular shaped or larger area lot found in other parts of the city.
The existing home with a reduced 5-foot setback on the opposite side, is indicative of a shared trait
among many other properties in this “North End” neighborhood and some adjacent neighboring
properties. Even though staff has acknowledged that other non-conforming lots or properties where
variances may have been granted do not add precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances
should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), it is still acceptable for the city to
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 5
give some favorable weight to such physical circumstances, such as a uniquely shaped lot or existing
(reduced) setbacks currently existing on the subject site.
One can assume with the subject home being originally constructed in 1947 (staff unable to determine
if garage built at that time or later), it predated city ordinance by over a decade. The existing home and
property is now considered legal nonconforming, as it does not meet the required side-yard setback on
the south. Due to the location of the home, and its proximity to the adjacent side lot lie, lining up the
new attached garage/addition with the back-side of the house appears treasonable; and may give some
added weight to creating or supporting this practical difficulty argument for the property owner.
3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: The proposed new garage and connection to the home will use the same
materials that presently exist on the home. The roof pitch of the new, proposed garage will match the
existing. The location of the proposed garage is essentially in the same location as the existing garage.
Staff’s Response: The neighborhood is all but residential in character. The new addition represents a
considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing 1940’s style and designed dwelling into
a nicer, more up-to-date home for the owner. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through
their architectural/construction design plans, that the new addition and attached garage features will be
made to match the existing home, will not look out of place, or detract from the overall design and feel
of the existing dwelling, the neighboring properties or overall neighborhood.
Many other properties in the vicinity feature garages both attached and detached, that may not meet
some required setback standards. As noted previously, based on aerial mapping review and
interpretation of this neighborhood area, it appears a number of homes and accessory garage structures
(including the subject property) do not meet some of the required setbacks under the R-1 District
standards. A search of city records did not find any instances of other variances granted (or denied) on
other properties addressed off Junction Lane. Therefore, staff believes the essential character of the
neighborhood would not be altered by granting the variance.
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations
into account alone should not be the reason for either denying – or even approving a variance. In
this particular case, the property owner is simply requesting to provide a small addition to her home
which includes a convenient, sheltered walkway connection to the garage. This new
addition/garage requires a small corner encroachment, which helps minimizes and reduces the loss
of valuable back yard space, and does not impact the neighboring properties.
Although one can conclude this new attached garage and addition will provide some economic
value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale),
the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable
explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may
affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting
this variance.
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family
Residence district, as this proposed addition with attached garage are all consistent and allowed as
a permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use
not allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 6
not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and
this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End
in the community.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and
policies are noted below:
• LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and
character of the community.
• LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level
in community development and building.
• LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic
level in community development and building.
• LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select
non-conforming properties.
The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a
property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner.
The proposed garage/addition poses no threat or any effect on light and air, as well as the danger
of fire and the risk to public safety. This new addition and request for variance can be viewed or
considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the
current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support
the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setback, by:
i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition and attached garage to the existing home is
consistent with other homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the
overall use and enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the allowance
of the variance, and therefore the requested variance is considered a reasonable request.
ii.) the subject property was originally platted in 1944, creating a uniquely “pie-shaped” style lot
and developed in 1947, prior to the current R-1 Zone setback standards, which in turn generated
some unique circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant on adding a
reasonable addition on to the home in the rear yard area, except by means of a variance.
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 7
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the
neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected by the approval
of this variance; and
iv.) This new addition and request for variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose
of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the
community.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 554 Junction Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential
value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and
provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed
independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020-
03, dated and presented February 27, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby
fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later)
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 2.0 feet into the
required 10-foot side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the
application submittal, on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2020-03.
ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of
the existing residential dwelling.
iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
iv.) 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.
v.) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and
corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall
obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one-year from said
approval date.
Planning Report-Case #2020-03 Page 8
2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the
Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested
herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order
to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setback. The proposed addition is not essential to
the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the addition requires a
variance to a normal setback standard, and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the
property, especially if the owner were to reduce the addition size, or shift the garage elsewhere on
the site, thereby eliminating the need for the variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the variance with findings of facts to support the granting of said variance, with the conditions noted therein.
Attachments
1. Aerial/Site Location Map
2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
3. Survey/Site Plan/Floor Plans
4. Letters of Support
Planning Application (2020) Page 1 of 4
PLANNING APPLICATION
Office Use Only:
Case #: Fees: (App) $ (Escrow): $
Application Date: 60-Day Review Date:
Property Address/Location:
Applicant Name:
Applicant Mailing Address:
Daytime Phone: Cell Phone:
E-Mail:
(If different from Applicant above):
Property Owner
Owner Mailing Address:
Daytime Phone: Cell Phone:
E-Mail:
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
Type of Request (fees noted on following page):
Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit
Variance Lot Split / Lot Line Adjustment Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Zoning Appeal Zoning Code Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Wetlands Permit
Standard
Administrative
Critical Area Permit
Standard
Administrative
Other________________________
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true and to the best of
my knowledge. I/We further authorize city officials, including staff, planning commissioners and city
councilmembers to inspect the above-referenced property during daylight hours.
____________________________________________
Signature of Applicant Date
____________________________________________
Signature of Property Owner Date
554 Junction Lane
Rachel Quick
554 Junction Lane
Lot 2 Block 1 Kirchner Addition
X
1/27/2020 1/27/2020
From:John Cuzzo
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Rachel Quick Garage
Date:Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:40:55 PM
Tim Bennetti,
I am Rachel's East side next door neighbor (548 Junction Lane). Sadly,
I'm also a recipient of relative and historically recent water damage to both of the properties.
We have had explanations and expert advise with zero solution, I have lived in or had this
house in the family for at least 40 years with minimal water issue and zero flooding until this
year.
Rachel has been having it for a couple years, seemingly coinciding with construction in Upper
Mendota Heights. Her Garage and house along with property value are going to at some point
in the near future
are going to drive her out of the neighborhood.
My house has been a nightmare, since moving in 9 months ago and we still haven't unpacked
due to water damage or potential for it, we are having to rip apart our basement to install drain
tile in order to stay or sell the home, How Rachel has even stayed this long is beyond my
comprehension, please allow her the garage reconstruction. I'm fine with the rebuild and zone
concern. Thank You
Regards,
John Cuzzo
612 812-3983
From:Leanne
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Variance for Rachel Quick
Date:Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:58:14 PM
Tim
We are supportive of Rachel’s request for a variance needed to replace her garage. The variance would allow Rachel
to replace her garage and update her house. Our neighborhood has several nonstandard yards which makes remodels
to homes more challenging. This would also support maintaining high quality starter homes in our community.
Thanks
Leanne and Scott Schmiesing
Sent from my iPhone
From:Solomonson, Eva M.
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Rachel Quick reconstruction project
Date:Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:39:04 PM
Hi Tim,
I am a neighbor who shares a fence with Rachel Quick. Rachel lives at 554 Junction Lane,
Mendota Heights. I live at 540 Junction Lane.
Rachel informed me recently that she is wanting to reconstruct her garage, but that it will
require a variance of one foot over the setback. Per Rachel’s request, I am reaching out to you
to let you know that I would be fine if this variance is granted.
Best,
Eva Solomonson
Eva Solomonson, MSW, LICSW
Director of BSW Field Education, Clinical Faculty
University of St Thomas School of Social Work
Morrison Family College of Health
University of St Thomas School of Social Work
Office: University of St Thomas SCB 218
Mail SCB 201, 2115 Summit Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105-1096
Tel: 651-962-5833/ Fax: 651-962-5819
solo1758@stthomas.edu
www.stthomas.edu/socialwork
554 JUNCTION LANE
Property Information
Febru ary 20, 2020
0 225 450112.5 ft
0 60 12030 m
1:2,400
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Request for Planning Commission Action
(Supplemental Information)
DATE: February 27, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: Grand Real Estate Advisors
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Owned Lots in The Village (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.)
ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development]
ACTION DEADLINE: March 6, 2020
Introduction / Information
Grand Real Estate Advisors are requesting approval to amend a previously approved planned unit
development (PUD) development plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development proposal
for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded
by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden
Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital).
At the January 28th regular meeting, a planning report was presented on this new development
proposal; the developer provided an overview of their development and answered questions from the
commission; and comments were received and recorded from the public.
After some considerable discussion, the planning commission made a motion to table this application.
As part of this action, the commission requested the developer should respond and address a number
of items, which are noted as follows:
1. Comparison of the 2017 traffic study (numbers/tables) with the proposed development in place
of the original PUD use;
2. Impervious surface comparison from the original PUD to the proposed use, taking into
account the change in impervious surface and the change in rainfall intensity;
3. Master Gardeners provide a complete review of the landscape plan prior to city council
review;
4. Traffic Modeling and Trip Generation for Restaurant (the site) be updated; and
5. Pedestrian Connectivity, showing where connectivity to the Village would be provided.
As part of this response, the developer has provided for the city’s review the following information:
A) Planning Commission Response Letter from Pope Architects, dated 02/19/2020.
B) Technical Memo on Stormwater System and Modeling Summary from Wenck Associates,
dated 02/13/2020. (note: staff is providing a “reduced” version of this report, as the entire
report is over 197 pages and is very technical. If a commissioner requests to have the full
copy of the report, staff will provide a digital/PDF copy for your review).
C) Stormwater Management Summary memo from Wenck Assoc. – dated 02/13/2020.
D) An updated “Mendota Heights Senior Apartments” plan set – dated 02/18/2020, which
includes an updated Site Plan and Landscape Plan for the subject site. No other significant
changes were made to the building layout or parking areas. The updated plan reflects new
pedestrian connection ways; and a schedule of new landscape planting and material varieties
that appear to be in compliance with the city’s pollinator friendly policy.
Staff and the developer (along with their architect and landscape architect) met with city staff
and the Master Gardener to review and discuss a number of recommended changes to the
landscape/planting plans. The goal was to ensure the development conformed (as best as
possible) with the city’s pollinator friendly policy, which staff feels this updated landscape
plan now meets. Follow-up comments were made by the MG to the developer’s landscape
architects just prior to the completion of this report; and staff hopes to have final
recommendations or findings ready or presented at the Feb. 27th meeting.
E) An “All Day Café” restaurant layout plan. The plan illustrates interior seating capacity of 132
seats, with 60 patio seats available (seasonally), for total of 192 seats. The Pope Response
Memo provides a comparison of current Zoning Code, the 2002 PUD and proposed 2020 PUD
Amendment plan. The developer indicates the 41 spaces in the separated lot, plus the 24
surface spaces in front of the building, along with the parking available on the streets and
public parking lots in the Village, will provide adequate parking for its employees and
customers at the new restaurant, including the senior residential use.
F) The Developer is still working on the traffic/trip generation information. They hope to have
that information to the city soon. (Staff will provide this report in a follow-up email).
Since it was alluded to in the discussions at the January 28th meeting, staff is also providing
for the commissioner’s review the 2018 Dodd Road North-South Mobility Study.
The city also received a review memo from MnDOT, dated 02/05/2020. The memo states the
ramps, walkways and paths must be compliant with ADA standards, which the developer
indicates will be met on the site. The plans must also be sent to MnDOT for drainage permit
review, which has already been done or will be done as part of the building permit review
process. MnDOT is also recommending “the construction of a left turn lane on southbound
Highway 149 (Dodd Road) to accommodate the additional traffic that the development is
expected to generate.”
City staff however, feel this road right-of-way may be too narrow and does not support the
addition of a left turn lane at this location. There are no similar left-turn lanes along Dodd
Road (except farther south at Decorah/Wagon Wheel intersections) that support this MnDOT
recommendation. At this time, city staff is not recommending the installation of any left-turn
lane for this development.
Attached to this supplemental memo are these updated plan sheets, consultant memos/reports, the
MnDOT review memo, and the original PC Planning Report from the January 28th meeting (note: this
original report copy does not include the “Mendota Heights Town Center Master Development Plan
& Design Standard” document due to its large size/number of pages. Please refer to your 02/28/20
PC packet copy if necessary).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development
amendment, based on the attached finding of facts, with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development amendment,
based on amended finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit approving an Amendment to the 2002 Mendota
Heights Town Center (The Village at Mendota Heights), which would allow a new mixed-use development
consisting of a 48-unit senior apartment building with a restaurant, based on the attached findings of fact, along
with the following suggested conditions of approval:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form
prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council.
2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot,
with final location and design approved by Public Works Director.
3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public
Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
4. 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.
5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or
more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process.
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 park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards.
11. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement.
12. 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.
13. 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.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment
Mendota Senior Housing Development
725 Linden Street & 735 Maple Street
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development.
2. The proposed amended planned unit development can 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 proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to:
a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of 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 new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with
any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and
would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and
f. 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
6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting
the projected Metropolitan Council’s 2040 forecasted population and household numbers.
7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other
surrounding uses in the existing PUD area.
8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development project
will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota Heights PUD
and the surrounding neighborhoods.
To: Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
From Joseph Kimbrell
On behalf of: Grand Real Estate Advisors
Pope Architects
1295 Bandana Blvd. N
Suite 200
St. Paul, MN 55108
Re: Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
Response to 5 Planning Commission Comments
Mendota Heights New Senior Housing
Vacant Village Lots
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PLANNING COMMISSION RESPONSE LETTER
02/19/20
Mr. Benetti,
This letter and attachments provide additional information requested by the planning commission at the
January 28th commission meeting regarding the above cited project (Planning Case #2020-01). The commission
requested additional information / clarifications regarding the following 5 items. Responses are indicated below each
item along with references to supporting documentation attached.
1. Landscape plans should be reviewed by city’s Master Gardeners – and comments addressed prior to passing
the project on to City Council for approval / prior to the next PC 2/27 meeting.
RESPONSE: Pope Architects, GREA, and Wenck have completed two rounds of revisions to the landscape
plans. Revision-1 incorporated initial master gardener comments provided by the city staff in writing.
Revision-2 incorporated comments received at an in-person meeting with master gardener, Cindy Johnson,
held on 2-4-20. The revisions incorporated as part of this process include changing trees and shrubs to
pollinator friendly species. The revisions also add approximately 144 shrubs, 107 perennials, and replaced
rock mulch at the center parking island with green mulch. Please see the attached “2020-0220 MENDOTA
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS_LANDSCAPE PLANS.pdf” for the current landscape design drawings and supporting
documentation. At the time of this letter a final / third review and revision is in process. We will issue a final
updated plan once this final revision is completed. The design team is very confident that the project meets
all city code requirements and the pollinator friendly policy.
2. A comparison of impervious surfaces and impact on stormwater management should be provided showing the
difference between the original 2002 PUD design and this new design. This should take into account the new,
higher rain fall estimates. Provide just simple side by side tables not full reports and flow data.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached “2020-0213 Stormwater Management Summary Tables.pdf” for the
requested information. Please also note full reports and drawings have also been provided to city staff.
GREA / Mendota Heights Sr. Housing
2/19/20
Page 2
3. Provide side by side tables showing generated traffic estimates of the 2017 KOJ traffic study vs a table showing
the impact of this new project.
RESPONSE: An updated trip generation report is currently in process by Swing Traffic Solutions. We will send
this requested information to you as soon as possible.
4. Provide a parking comparison table showing side by side parking requirement numbers for, the 2002 PUD, City
Zoning Code, and this proposed development.
RESPONSE: Please see the table below showing # of parking spaces required and provided.
# of parking spaces provided
USE / BASIS OF DESIGN
AND OCCUPANCY
ZONING
CODE
2002 PUD
(GOVERNS)
2020
PROPOSED
POSSIBLE OCCUPANCY BASED
ON PROPOSED 2020 PROVIDED
PARKING
RESTAURANT (150 SEATS)* 58*
(1 PER 3 SEATS + 8)
38
(1 PER 4 SEATS)
64* Zoning Code: 192 seats* (64X3)
2002 PUD: 256 seats* (64X4)
RESIDENTIAL (48 UNITS) 120
(2.5 PER UNIT)
60
(1.25/UNIT)
71 NA / 56.8 Units (74/1.25)
TOTAL PARKING SPACES 180 98 135 NA
* Basis of design calculations included 150 restaurant seats and 8 employees. In all scenarios above GREA
plans to require all project employees to park at the public lot / ramp across Linden St.
Please see the attached “ALLDAYCAFE_MENDOTA HGTS_FITPLAN_02.20.20.pdf” for the current restaurant
layout showing # of seats within the range allowed by the available parking.
5. More clearly show pedestrian connections between the project site and the village.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached “C-101 from 2020-0218 MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS 5898-
0003.pdf” for the current civil site plan showing crosswalks and connection locations to the village. Please
note: all crosswalks will be provided with required ADA ramps. These are already in place on the village side
of Linden St.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Joseph Kimbrell
Pope Architects LLC.
1 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s
February 24, 2020
To: Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisor, LLC
From: Vernon Swing, PE
Re: Trip Generation Study – Mendota Senior Housing, Mendota Heights MN
Per your request, Swing Traffic Solutions, LLC has conducted a trip generation analysis for the proposed
development of the Mendota Senior Housing in Mendota Heights, MN including 48 senior apartments
and a 4,352 square foot restaurant. The proposed restaurant will serve breakfast and will include a bar
area and may include patio seating during the summer. The 2.667-acre site is located on the east side of
Dodd Road, with the majority of the site just north of Maple Street and just west of Linden Street, and
includes an additional area for parking located to the south of Maple Street. (See attached site plan
figure.) Full access to the main site is proposed from two locations, one on Maple Street and one on
Linden Street, and access to the additional parking area is planned on Maple Street across from the main
site access. This memorandum documents the anticipated site generated traffic, compares this estimate
with the previously proposed Trammell Crow development, and reviews the traffic operations along
Dodd Rd to be consistent with the earlier Trammell Crow study, and with the City’s N-S Mobility Study.
Trip Generation
The trip generation for the proposed development has been estimated based on the methodology
described by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 10th Edition. The ITE land
codes coinciding with the proposed development are Code 252 for senior attached housing and Code
932 for High Turnover Sit Down restaurant. Table 1 summarizes the findings.
Table 1
Trip Generation
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit
Senior Apartments (48 units) 3 Trips 7 Trips 7 Trips 5 Trips 178 Trips
Restaurant (4.352 k-sf) 24 Trips 20 Trips 26 Trips 16 Trips 485 Trips
Adjustments - 5 Trips - 5 Trips -16 Trips -9 Trips - 145 Trips
TOTAL 34 Trips 29 Trips 518 Trips
Different developments generate trips with different purposes, for example an office development
generates trips that are destined to the office while a convenience store generates trips that are on their
way to a primary destination, but stop as they are passing by for gas or convenience items making trips
referred to as pass-by trips. The pass-by trips are not new trips generated by the land use under study,
and thus, are not added to the network, but are trips using the site accesses roads and driveways. In
this case, the restaurant use will generate 44 trips during the AM peak hour and 42 trips during the PM
peak hour, however, according to the ITE Trip Generation Handbook approximately 20 percent of its AM
2 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s
traffic and approximately 60 percent of its PM traffic is already using the roadway network serving the
area. While the total trips associated with the development will turn to and from Dodd Road onto
Maple Street, 20 percent of this traffic in the morning and 60 percent of this traffic in the afternoon
already exist on Dodd Road and is diverted from the through traffic passing the site. In other words, to
avoid double counting the amount of traffic a development generates by including traffic that already
exist on the roadways near a site, the trip generation is adjusted to account for the pass-by trips. As
shown in Table 1, the site will generate 22 new entering and 22 new exiting trips during the morning
traffic peak hour, and 17 new entering and 12 new exiting trips during the afternoon traffic peak hour.
Previously, Trammell Crow proposed to develop this site as a larger senior attached housing
development referred to as Linden Street Senior Housing. This project only included the residential
project which only generates destination-based trips. From the earlier study conducted by Spack
Consulting, a trip generation analysis was conducted with the results summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Trammell Crow Trip Generation
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit
Senior Apartments (150 units) 11 Trips 20 Trips 21 Trips 18 Trips 556 Trips
TOTAL 31 Trips 39 Trips 556 Trips
Comparison of the information contained in Tables 1 and 2 indicates the Mendota Heights Senior
proposal will generate less new traffic to the area on a daily basis and during the PM Peak hour. In fact,
when compared with the previous Linden Street Senior Housing development, the proposed Mendota
Senior Housing will generate 10 fewer new trips during the PM Peak hour and 38 fewer new trips per
day.
Traffic Operations
The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as roadways, traffic signals, roundabouts and
stop-controlled intersections, are evaluated based on the relationship of the theoretical capacity of a
facility to the actual traffic volume on that facility. Various factors affect capacity including travel speed,
roadway geometry, grade, number of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for
evaluating capacity and operating conditions are contained in the 6th Edition of Highway Capacity
Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. The procedures describe operating
conditions in terms of driver delay represented as a Level of Service (LOS). Operations are given letter
designations with "A" representing the best operating conditions and "F" representing the worst.
Generally, level of service “D” represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating
conditions during a peak hour. The Chart below summarizes the level of service and delay criteria for
signalized and unsignalized intersections.
3 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s
LOS Designation Signalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (Sec.)
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (Sec.)
A < 10 < 10
B > 10-20 > 10-15
C > 20-35 > 15-25
D > 35-55 > 25-35
E > 55-80 > 35-50
F > 80 > 50
For side street stop-controlled intersections special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the
level of service of the minor approaches. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side
street stop-control can be described two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection
level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the
capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on
the minor approaches, since the mainline does not have to stop. It is common for intersections with
higher mainline traffic volumes to experience increased levels of delay and poor level of service on the
side streets.
A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, or the line of
vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable Level
of Service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses
to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. In this report, the Industry Design
Standard 95th percentile queue length is used. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length
of vehicle queue that has only a five-percent probability of occurring during an analysis hour.
The intersections studied for this report are the Dodd Road intersections with Marie Street, Maple
Street, Market Street and TH 62. This study has adopted the existing conditions from the N-S Mobility
Study and reanalyzed with them the current version of Synchro, to establish the baseline operations to
be compared with. Further this study includes the results from the Linden Street Senior Housing
development including distribution assumptions related to site generated traffic and the operational
analysis results for the earlier proposal. Lastly, we have reviewed the 2040 Base condition results which
we understand include the Linden Street Senior Housing projections to determine if the reduced trip
generation associated with the Mendota Senior Housing proposal will impact the suggested roadway
improvements included in the N-S Mobility Study.
The majority of the site generated traffic from the proposed development will utilize the Maple Street
intersection to access Dodd Road. Review of the trip distribution assumptions included in the Linden
Street Senior Housing study, as well as the current conditions on the roadway network, suggest 70
percent of the site generated traffic will be destined to or from TH 62, with 10 percent destined to or
from the north on Dodd Road, 15 percent destined to or from the south of TH 62 on Dodd Road, and 5
percent destined to or from Linden Street to visit the nearby retail establishments.
Detailed intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the AM and PM peak hours for the existing
conditions, the previously proposed Linden Street Senior Housing development, and the proposed
4 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s
Mendota Senior Housing development reflecting 2020 traffic conditions, as well as the 2040 Base
conditions and the 2040 Base conditions with the Mendota Senior Housing proposed development.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the analyses in terms of Level of Service (LOS) for the worst-case peak
condition for each scenario.
Table 3
Traffic Operations Comparison
Intersection Existing
Condition
Linden Street
Senior
Mendota
Heights Senior
2040 Base
Condition
2040 Base+
Mendota
Heights Senior
Marie & Dodd LOS b LOS c LOS b LOS e LOS e
Maple & Dodd LOS c LOS d LOS c LOS f LOS f
Market & Dodd LOS f LOS f LOS f LOS f LOS f
TH 62 & Dodd LOS E LOS E LOS E LOS F LOS F
* LOS in Capital Letter reflects signalized condition for the overall operation. Marie and Dodd is All-way Stop while other intersections are two-
way stop and the LOS reflects the operations of the worst movement.
The results shown in Table 3 indicate the addition of the Mendota Heights Senior development will not
result in a change in the traffic operations at the studied intersections. An in-depth review further
indicates the intersection of TH 62 and Dodd Road is currently operating at or near capacity which is
resulting in traffic queues on Dodd Road that occasionally block the traffic movements at Market Street.
The additional traffic from the proposed development has a negligible impact on the intersection
operations at Market Street and at TH 62. The TH 62 and Dodd Road intersection is a regional issue
requiring Dakota County and MnDOT to participate in developing solutions to alleviate congestion at
this intersection. By 2040 the LOS F operations at TH 62 and Dodd Road will block access to Market
Street and will affect the ability to enter and exit Maple Street. Further, by 2040 the increase in
background traffic in the area will likely result in the need to modify the traffic control at Dodd Road and
Marie Street.
The N-S Mobility Study identified potential solutions to the area intersections including converting TH 62
and Dodd to “Continuous Flow Intersection”, installing a roundabout at Market Street and a min-
roundabout at Marie Street. This combination provided acceptable operations at all intersections
except TH 62 which will still operate at capacity (LOS E). Preliminary analysis of these improvements
with the addition of the Mendota Heights Senior (MHS) development indicates the additional traffic
associated with the development will not affect the study area intersection operations. Table 4
summarizes the operations with identified improvements.
Table 4
Traffic Operations Comparison
Intersection 2040 Base w/
Improvements
2040 MHS w/
Improvements
Marie & Dodd LOS d LOS d
Maple & Dodd LOS c LOS c
Market & Dodd LOS a LOS a
TH 62 & Dodd LOS E LOS E
* LOS in Capital Letter reflects signalized condition for the overall operation. Marie and Dodd and Market and Dodd are roundabout
intersections while Maple and Dodd is a two-way stop and the LOS reflects the operations of the worst movement.
5 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s
As indicated in Table 4, the proposed improvements address the poor operations at the study
intersections in 2040. The Maple Street and Dodd Road intersection has less volume under the
Mendota Heights Senior development than was analyzed as part of the N-S Mobility Study’s 2040 Base
condition, resulting in a slightly less delay.
Parking Summary
Parking generation for the proposed site uses was also reviewed. The parking demand was estimated
based on the statistics contained in Parking Generation, 4th Edition, published by ITE. Again, the Land
Use Codes 252 and 932 were used and the resulting estimated parking demand during the highest peak
time is 29 spaces for the senior apartments and 49 spaces for the restaurant for a total peak parking
demand of 78 spaces. The proposed development is providing 135 spaces, 69 below grade for the
apartments and 66 at grade for the restaurant and visitors. The parking supply exceeds the anticipated
demand.
In conclusion, the proposed development has appropriate access to the site and to the surrounding
roadway network. While the traffic operations are beginning to degrade at the intersection of TH 62
and Dodd Road, the addition of the proposed development will have a negligible impact on traffic
operations in the area. The parking supplied as part of the development exceeds the anticipated
demand. In other words, the roadway network serving the proposed development will function well
with the senior apartment project, and the proposed parking supply will exceed the demand.
Please contact Vernon Swing at vswingtraffic@gmail.com or 612-968-4142 with any questions.
6 | P a g e M e n d o t a S e n i o r H o u s i n g , M e n d o t a H e i g h t s
Stormwater
Management
Summary
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
Subject: Mendota Heights Apartments – Stormwater Management Summary
Date: February 24, 2020
Table 1. Impervious Surface Summary
Impervious
(sf)
Pervious
(sf)
PUD Condition 36,298 76,280
Proposed Condition 66,162 46,416
Difference +29,864 -29,864
Table 2. Stormwater Rate Control Summary
Event
East City Storm West City Storm Site Total
PUD
(cfs)
Proposed
(cfs)
PUD
(cfs)
Proposed
(cfs)
PUD
(cfs)
Proposed
(cfs)
2-year 2.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 3.3 2.2
10-year 5.1 4.3 1.3 2.0 6.4 6.0
100-year 11.1 11.1 3.2 4.1 14.3 13.5
10-day Snowmelt 4.6 3.5 0.6 0.6 5.1 4.2
Table 3. Water Volume Requirement Summary
New
Impervious
(sf)
1.1-inch
Runoff
(cf)
Volume
Infiltrated
(cf)
Proposed Condition 66,162 6,065 9,511
Mendota Heights N-S Mobility Study
Planning Staff Report
DATE: January 28, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: Grand Real Estate Advisors
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Owned Lots in The Village (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.)
ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development]
ACTION DEADLINE: March 6, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Grand Real Estate Advisors, as “Applicants” are requesting approval to amend a previously approved
planned unit development (PUD) development plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development
proposal for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded
by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden
Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital).
Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved planned
unit development final development plan by conditional use permit.
A public hearing for this concept plan review was posted and published in the local newspaper, and notice
letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1,320-ft. (1/4 mile) of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties consist of four parcels: Lot 1/Blk. 3 at 0.48 acres, Lot 2/Blk. 3 at 0.79 acres, and Lot
1/Blk. 2 at 0.45 acres; plus, Outlot D at 0.95 acres, or a total of 2.67 acres available for this development.
The properties are currently guided and zoned MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] and have
been since 2002. There are no zoning or land uses changes needed for this development.
The original and approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Master Plan for the Mendota Heights
Town Center (now known as The Village at Mendota Heights) included a mix of retail, office and
residential uses. The Village PUD is now substantially complete, with the exception of the last phase,
referred to as the “West Neighborhood” in the PUD Master Plan. This West Neighborhood originally called
for 14 residential townhomes with 5 home-office style townhomes; however, these 19-units never
materialized under the former developer.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 2 of 17
The City acquired the ownership rights to the four undeveloped parcels a number of years ago, and since
that time the city received a number of inquiries to selling and/or developing the lots by third-parties. In
2017, the City considered a separate proposal from Trammell-Crow to develop a 150-unit senior luxury
apartment building on the subject properties, which eventually led to a decision by the council to reject a
letter of intent and later withdrawal by the developer of this development plan.
In March 2019, the city requested development proposals (RFP’s) on the city owned parcels, whereby the
city received five (5) development proposals from various development or real estate firms. After a follow-
up workshop meeting in May; and a June 4th Council review/interview session with two of the development
trams, the Council selected Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) as the developer of the city owned lots;
and tentatively accepted a letter of intent and purchase agreement.
The Village of Mendota Heights PUD
The final Master Development Plan and Design Standards for The Village was approved in 2002-2003 and
constructed in phases, with most of the center’s construction completing around 2007. The development
was to contain the following uses and amenities:
• Diverse mix of retail/office space (single and two-story)
• On-street and underground public parking facilities (approximately 400 spaces)
• 36-unit condominium units (2 buildings)
• 20 row homes (3 buildings)
• 60-unit senior apartment building (owned and operated by the Dakota County CDA)
• Market Square Park (0.24-acre open space with fountain)
• River to River Greenway Trail connection (regional trail)
Any changes to a final (approved) development plan requires an Amendment to the Final PUD Plan in
compliance with Title 12, Chapter 1, Article K of the City Code and approval by the City Council. All
amendments to a previously approved PUD are performed through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
application process.
General Location of
City-Owned Lots
(Townhomes/Offices)
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 3 of 17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
New Structure and Site Improvements
The project proposes a 48-unit (originally 47) market-rate apartment building targeted for seniors, aged 55+
(restricted) housing. Units range from 1-bedroom units approx. 810-sf. to 950-sf. in size, with 2-bed units
1,000 to 1,350-sf. in size, and 2-bed + den units up to approx. 1,500-sf. in size.
The building will provide on-site amenities for the residents including a community room, fitness center
and private terrace.
The plan also includes a new 4,352-sf. sit-down restaurant, with a 1,056-sf. outdoor seating/patio area. The
name of the restaurant has yet to be named or identified by the developer.
It should be noted that the developer has eliminated the original proposed co-working space area of 1,757-
sf., which was presented previously at the December 5th neighborhood meeting and during the concept
review held at the December 19, 2019 planning commission meeting. As part of this work space removal,
the developer was able to provide one additional residential unit.
The overall development will take place over two separate “lots” as identified by the developer in their site
plans. The single, “L-shaped” building would be built on the proposed “North Lot” (a combination of Lots
1 & 2 – Block 3 and Outlot D), and consists of a new 3-story wood framed structure, with a single-floor
footprint of 29,304-sf, which leads to gross square footage of living restaurant space of 87,912-sf. The sub-
floor is an enclosed, private parking area for the residents, consisting of 25,002-sq. ft. Combined floor
space equals 112,914-sq. ft. The building footprint is approximately 30.6% of the total site area.
The “South Lot” (Lot 1-Block 2) is identified as new off-site parking area for the development, and will
likely serve as the parking lot for restaurant customers.
The new building is shown with a 20.6-ft. and 26.24-ft. setback off Dodd Road; a 74.45-ft. setback from
the north line; 25.6-ft. off the front from Linden Street; and 16.45-ft. off Maple Street. The surface parking
lot areas are setback from 2.95-ft. - 3.33-ft. - 3.66-ft. from property lines.
Access to the apartment building site will take place off Maple Street to the south and from Linden Street
to the east. No access is planned onto Dodd Road.
The new restaurant is planned for 4,352-sf. of total seating/kitchen area, with a 1,056-sf. outdoor
seating/patio space located on the south side of the restaurant/building. At the December 2019 meeting,
the developer indicated the new restaurant would seat approximately 130-140 patrons. (Note: no final
design or interior floor plan have been submitted on this use).
Parking for the apartment/restaurant development will include 24 surface parking spaces in the front of the
building. Access to the private (residents only) underground parking will come directly from the main
access point off Linden Street (east side), with a sloped driveway leading underneath the building. This
underground area is shown with 69 spaces, along with bike and resident storage areas, and a work room.
The overall development site will also be provided with 41 spaces in the small triangular shaped parcel (the
“South Parcel”) located across Maple Street. A total of 134 spaces will be provided for the development.
A majority area north of the new apartment facility (Outlot D) will not be developed, and is intended to
serve as natural buffer space between the Linden Lofts Condo development. This outlot was created or
platted by the original developers RMF Group, and a drainage and utility easement was placed over the
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 4 of 17
entire outlot. Today part of this outlot serves as a small drainage area, with a catch-basin and storm pipe
inside the lot, that connects into the city storm water system under Linden Street.
The lot also contains a compact, wooded patch long the north area of this lot, with a variety of volunteer
trees (ash, bur oak, silver maples, cottonwoods, box-elders) and miscellaneous vegetation. During the
preliminary review and assessment of these city-owned properties, staff and the developer noticed an
existing boulder retaining wall (built for the Linden Lofts condos site) is encroaching into this Outlot D
parcel. The developer, city and condo association reps have been discussing the option of separating a
segment of this Outlot D to the condo association ownerships, or providing an easement and agreement for
the condo owners to take over the ownership and control of this retaining wall.
(Looking Northerly – towards back of Linden Lofts Condos – wooded area and retaining wall)
The overall Village at Mendota Heights (PUD) site encompasses approximately 20+ acres of previously
developed (and some undeveloped lands) in this NE quadrant of Highway 62 and Dodd Road. The City’s
other mixed-use development, The Plaza of Mendota Heights, is located directly across the highway to the
south, and are now linked together by the new underpass trail system installed by MnDOT and Dakota
County. The proposed project includes integrated commercial and high-density residential developments
with connections to existing retail uses, shared parking facilities, and adjacent off-street trail systems.
Removal/Erosion Control Plans ((Plan Sheet C-004)
The plan calls for th removal of some existing trees along the westerly edge of Dodd Road (10 trees) and
approximately 36 trees in the outlot to the north. The developer provided a tree survey in this outlot area,
and most appear to be identified mostly of ash, bur oak, silver maples, cottonwoods, box-elders.
The City Code of Ordinances contains various standards pertaining to erosion and sediment control, surface
water drainage, wet soils, and steep slopes. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the
applicable plans and provided comments to the Developer, which will include recommended conditions of
approval prior to any issuance of building permit. In addition, all construction activities must comply with
the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
Landscape Plans (Plan Sheet L-101)
The developer has provided a detailed landscape plan that includes new trees and ground plantings in and
around the parking lot areas and building; along with a large placement of new trees in the outlot area to
replace those removed as part of this new development. This landscape plan was given to the city’s Master
Gardeners for review and input. As of the preparation and completion of this report, staff had not yet received
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 5 of 17
their review or comments. As with other reviewed developments, the city has included a condition that the
MG’s will review the final landscape plans and ensure the site meets compliance with the city’s pollinator
friendly policies.
Utility Plans (Plan Sheet C-401)
The plans show that all utilities are readily available to the site, with gas, water and sanitary services to be
installed near the south corner (Near Maple Street and Dodd Road intersection).
There appears to be two separate water main service lines feeding into the apartment building (assume one
for potable/resident water needs and other for fire-service/sprinklers); and a third (separate) water main line
at the south side for the restaurant use.
Storm Sewer Plans (Sheet C-501)
The plans include a small number of new catch-basins and storm pipes to serve this new development. A
trench drain is situated at the top of the ramp leading into the underground parking garage, and two catch
basins and two new manholes in the front surface parking area. This system feeds over to an underground
storm chamber system underneath the parking lot in the triangular shaped parcel, across Maple Street. The
system includes an emergency over-flow outlet pipe leading out to the city’s storm systems underneath
adjacent Linden Street. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water plans and
has provided comments to the Developer, which will include recommended conditions of approval before
any building permit is issued.
Building Architecture and Elevations (Plan Sheets A2.0; A3.1; A3.2, A3.3 & A3.4)
The proposed building is an L-shaped design facility, and runs generally north-south between Maple Street
and the vacant outlot and Linden Lofts Condos to the north. According to the applicant, design for this
project is guided by a desire to respect and fit into the already established village development in terms of
scale and materiality; and [the developer] will continue to develop the design with this principle in mind.
The proposed 3-story building height (mean measurement – per architect) is 39.58 feet.
The proposed building’s exterior is a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent
with the City Code and Design Standards:
• Face brick
• Stone veneer
• Stone sills
• Cement board siding and trim
• Prefinished metal trim
• Prefinished aluminum railings (decks)
• Pre-Cast Concrete wall panels
• Asphalt shingles
Park Dedication
As with recent and previous multi-family developments, the city requires new developments to 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
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 6 of 17
Since this development is a “mixed-use” of residential (apartment) with commercial (restaurant), staff is
recommending the city only apply the current $4,000/unit fee on the residential component of this
development, and not assess any fees on the commercial element. Payment of this park dedication fees is
included as part of the building permit review/approvals.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcels are guided Mixed-Use PUD in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and
commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. Areas of the community with this
land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road.
The subject parcels are also guided Mixed-Use PUD in the proposed (but not yet adopted) 2040
Comprehensive Plan, which includes the following statements:
The largest concentration of commercial or business uses in the City is not guided Business, but rather
Mixed Use, at Highway 62 and Dodd Road, in the Mendota Plaza and The Village of Mendota Heights
developments.
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and
commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. This land use designation is located
both north and south of the Hwy. 62 and Dodd Road intersection, the City’s only significant retail area.
The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use center known as The
Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center
which has seen renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s pharmacy;
White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project
developed by At Home Apartments.
As indicated earlier, the entire Village at MH development was re-guided and rezoned to MU-PUD as part
of a previous PUD approval process. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential
uses are consistent with the future land use designations.
Construction of the proposed 48-unit, high-density residential development could contribute slightly to the
projected amounts of Year 2040 forecasted population and household numbers, which are approx. 12,000
and 5,000 respectively. According to the applicant, the proposed project includes senior- aged restricted
“market-rate” units, which will likely not meet or include “affordable” numbers or definitions per
Metropolitan Council requirements.
Since the development of Lexington Heights Apartment in 1984, along with several condominiums,
townhouse, and senior apartment developments, the City has not experienced a lot of demand or
construction of similar high-density residential developments, except in the last 4 years. The proposed
high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for senior (targeted) residential units
in the community, which appears to remain a strong trend or demand in suburban and metro-wide
communities. The availability of desirable senior [rental] units may also appeal to existing senior
homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the
existing single-family residential housing stock for newer, younger, or growing families seeking to live in
the city.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 7 of 17
For these reasons, the proposed mixed-use project fits many of the land use and housing goals/policies in
the Comprehensive Plan.
PUD Master Development Plan – Existing (2002)
The current Mendota Heights Town Center - PUD Final Master Development Plan was approved in 2002.
A full copy of this final PUD plan is included and appended immediately after this report.
The PUD Agreement generally provides for the following: Introduction, which includes goals and
objectives, plan submittal requirements, and other general information. This leads to the Master Plan
information, which includes Site Development principles addressing Land Use; Setbacks;
Grading/Drainage/Stormwater; Parking; Landscaping; Open Spaces; Architecture; Lighting, and Signage.
The “Submittal Process and Requirements” include the following statements:
All development within Mendota Heights must meet the requirements of the City of Mendota Heights
Zoning Ordinance. The Mendota Heights Town Center is zoned as a Mixed-Use Planned Unit
Development (MU-PUD) district and in addition to complying with the Zoning Ordinance, must comply
with the Mendota Heights Town Center Master Development Plan and Design Standards, as adopted
by the Planning Commission and the City Council under the PUD approval process.
The Master Development Plan and Development Guidelines are intended to work in conjunction with
the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance and City Code standards. Where there is a difference
between the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and this document, this document shall take
precedence. The terms used in this document shall be understood as defined by the Zoning Ordinance,
except to the extent terms are further defined in the Glossary included at the end of this document.
The Planned Unit Development section of the city zoning code should be used as a guide regarding
rights to a planned unit development, approval and administration, and granting of a conditional use
permit. Unless specifically defined or approved as part of this document, all development must comply
with City standards. All development within Mendota Heights Town Center shall be subject to any and
all conditions for PUD development approval.
The PUD also provided the following [selected] statements on building setbacks, orientation and coverage
are noted:
In keeping with the intent of the Master Development Plan, substantial separation of buildings by use
is not encouraged. The central business district on the Town Center plan includes a senior housing site,
and is then ringed by three residential neighborhoods. Since integration is the major theme of a mixed-
use district, setbacks based on use, and use restrictions based on adjacency to residential uses may not
generally apply in this district.
a) Strong relationships between the buildings and the streets and sidewalks are encouraged, therefore
building setbacks from streets within the town center will generally be less than those required
under other existing zoning districts (see each district for specific requirements);
b) Maximizing open space for public use is encouraged, while reducing less usable yards.
c) The maximum overall building site coverage should be limited to 40% of the total site area. The
remainder of the site shall be developed as parking, pedestrian walks, or landscaped open space
as shown Master Development Plan.
In keeping with the mixed-use theme called for under this 2002 PUD Plan, it identified the two “districts” of
developments: (1) Town Center Commercial District and; (2) Residential Neighborhoods. These residential
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 8 of 17
neighborhoods were identified separately by four separate sub-groupings known as (a) Senior Housing, (b)
West, (c) East and (d) North neighborhoods.
As part of this PUD Amendment application, city staff encouraged the developer to focus on the original
“Senior Housing” and “West Neighborhood” sections, and apply these site standards and regulations to their
own [amended] development plan. If the new development plan required specific changes or modifications
to fit or meet their new development plans, the developer was asked to call these out and request additional
allowances or flexibility towards their own new design plan and layouts, as necessary.
The Senior Housing area is referenced to the Dakota County CDA Apartments, constructed in 2003. The
PUD Agreement stipulated age-restricted (55+) housing for seniors, with on-site amenities encouraged. The
senior building was approved with reduced 20-foot setbacks; balconies allowed to encroach up to 10-feet
into setbacks; and building coverage limited to 60% of lot area. Parking was to be provided under the
building at one (1) space per unit, with 0.25 spaces/unit for guest parking; and encouraged “shared-parking”
inside the development.
The original “West Neighborhood” was targeted for single and multi-level row houses and “Hoffices” which
are dwelling units with a dedicated home office work environment and allowance. Setbacks again were
reduced to 20-feet; structures were required to meet a 50-foot setback from the “wetlands buffer”; overall
building coverage limited to 40% of lot; and parking noted at 2 spaces per unit (inside) with 0.5 spaces per
unit for guest parking.
PUD Master Development Plan - Amendments
The applicant intends to amend the existing PUD Final Development Plan with this submitted and new
mixed-use residential apartment/restaurant facility. According to Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code:
Amendments to Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development
plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures
provided below:
1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by
the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan
was approved. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the
council.
2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made
by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional
use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the
community.
The proposed amendment(s) as requested under this new PUD plan submittal qualifies under No. 2 above
and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit.
The Developer is requesting to amend this 2002 PUD Plan/Agreement by including another “Senior
Residential” development or component to the original project area. This 48-unit senior (age restricted
55+) housing is similar to what was approved for the Dakota County CDA site; the only difference is the
new project will be for market-rate rentals while the CDA was built to accommodate qualified/affordable
senior rentals.
The three residential living levels will be accessed by a main front door/lobby area on the east side of the
building, with an elevator to shuttle residents/guest to the upper floors. Stairways are also included. The
living units range in smaller 812-sf. to 941-sf. one bedroom units; 1,100-1,180-sq. ft. two bedroom units;
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 9 of 17
and 1,291 to 1,552-sq. ft. two-bedroom plus den units. The residents will have a private fitness center room,
a simulated golf driving center; a community room with attached private terrace, and storage rooms.
The proposed 4,300 sq. ft. restaurant use is intended to be a complete service, sit-down style restaurant (no
drive-thru or service windows), and a small, seasonal outdoor seating area for customers. Although this
restaurant will be connected to the senior residential building, customers will not be allowed to enter the
private residential areas (unless accompanied by a resident), as access will be restricted by the developer
and restaurant ownership.
Site and Setback Allowances
The Senior and West Neighborhood standards under the 2002 PUD indicated allowing a reduced 20-foot
setback for structures in these areas. The new apartment/restaurant building is shown with a 20.6-ft. setback
off Dodd Road; 74.45-ft. from the north, 25.6-ft. from the east off Linden Street; and a 16.45-ft. setback off
Maple Street to the south. The developer was encouraged to push or site this building as close to the south
as possible, in order to provide a s much separation from the existing condos to the north, and help minimize
any impacts to the storm water system (pipe) and natural buffers created in the outlot to the north. The
Planning Commission will need to determine if this reduced 16.45 setback and all other noted setbacks are
acceptable, and should make a recommendation accordingly.
Parking Allowances
The proposed development includes 134 parking spaces, some of which will be shared by guests of residents
and restaurant patrons. The 69-spaces underneath the building will be exclusively reserved for the tenants
and possibly some limited parking for employees of the apartment and restaurant (assuming space is
available). This leaves 24 surface spaces in the front of the building, plus the 41 spaces in the triangular
shaped lot across Maple Street, or 65 spaces.
According to Title 12-1E-E of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces (in the R-3
District) is a “…minimum of 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. “The number of
off-street parking spaces for restaurants/café is “…1 space for each employee per shift and 1 space for each
3 seats in the facility.” Holding to these regular City Code standards, the apartment would require 120
spaces alone, and the restaurant approximately 44 to 50 spaces for seating, plus an estimated 10-15
additional spaces for employees. In total, approximately 170-185 spaces needed.
The 2002 Village PUD anticipated some varying degrees of parking demands, but the mixed-use nature of
this plan suggested that somewhat less parking should be allowed than what current zoning standards
require. With that noted, the original PUD allowed restaurants to provide 1 space per 4 seats (with no added
standard for employees). With 130-150 seats planned, the restaurant would only require 33 to 38 spaces,
depending on the estimated seating levels.
The overall “Residential Design Standards” in the 2002 PUD stipulated 2 spaces /dwelling unit for
residents, and 0.25 spaces /dwelling unit for guests, unless specified differently in the individual
neighborhood section. If the Commission would agree to treat this new senior apartment similar to the pre-
existing “Senior Housing” use, then only one (1) space per unit plus 0.25 spaces for guest parking would
be required; or 48 spaces plus 12, or 60 spaces. The spaces underneath the building and surface parking in
front of the building should sufficiently provide for the resident and guest parking needs on this site.
It should also be noted that the 2002 PUD identified and encouraged shared parking across the entire PUD
areas, and allowed for the utilization of on-street parking spaces where available (which is normally not
allowed under regular or standard parking rules for uses, unless specifically authorized by the city). Below
is an image with red-circled area that show where some of these on-street parking areas are located along
the public streets, and which can be used by visitors or customers to this new development site:
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 10 of 17
(Aerial Image – illustrating bump-outs for on-street parking
The current PUD site is also provided with a public parking garage, which was funded by the city as part
of a cooperative agreement with the original developer RMF Group. This garage contains 134 underground
spaces, plus 54 spaces above (outside) the structure, all of which is free for customers and clients to use
when visiting/shopping at this mixed-commercial center, and which parking can also be used by the
visitors/customers to the new apartment/restaurant development as well.
(Image of Public Parking Garage)
As noted previously, the surface parking lots appear to have setbacks ranging from 2.95-ft. to 3.66 feet in
areas. City Code requires parking in R-3 Districts (for high density residential) areas to have a minimum
of 40-foot setback from roadways. The 2002 Agreement however, allows “Guest parking may be located
within the setbacks, with required buffers from the street.” This provision never indicated or gave a
minimum setback distance, nor details on what was required for the buffers (i.e. landscaping, berming,
fencing, etc.). The developer is showing new plantings to be installed within these narrow setback spaces
between the open parking lot and roadway edges (refer to Landscape Plans – L-101).
As per the suggestion of the commissioners, the city is requesting the developer to provide a clearly marked
cross-walk for customers parking in the separated lot across from Maple Street.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if these reduced parking setbacks are acceptable under
this amendment plan, and make a recommendation accordingly.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 11 of 17
Traffic and Parking Impacts
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-17: TRAFFIC STUDIES:
A. 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.
B. The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County
traffic impact analysis guidelines.
C. When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under county, state, or
adjacent city jurisdiction, the city reserves the right to request additional review and comment from
those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application.
During the Concept Plan Review at the December 19th meeting, staff asked the commission if a traffic or
parking study was needed for further review in this application case. Although there was some discussion
on parking, access and vehicle movements, there was no direction or recommendation to perform a study.
Staff however, in follow-up with the developer, requested they provide some information related to
expected trip generations and statements on the parking for the site. As of the preparation of this report,
this information was not yet ready, but may be available at the Jan. 28th meeting.
In 2017 when the city was working with Trammel-Crow on the proposed 150-unit senior housing
development, T-C presented a Traffic Impact Study from Spack Consulting for city staffs’ review. This
report was presented to the council at workshop settings, but was never released or presented to the public,
due to T-C withdrawing their development request before it reached any official application review. The
Spack Report did include the following “executive summary” statement on that plan’s proposal:
A senior housing development is proposed between Dodd Road and Linden Street near Hilltop Road in
Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts associated
with the build out of the proposed development on the study roads and intersections where significant
impact is anticipated.
Results:
• The proposed senior housing development is expected to generate approximately 555 new trips
during an average weekday, 30 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 40 new trips during the
p.m. peak hour.
• All roadways in the study network are forecast to operate within capacity through 2019 with the
exception of TH 110 which is currently operating at or above capacity.
• All study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in terms of queues through the 2019 build
scenarios.
• The westbound 95th percentile queue on Market Street at Dodd Road in the 2019 Build p.m. peak
hour is forecast to be just under five vehicles in length.
Based on the results of this study, with the construction of an extension of Hilltop Road to Linden Street
to replace the vacated Maple Street as part of this proposed development, no additional mitigation
measures are needed in the study area. The Market Street intersection with Dodd Road should
continue to be monitored into the future if general growth in the area exacerbates the queuing for the
westbound approach.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 12 of 17
There is other technical information provided in this Spack report, and staff is unsure if this information
can be made public or shared at this time (since the report was never officially made public) and because
the two developments are somewhat different from each other.
The senior residential vs. commercial restaurant uses being proposed under this PUD Amendment will
likely produce varying traffic and trip generations for each use. Staff anticipates the trip/traffic generations
from the 48-senior residential units will be minimal throughout a typical day; but the restaurant use, with
typical AM, Noon and PM peak-hour activities and vehicle movements, may require more information for
the commission to make a comfortable determination (or recommendation) that this development can
operate and function properly at this location, and not create any serious impacts to the surrounding uses or
road systems.
Density
The density calculation for this particular development (alone) is calculated as follows:
Number of Units: 48 / Lot Area: 2.667 acres = 17.99, or 18 Units/Ac.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code:
…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.
The applicable standard residential district for the proposed use may be the R-3 High Density Residential
District. The corresponding future land use designation for the R-3 District is HR-High Density Residential,
which has a maximum allowed density of 8.5 units/acre. Under the 2040 Plan Update, the HR-High Density
Residential land use category was recommended to have densities of more than 6.0 but not to exceed 9.0
units/acre. Based on analysis of other high-density residential uses developed as a PUD or under the R-3
District standards, some, if not all existing high-density developments in the city exceed the maximum
density amounts noted in the current (and updated) Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Code provision above does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed
density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3
of the City Code:
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.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if this proposed density is found to be acceptable under
this PUD Amendment, and make a recommendation accordingly.
Zoning and Land Use Information
The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code:
MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide
the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 13 of 17
uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2
zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided
they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the
authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit.
The proposed mixed use of residential and restaurant uses can be considered consistent with those other
mix of uses in the existing Village PUD site and as called for under the 2002 Development Plan.
According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD:
The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the
natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given
development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to
permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time
limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD:
Standards for Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the
following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities
on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize
with adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure
completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and
deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
The proposed amendment is a unified plan for the project site and connects well with the existing adjacent
uses. Although this project area is technically (and physically) separated from the main body of The Village
Center by Linden Street, this roadway separator does not and will not impede the future development of
these parcels.
All portions of the design and construction of this new mixed-use development will be financed privately
by Grand Real Estate Advisors (or their subsidiaries) through traditional means, such as both private/owner
equity and a construction loans provided by a lending institution. There are no public funds, such as TIF
(Tax Increment Financing), city, county or federal grants, or others being requested or allocated for this
proposed development.
Since the overall PUD project area is currently guided as MU-PUD and is not being changed as part of this
requested application, the proposed amendment can be considered consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and the yet to be adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 14 of 17
Preliminary/Final Plat
Although not part of this CUP application, the Developer will be requesting a re-platting of these city-
owned parcels under a future preliminary and final plat application review. The idea is to take the combined
areas noted as the “North Lot” (Lots 1 & 2 – Block 3 and Outlot D) and create one large single, combined
developed parcel site, and replat the “South Lot” (a/k/a Lot 1-Block 2) into a new platted lot of record.
As part of this re-platting, the developer will be required to re-establish and dedicate (on the plat map) new
drainage and utility easements. According to Title 11-3-4 of the City Code:
A. An easement for utilities at least five feet (5') wide shall be provided along the side line of lots. A
similar easement of at least ten feet (10') in width shall be provided along the front and rear of
each line of lots. If necessary for the extension of water main, sewer lines, similar utilities, or access
to adjoining property, easements of greater width may be required along lot lines or across lots.
Additional easements may be required, as determined appropriate by the city engineer.
B. Utility easements shall connect with easements established in adjoining properties. These easements,
when approved, shall not thereafter be changed without the approval of the city council, after a
recommendation from the planning commission.
C. Additional easements for pole guys should be provided at the outside of turns. Where possible, lot
lines shall be arranged to bisect the exterior angle so that pole guys will fall alongside lot lines.
D. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel, or stream, a storm sewer
easement, drainage right of way or park dedication, whichever the planning commission may deem
the most adequate, conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourses, shall be provided,
together with such further width or construction, or both, as will be adequate for the storm water
drainage of the area. The width of such easements shall be determined by the city engineer.
In some areas of this development plan, it appears that not all parts will be able to accommodate the
minimum 5-foot wide easement width, due to the parking lot setbacks along the roadways and the zero-foot
setback on the restaurant’s outdoor seating area (near the corner of Maple Street with Dodd Road). The
final placement and design of these easements will need to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer.
As was noted previously, there is an apparent encroachment on the current Outlot D parcel, of a large
boulder-style retaining wall that was installed as part of the Linden Lofts Condo project around 2004.
Although this new development includes a small segment of this outlot, the developer stated early on that
they did not want to be responsible for the ownership or maintenance of this wall, since it benefits only the
condominium association. Initial thoughts were to subdivide this outlot into two separate parcels, whereby
the developer keeps about one-half the parcel while the other half is transferred to the condo association.
Concerns were recently expressed however, that in creating a new parcel for addition into the already
established condo association, may prove somewhat of a challenge due to the numbers and different
ownership rights involved with the association, and possible (complicated) title issues.
A suggestion by city staff was to have the developer split-off a section of Outlot D of what they need to
accommodate their development, and the remaining Outlot D would remain with the city – including the
retaining wall, whereby the city may consider drafting a separate agreement with the condo association on
the maintenance and ownership of said retaining wall. More information on this issue will be presented
later at the time of the plat review.
MnDOT Review
As recommended by city staff, the Developer submitted an original concept plan to MnDOT approximately
3 months ago for their review. That initial concept plan included a proposal to have a driveway or access
point onto Dodd Road, lining up across from Hilltop Road intersection. MnDOT rejected this access; and
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 15 of 17
suggested they provide access to the development through the local road systems, which the plans currently
illustrate.
The updated plans set provided under this CUP-PUD Amendment application has been submitted to MnDOT
again for review. As of the preparation of this report, the city has not received any comments or review letter
from this state agency.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development
amendment, based on the attached finding of facts, with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development
amendment, based on amended finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit approving an Amendment to the 2002 Mendota
Heights Town Center (The Village at Mendota Heights), which would allow a new mixed-use development
consisting of a 48-unit senior apartment building with a restaurant, based on the attached findings of fact,
along with the following suggested conditions of approval:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a
form prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council.
2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking
lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director.
3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the
Public Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
4. 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.
5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or
more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process.
6. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with the city pollinator
friendly policy.
7. 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.
8. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 16 of 17
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards.
12. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement.
13. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s
Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
14. 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.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 17 of 17
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment
Mendota Senior Housing Development
725 Linden Street & 735 Maple Street
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development.
2. The proposed amended planned unit development can 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 proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to:
a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of 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 new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize
with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and
would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and
f. 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
6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting
the projected Metropolitan Council’s 2040 forecasted population and household numbers.
7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other
surrounding uses in the existing PUD area.
8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development
project will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota
Heights PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods.
STAIR 2-1
4,352 SF
RESTAURANT
STAIR 1-1TRASH ROOM1,058 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
812 SF
1 BEDRM.493 SFSTORAGE1,097 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,410 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,551 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,490 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,840 SF
LOBBY
1,105 SF
FITNESS
VEST.
ELEC.524 SFGOLF1,056 SF
R. PATIO
RESTROOMSR. TRASH1,342 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,291 SF
2 BEDRM. +
HALL HALL
5'-0"MAIL1,342 SF
2 BEDRM. +
LEASING
OFFICE
25,002 SF
PARKING LEVEL 67
CARS
488 SF
UTILITY
STAIR 2-0STAIR 1-0695 SF
WORK ROOM
288 SF
UTILITY
BIKE STRG.
AHUAHUBIKE STRG.ELEV.CIRCULATION
1,551 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,291 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,343 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,102 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,552 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,490 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,100 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,500 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,670 SF
COMMUNITY ROOM
610 SF
C. TERRACE
STAIR 1-2STAIR 2-2
1,525 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
918 SF
STORAGE
189 SF
ELEC.
204 SF
TOILET AND
STORAGE
810 SF
1 BEDRM.
812 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
TRASH
CIRCULATION
1,551 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,302 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,343 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,102 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,552 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,490 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
918 SF
STORAGE
1,100 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,206 SF
2 BEDRM. +
842 SF
1 BEDRM.
810 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,525 SF
2 BEDRM. +DENSTAIR 1-3STAIR 2-3
1,386 SF
2 BEDRM. +
ELEC.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
812 SF
1 BEDRM.
TRASH
APARTMENTS - ONE BEDROOM
AREA PLANS KEY
LEASING OFFICE
PARKING
APARTMENTS - TWO BEDROOM
APARTMENT COMMUNITY ROOM
APARTMENT FITNESS
APARTMENTS - TWO BEDROOM +, TWO BEDROOM + DEN
RESTAURANT
RESTAURANT KITCHEN
CIRCULATION AND ENTRY LOBBY
STORAGE, UTILITY, RESTROOMS
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:01:46 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A2.0
OVERALL PLANS -
AREA PLANS
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
2 FIRST LEVEL
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
1 LOWER LEVEL
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
3 SECOND LEVEL
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
4 THIRD LEVEL
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
PROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHGROSS UNIT SCHEDULE
Level Name Count Area Comments
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,525 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,552 SF
17 20,438 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 810 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 842 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,100 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,102 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,206 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,302 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,343 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,386 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,525 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,552 SF
19 22,382 SF
TOTAL UNIT COUNT: 48 57,275 SF
GROSS UNIT SCHEDULE
Level Name Count Area Comments
GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF
GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,058 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,097 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,291 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,342 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,342 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,410 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF
12 14,455 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 810 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,100 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,102 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,291 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,343 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,500 SF
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"
STN-2
SHINGLE-1
STN-1
FCB-1
FCB-2SHINGLE-2 FCB-1 SHINGLE-2
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"3'-4"STN-2
SHINGLE-1
BRICK-1
SHINGLE-1
SHINGLE-2
FCB-1
FCB-2
STN-1
EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
PCAST - 1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH/ SERIES COLOR LOCATION
STN - 1
STN - 2
FCB - 1
FCB - 2
FLASH - 1
AFS FLASH - 1
PRECAST CONCRETE
WALL PANELS
STONE VENEER
SIDING
SIDING
CAP FLASHING
WINDOW SILL
FLASHING
ALUMINUM WINDOW
FRAMES
PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERSCPAV-1
AFS-1
BRICK-1 FACE BRICK
STONE VENEER
SIOUX CITY SMOOTH BLACK HILLS GROUND LEVEL
NOTE:
THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS.
STONE BAND
RESTAURANT
BUMP-OUT
BUMP-OUT AND COLUMNS
SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE
SHINGLE-2 SHINGLE
CORONADO WHITE
CORONADO LIGHT GREY
FRENCH LIMESTONE
SAWTOOTH LEDGE
JAMES HARDIE
JAMES HARDIE
NIGHT GREYSIDING PANEL
FRENCH WHITESIDING PANEL
TBD CREAM
TBD TAN
UPPER LEVELS
GABLES
CHARCOAL GREY
CHARCOAL GREY
BLACK
CMG
CMG
TBD
QUATTROTECTURA HBL740 COMMUNITY DECK
OWNER APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS:
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:02:09 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.1
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
4 WEST ELEVATION
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"
STN-2
SHINGLE-1
STN-1
FCB-1
SHINGLE-2
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"
BRICK-1
SHINGLE-1
STN-1
FCB-2
FCB-1
BRICK-1
STN-1
EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
PCAST - 1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH/ SERIES COLOR LOCATION
STN - 1
STN - 2
FCB - 1
FCB - 2
FLASH - 1
AFS FLASH - 1
PRECAST CONCRETE
WALL PANELS
STONE VENEER
SIDING
SIDING
CAP FLASHING
WINDOW SILL
FLASHING
ALUMINUM WINDOW
FRAMES
PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERSCPAV-1
AFS-1
BRICK-1 FACE BRICK
STONE VENEER
SIOUX CITY SMOOTH BLACK HILLS GROUND LEVEL
NOTE:
THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS.
STONE BAND
RESTAURANT
BUMP-OUT
BUMP-OUT AND COLUMNS
SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE
SHINGLE-2 SHINGLE
CORONADO WHITE
CORONADO LIGHT GREY
FRENCH LIMESTONE
SAWTOOTH LEDGE
JAMES HARDIE
JAMES HARDIE
NIGHT GREYSIDING PANEL
FRENCH WHITESIDING PANEL
TBD CREAM
TBD TAN
UPPER LEVELS
GABLES
CHARCOAL GREY
CHARCOAL GREY
BLACK
CMG
CMG
TBD
QUATTROTECTURA HBL740 COMMUNITY DECK
OWNER APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS:
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:02:31 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.2
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2
1 NORTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2
2 EAST ELEVATION
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:04:06 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.3
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVES
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
A3.3
3 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
A3.3
2 SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE
A3.3
1 SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:05:52 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.4
AERIAL PERSPECTIVE
Checker
Author
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
A3.4
1 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE
1 | Page Mendota Senior Housing, Mendota Heights
January 26, 2020
To: Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisor, LLC
From: Vernon Swing, PE
Re: Trip Generation Study – Mendota Senior Housing, Mendota Heights MN
Per your request, Swing Traffic Solutions has conducted a trip generation analysis for the proposed
development of the Mendota Senior Housing in Mendota Heights, MN including 48 senior apartments
and a 4,352 square foot restaurant. The 2.667-acre site is located on the east side of Dodd Road, with
the majority of site just north of Maple Street and just west of Linden Street, with an additional portion
for parking located to the south of Maple Street. (See attached site plan figure.) Full access to the main
site is proposed from two locations, one on Maple Street and one on Linden Street, and access to the
additional parking area is planned on Maple Street across from the main site access.
The trip generation for the proposed development has been estimated based on the methodology
described by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation, 10th Edition. The ITE land
codes coinciding with the proposed development are Code 252 for senior attached housing and Code
932 for High Turnover Sit Down restaurant. Table 1 summarizes the findings.
Table 1
Trip Generation
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit
Senior Apartments (48 units) 3 Trips 7 Trips 7 Trips 5 Trips 178 Trips
Restaurant (4.352 k-sf) 24 Trips 19 Trips 26 Trips 16 Trips 488 Trips
TOTAL 53 Trips 54 Trips 666 Trips
As shown in Table 1, the site will generate 27 entering and 26 exiting trips during the morning traffic
peak hour; and 33 entering and 21 exiting trips in the during the afternoon traffic peak hour.
The majority of the site generated traffic will utilize the Maple Street intersection to access Dodd Road.
Review of the current and projected traffic conditions, including traffic counts conducted on Dodd Road
and at the intersection of Dodd Road and TH 62 suggest 60 percent of the site generated traffic will be
destined to or from TH 62, with 10-15 percent destined to or from the north on Dodd Road, 10-15
percent destined to or from the south of TH 62 on Dodd Road, and 10-15 percent destined to or from
Linden Street to visit the nearby retail establishments. The addition of the site generated traffic will
have a negligible impact on existing traffic conditions.
Parking generation for the site uses was also reviewed. The parking demand was estimated based on
the statistics contained in Parking Generation, 4th Edition, published by ITE. Again, the Land Use Codes
2 | Page Mendota Senior Housing, Mendota Heights
252 and 932 were used and the resulting estimated parking demand during the highest peak time is 29
spaces for the senior apartments and 49 spaces for the restaurant for a total peak parking demand of 78
spaces. The proposed development is providing 135 spaces, 69 below grade for the apartments and 66
at grade for the restaurant and visitors. The parking supply exceeds the anticipated demand.
In conclusion, the proposed development has appropriate access to the site and to the surrounding
roadway network. The addition of the proposed development is not anticipated to noticeably impact
traffic operations in the area. The parking supplied as part of the development exceeds the anticipated
demand. In other words, the roadway network serving the proposed development will function well
with the senior apartment project.
Please contact Vernon Swing at vswingtraffic@gmail.com or 612-968-4142 with any questions.
3 | Page Mendota Senior Housing, Mendota Heights
Introduction ....................................................... 1
Previous Studies ......................................... 1
Study Intersections ..................................... 2
Existing Conditions ............................................. 2
Data Collection ........................................... 2
Existing Crash Analysis ................................ 4
Existing Traffic Operations .......................... 7
Existing Traffic Control ................................ 8
Future Conditions .............................................. 9
Traffic Forecasts ....................................... 11
Future Traffic Control ............................... 11
Future Traffic Operations .......................... 14
Alternative Assessment ................................... 16
MN 110 Intersections ............................... 16
Market, Maple, and South Plaza Drive ...... 17
Marie and Wentworth .............................. 18
Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane ...... 19
Lake Drive ................................................. 20
Delaware Avenue ..................................... 21
Multimodal Considerations .............................. 22
Summary and Key Considerations .................... 23
1
Introduction
Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue serve as two main north-south
connections in Mendota Heights, MN. Both are two-lane roadways that
historically have had acceptable corridor operations. With several
developments planned adjacent to and along the corridors, future traffic
volumes are expected to rise prompting the need for intersection and
corridor improvements. This study will identify intersections that have
existing deficiencies and are most affected by future development and
recommend cohesive improvements for the City of Mendota Heights and
roadway stakeholders to prioritize in future planning efforts.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
The need for this study was prompted in response to multiple major growth
plans surrounding the study area. Inver Grove Heights Northwest
Expansion and the Minnesota Vikings Headquarters and Mixed-Use
Development Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review (AUAR) planning
documents identified traffic and impacts for each development
respectively, but neither document examined the combined impact of both
developments. The intersections for each study were also primarily south
of I-494 along Dodd Road and Argenta Trail and did not fully consider the
impacts of traffic traveling to the north of the study areas into the city of
Mendota Heights.
In addition to the two AUARs, this study also incorporated two other
Mendota Heights’ expected future developments. These impact studies
and other past studies that were used to provide a basis for this project
included:
➢ Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion AUAR (Sept 2007)
➢ Regional Roadway System Visioning Study (Aug 2010)
➢ Minnesota Vikings Headquarters and Mixed-Use Development AUAR
(April 2016)
➢ Mendota Plaza Expansion Traffic Impact Study (Aug 2016)
➢ Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017)
➢ Linden Street Senior Housing Traffic Impact Study (Dec 2017)
➢ Viking Lakes Event Travel Demand Management Plan (Jan 2018)
Figure 1 – Cross sections of Dodd Road (left) and Delaware Avenue (right)
2
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Key intersections in the study area were identified by Mendota Heights
staff that could be impacted by future development. Intersections that
were identified for existing and future analysis can be seen in Figure 2.
These intersections included the following list on each study corridor:
➢ Dodd Road at:
o I-494 South Ramps
o I-494 North Ramps
o Mendota Heights Road
o Lake Drive
o Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane
o South Plaza Drive
o TH 110
o Market Street
o Maple Street
o Marie Avenue
o Wentworth Avenue
➢ Delaware Avenue at:
o Oneill Drive
o Mendota Heights Road
o Huber Drive / Charlton
Road
o TH 110
➢ Mendota Heights Road and
Lake Drive
➢ Lake Drive and Swan Drive
Existing Conditions
DATA COLLECTION
Existing AM and PM intersection turning movement counts were collected
and processed by KLJ for the 17 study area intersections. An additional
school peak hour was also collected for the four Lake Drive and Mendota
Heights Road intersections that are adjacent to Saint Thomas Academy and
Convent of the Visitation School. The intersection counts were collected
during October 2017 to provide average weekday volumes along the
corridors. The peak hours of traffic volumes are identified below:
➢ AM Peak Hour – 7:15 - 8:15 AM
➢ PM Peak Hour – 4:30 – 5:30 PM
➢ School Peak Hour – 2:45 - 3:45 PM
Figure 2 – Study area
*North Plaza Drive existing counts were not collected as part of this study. Volumes
used in future analysis were based off Mendota Plaza Expansion TIS.
Legend
Study Intersections
-./0 All Way
èéë Signal
!"$TWSC
3
Figure 3 – Existing volumes
3,550
X,XXX
3,300
9,200
27,500
30,000
7,400
1,500
5,700
3,000 1,750
22,900
1,050
4
EXISTING CRASH ANALYSIS
The most recent 5-year crash data (2011-2015) was collected using
Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) for each of the 17
intersections and three corridor segments. This detailed crash data is used
to identify intersection and segment crash rates, crash severity, crash
types, and crash costs to compare to each other and to Minnesota average
and critical crash rates. However, because this data is more than two years
old, the patterns that are identified should be weighed against recent crash
data and trends. Tables 1 and 2 show a summary of this analysis with a
detailed comparison in Attachment A.
The results of the existing crash analysis identified one intersection above
the critical crash rate (red) and seven intersections above both the
expected crash rate and the expected severity rate (bold). None of the
roadway segments were above the expected crash rates; however, the
Delaware Avenue segment has a severity rate over the expected rate due
to the severe nature of the existing crashes.
Table 1 – Intersection crash statistics
Intersection Traffic
Control
Total
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Expected and Critical
Crash Rates
Observed Crash
Rate
Dodd Rd and I-494 South Ramps Signal 16 2 0.52 / 0.80 0.35
Dodd Rd and I-494 North Ramps Signal 17 7 0.52 / 0.86 0.53
Dodd Rd and Mendota Heights Rd Signal 8 3 0.52 / 0.94 0.38
Dodd Rd and Lake Dr Thru/Stop 1 1 0.18 / 0.51 0.07
Dodd Rd and Wagon Wheel Trl / Decorah Ln Thru/Stop 2 0 0.18 / 0.49 0.13
Dodd Rd and South Plaza Dr Thru/Stop 4 3 0.18 / 0.49 0.25
Dodd Rd and TH110 Signal 48 11 0.40 / 0.60 0.70
Dodd Rd and Market St Thru/Stop 1 1 0.18 / 0.46 0.05
Dodd Rd and Maple St Thru/Stop 0 0 0.18 / 0.47 0.00
Dodd Rd and Marie Ave All/Stop 5 2 0.35 / 0.71 0.24
Dodd Rd and Wentworth Ave All/Stop 10 5 0.35 / 0.74 0.57
Mendota Heights Rd and Lake Dr Thru/Stop 3 1 0.18 / 0.63 0.37
Lake Dr and Swan Dr Thru/Stop 0 0 0.18 / 1.40 0.00
Delaware Ave and Oneill Dr Thru/Stop 1 0 0.18 / 0.75 0.19
Delaware Ave and Mendota Heights Rd/Grieve Glen Ln Thru/Stop 2 1 0.18 / 0.64 0.26
Delaware Ave and Huber Dr / Charlton Rd Thru/Stop 5 2 0.18 / 0.59 0.52
Delaware Ave and TH 110 Signal 28 7 0.40 / 0.61 0.44
5
Table 2 – Segment crash analysis
Segment
Average
Existing
AADT
Total
Crashes
Injury
Crashes
Expected
and Critical
Crash Rate
Observed
Crash
Rate
Dodd Rd -
I-494 to MN
110
7,400 31 11 1.85 / 2.68 1.64
Dodd Rd - MN
110 to Went-
worth Ave
8,300 24 10 1.85 / 2.73 1.44
Delaware Ave
- Oneill Dr to
MN 110
3,600 13 5 1.25 / 2.16 1.16
Critical Crash Intersections
➢ Dodd Road and MN 110 was identified as a critical crash
intersection and the detailed crash data shows a high number of
rear end type crashes during the peak periods. This shows that
most of the rear end type crashes are congestion-related
prompting the need for operational improvements at the
intersection, which is discussed in a subsequent section of this
report.
Elevated Crash Intersections
➢ Dodd Road and I‐494 North Ramps exhibited a high percentage of
rear end crashes in the northbound and westbound directions. A
high number of crashes were due to peak hour congestion and
queueing in all directions at the study intersection.
➢ Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive has an elevated crash rate that
can be attributed to high volumes of traffic throughout the day
turning into and out of retail establishments in Mendota Plaza. The
majority of traffic using South Plaza Drive turns left onto
southbound Dodd Road conflicting with high traffic volumes on
Dodd Road and leading to three out of four crashes being severe.
Figure 4 – Congestion at MN 110 and Dodd Road
Figure 5 – Northbound congestion at Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps
6
➢ Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue - High percentage of right angle
crashes and 4 crashes in 2014 that could be classified as
correctable (3 injury severity). These types of crashes are common
at congested all-way stop intersections.
➢ Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive - This intersection is
adjacent to Saint Thomas Academy and has a higher percentage of
young drivers using it before and after the school day. This led to
an incapacitating injury left-turn crash in 2011 which included a
young distracted student rear-ending a vehicle waiting to turn left.
➢ Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road - Only 2 crashes. No
discernible trend.
➢ Delaware Avenue and Huber Drive/Charlton Road – The
intersection has pattern of run off road and sideswipe type
crashes. This is also a transition point between a wider shoulder to
the north and a narrow shoulder to the south.
➢ Delaware Avenue and MN 110 - High rear end crash rate during
peak hours attributed to congestion on MN 110 similar to Dodd
Road and MN 110.
Elevated Severity Rate Segments
➢ Delaware Avenue segment was identified as an elevated severity
segment. The corridor has a pattern of severe run-off road type
crashes, especially on the north end of the segment. Narrow
shoulders, no edgeline rumble strip, and limited clear zone are all
factors along this corridor that could add to the severity rate.
Figure 6 – Peak hour conflicts at Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue
Figure 7 – AM traffic at Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive
Figure 8 – Four run-off road crashes on Delaware Avenue attributed to narrow
corridor design
7
EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Existing traffic operations were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic to
identify intersection delay and level of service (LOS) based on HCM
guidance. LOS grade values correspond to specific traffic characteristics
within a given system. At intersections, LOS is a function of average vehicle
delay. For two-way stop controlled intersections, minor approach delay is
reported in addition to intersection LOS results. LOS “E” or worse,
according to MnDOT standards, is considered deficient under normal traffic
operations.
Table 3 – HCM LOS thresholds
Control Delay LOS Threshold Unsignalized Signalized
≤ 10 ≤ 10 A
> 10-15 > 10-20 B
> 15-25 > 20-35 C
> 25-35 > 35-55 D
> 35-50 > 55-80 E
> 50 > 80 F
Results of the existing traffic operations analysis identified several
intersections and operational deficiencies in the study area. Existing
weekday peak results are in figure 1.11. Detailed scenario results are in
Attachment B. Noteworthy deficiencies include:
➢ Dodd Road at MN 110 has unacceptable operations in the AM peak
hour and approaching capacity in the PM peak hour. The queues in
the AM peak hour spill back to cause unacceptable conditions and
block movements at Market Street.
➢ Delaware Avenue and MN 110 is approaching capacity.
Wagon Wheel Tr
Marie Ave
Wentworth Ave
S Plaza Dr
Lake Dr
Market St
Maple St
Legend
LOS A-C
LOS D
LOS E
LOS F
Figure 9 – Existing traffic operations results (worst peak)
8
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL
Selecting the appropriate traffic control device requires consideration of
traffic patterns, volumes, roadway geometry, lane configurations, and
multimodal aspects. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) provides guidance and standards on the installation of
traffic control methods. The MUTCD considers vehicular volume,
pedestrian volume, and crash frequency thresholds for multiple roadway
contexts. Existing signals and unsignalized intersections that had hourly
approach volumes of more than 75 vehicles (one of eight hours for
satisfying minor approach for warrant 1B) were analyzed for existing traffic
control warrants. Other context specific warrants (Warrants 4-8) were not
analyzed as they do not fit the characteristics of the study intersections
below.
Warrants were based on peak hour turning movement counts which were
fit to a daily volume profile. Minor right-turn volumes were excluded for
dedicated right-turn lanes and included at 50 percent for shared right lanes.
Table 4 shows a summary of the traffic control analysis under existing
conditions and detailed information can be found in Attachment C.
Warrant analysis results showed that signal warrants were met for all
existing signalized intersections. For the unsignalized intersections that
were analyzed, existing all-way stop intersections at Marie Avenue and
Wentworth Avenue met Multi-Way Stop Application (MWSA) and 70%
signal warrants for four hour and peak hour conditions. The remaining two-
way stop control intersections did not meet signal or MWSA warrants
under their current volume conditions.
Table 4 – Existing control warrants
Intersection Existing Control Warrants*
1A 1B 2 3 MWSA
Dodd Road and I-494 South Ramps Signal Met Met Met Met Met
Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps Signal Not Met Not Met Met Met Met
Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road Signal Not Met Not Met Not Met Met Met
Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive Two-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
Dodd Road and TH 110 Signal Met Met Met Met Met
Dodd Road and Market Street Two-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
Dodd Road and Maple Street Two-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
Dodd Road and Marie Avenue All-Way Stop Met** Not Met Met** Met** Met
Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue All-Way Stop Not Met Not Met Met** Met** Met
Delaware Avenue and TH 110 Signal Not Met Met Met Met Met
*Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume *Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic
*Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume *Warrant 3: Peak Hour
*MWSA: Multi-way Stop Application **Met under 70% volume conditions
9
Future Conditions
Traffic projections were developed for 2040 to evaluate operating
conditions under both existing and proposed roadway infrastructure.
Multiple 2040 traffic scenarios were developed to determine the impact
from major developments that are under construction or planned in the
area.
2040 Base Scenario
➢ Based on traffic projections from 2030 Dakota County
Comprehensive Plan extrapolated to 2040.
➢ Includes planned Mendota Plaza development near Dodd Road and
TH 110.
➢ Does not include the new Viking Lakes development (Minnesota
Vikings practice facility and adjacent development) or the planned
Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion.
2040 Build AUAR (No Interchange) Scenario
➢ Includes 2040 base scenario traffic growth assumptions as well as
traffic generated by the Viking Lakes site and Inver Grove Heights
Northwest Expansion. Trip generation for the Viking Lakes and
Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion sites are based on
information in the respective AUAR documents for each site.
➢ Does not assume a future Argenta/I-494 Interchange.
➢ Assumes the most densely developed Viking Lakes scenario that
was considered in the AUAR.
Viking Lakes Development Details
The Viking Lakes development is in the southeast quadrant of the I-494 and
Dodd Road interchange (see Figure 10). The site will include the new
Minnesota Vikings practice facility and associated office space, other
offices not affiliated with the Vikings, hotels, retail, and apartments.
During typical operating conditions (i.e., no major events occurring at the
Vikings facilities), the following traffic volumes are expected to be added to
the surrounding roadway network compared to existing conditions:
➢ 40,000 daily trips
➢ 3,100 AM peak hour trips (74 percent entering/26 percent exiting)
➢ 3,800 PM peak hour trips (35 percent entering/65 percent exiting)
Viking Lakes Event Traffic
As part of a separate study, a Travel Demand Management Plan is currently
being developed for the Viking Lakes site to best accommodate traffic
during atypical event conditions such as Vikings training camp, high school
athletic events, concerts, etc. This event plan looked at events between 500
Figure 10 – Viking Lakes site plan
10
and 7,200 attendees for existing events and up to 21,000 attendees for
future events. However, vehicle traffic to and from the event site will be
much lower due to transit/walk/bike and vehicle occupancy which
decreases the maximum vehicles to 2,495 for existing events and 7,280 for
future expanded capacity events.
Many events will occur during off-peak time periods, during weekends,
midday, or evening, where total volume splits using Dodd Road or Delaware
Avenue are expected to be less than peak volumes. Therefore, the North-
South Mobility Study will only evaluate typical operating conditions in the
area. Results from the ongoing Travel Demand Management Plan will be
considered in recommendations made in the North-South Mobility Study to
ensure consistency between analyses and recommendations across
studies.
Inver Grove Heights Northwest Expansion Development Details
The planned development covers a 3,140-acre area in Inver Grove Heights
that is generally bound by I-494, Argenta Trail, TH 55, and Babcock Trail.
Land uses include low, medium, and high density residential, commercial,
office/industrial, public/institutional, and open space.
The development is expected to add the following traffic volumes to the
surrounding roadway network:
➢ 102,200 daily trips
➢ 5,300 AM peak hour trips (49 percent entering/51 percent exiting)
➢ 8,400 PM peak hour trips (47 percent entering/53 percent exiting)
Figure 11 – Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area map
11
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic projections for both 2040 Base Scenario and 2040 Build Scenario
conditions were developed based on trip generation assumptions that are
described above. This included the development of 2040 daily traffic
projections as well as AM and PM peak hour turning movement
projections.
Origins and destinations of site generated trips were assumed after a
review of prevailing traffic patterns and previous documentation.
Adjustments were made based on existing regional travel patterns which
differed slightly from the Viking Lakes AUAR. It is expected that six percent
of Vikings Lakes development traffic will use Dodd Road and nine percent
will use Delaware Avenue between I-494 and MN 110. Six percent of Inver
Grove Heights Northwest Expansion development traffic will use Delaware
Avenue to the north of I-494.
Traffic projections for the 2040 Base Scenario and 2040 Build Scenario can
be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively.
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Minnesota MUTCD traffic control warrants were evaluated with projected
2040 volumes to identify potential traffic control revisions throughout the
study area. Attachment D has detailed future traffic control results.
Traffic signals are expected to be warranted at the following intersections
by 2040:
➢ Dodd Road and Marie Street (currently all-way stop control)
➢ Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue (currently all-way stop control)
The impacts from potential traffic control revisions will be discussed in the
alternatives analysis section of this report.
Figure 12 – Directional distribution of AUAR development trips
6%
4%1%
6%
8%
9%
3%
2%
9%
8%
12
Figure 13 – 2040 Base Conditions
5,500
5,000
11,400
34,500 37,500
3,600
10,500
2,800 3,900
27,500
X,XXX
8,200
13
Figure 14 – 2040 Build Conditions (No Interchange)
X,XXX
5,500
5,000
12,200
9,500
44,800 36,600
3,600
1,500
13,400
35,500
13,400 3,400
14
FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Increased traffic volumes through 2040 are expected to trigger many
operational deficiencies throughout the study area, especially in the 2040
Build Scenario with added traffic from the Viking Lakes and Inver Grove
Heights Northwest Expansion developments. The 2040 Build Scenario is
expected to trigger LOS F at all Dodd Road study intersections north of
Wagon Wheel Trail and at all Delaware Avenue/Argenta Trail study
intersections except at Huber Drive.
Locations operating at LOS D or worse under 2017 or 2040 conditions can
be seen in Table 5. A summary of 2040 traffic operations throughout the
study area can also be seen in Figure 15 and detailed results can be found
in Attachment E.
2040 Event Conditions
While detailed traffic operations analysis related to event traffic conditions
at the future Viking Lakes site is beyond the scope of this study, preliminary
analysis that has been completed as part of the Viking Lakes Travel Demand
Management Plan indicates that event traffic should result in similar (or
better) operations throughout most of the study area. The likely exception
to this is at the I-494/Dodd Road interchange; however, improvements to
mitigate deficiencies at this location are being studied as part of the Travel
Demand Management Plan.
Table 5 – Existing and 2040 Future worst peak traffic operations results
Intersection Existing Traffic Control 2017 Intersection LOS 2040 Base Intersection LOS 2040 Build Intersection LOS
Dodd Road and I-494 South Ramps Signal B C E
Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps Signal C C C
Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road Signal C C C
Dodd Road and Lake Drive TWSC* B C D
Dodd Road and Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane TWSC* C F F
Dodd Road and Plaza Drive TWSC* A D F
Dodd Road and MN 110 Signal F F F
Dodd Road and Market Street TWSC* F F F
Dodd Road and Maple Street TWSC* A F F
Dodd Road and Marie Avenue AWSC B E F
Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue AWSC C F F
Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive TWSC* A B B
Lake Drive and Swan Drive TWSC* A A A
Argenta Trail and Oneill Drive TWSC* A A F
Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road TWSC* A A F
Delaware Avenue and Huber Drive/Charlton Road TWSC* A A C
Delaware Avenue and MN 110 Signal D F F
*Intersection LOS at TWSC intersections reported as poorest approach LOS.
15
Figure 15 – 2017 and 2040 worst peak intersection levels of service
2017 Existing Conditions 2040 Base Conditions 2040 Build Scenario (No Interchange)
16
Alternative Assessment
Intersections that were identified as being deficient in existing or 2040
conditions were analyzed under several options to provide improvements
to the intersection. Several options per intersection were identified as
possible improvements, with a recommended option being identified for
each intersection. To maintain a complete corridor vision, intersections
were grouped together based on their existing control and location. High-
level cost estimates were included for comparison purposes only. They
represent high-level estimates and do not include right-of-way costs.
MN 110 INTERSECTIONS
The MN 110 intersections with Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue are both
high traffic volume intersections. With 37,500 daily entering vehicles at
Dodd Road and 35,000 daily entering vehicles at Delaware Avenue, both
intersections are approaching the capacity of their existing 4-Lane highway
footprint. With 2040 volumes identifying growth up to 50,000 daily
entering vehicles for both intersections, an alternative corridor design or
interchange will likely be necessary in the future. Alternatives that were
analyzed for these intersections included:
➢ Expansion to 6 lanes on MN 110 and dual left turns
➢ Superstreet (Dodd Road right turn only + U-turns)
➢ Continuous flow intersections (displaced mainline lefts)
➢ Single point urban interchange (SPUI)
The results of the alternative analysis for MN 110 showed that expansion
to 6 lanes and dual left turn lanes would not provide acceptable
intersection future conditions in the AM peak hour. The super street and
continuous flow intersections provided adequate traffic progression;
however, the delay at 3 separate parts of the intersection added up to
operations that were approaching or at capacity. The SPUI alternative was
the only option that provided acceptable long-term operations at Dodd
Road and Delaware Avenue.
Table 6 – 2040 alternative assessment results – MN 110
Alternative
High-
Level
Cost*
Dodd Road Delaware
Avenue
Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
6-Lane + Dual Lefts $6-10M 99/F 53/D 52/D 59/E
Superstreet $2-3M 80/E 69/E 59/E 78/E
Continuous Flow $3-4M 57/E 67/E 55/D 79/E
SPUI $30-50M 8/A 8/A 6/A 12/B
*Cost of improvements at only Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue.
Figure 16 – Examples of superstreet (left) and continuous flow (right) intersections
17
MARKET, MAPLE, AND SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE
The four intersections adjacent to the MN 110 and Dodd Road intersection
were identified as having deficient 2040 intersection operations. Dakota
County recommends at least 1/4 mile spacing for signals along a major
arterial roadway precluding a signal at either Market Street or
N Plaza Drive. The queueing from MN 110 would also impact closely spaced
signals. If all four access locations were unchanged, signal warrants for the
four intersections are expected to not be met. However, if access is reduced
at Market Street and N Plaza Drive, the resulting traffic shifts would warrant
signals at Hilltop Road/Maple Street and S Plaza Drive.
Table 7 –2040 alternative assessment results – Market, Maple, and S Plaza Drive
Alternative
High-
Level
Cost
S Plaza
Drive
Market
Street
Maple
Street
Delay/LOS Delay/LOS Delay/LOS
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
Full Access* - 24 /
C
33 /
D
17 /
C
32 /
D 9 / A 13 /
B
Roundabouts** $2.5-
4M
26 /
D
72 /
F 6 / A 9 / A 7 / A 19 /
C
Reduced
Access
$800k-
1.2M
11 /
B
18 /
C 6 / A 10 /
B 8 / A 11 /
B
*Worst approach delay and LOS reported for two-way stop intersections
** Single Lane Roundabout assumed at Market and Hybrid 2x1 Roundabout assumed at N Plaza Drive
The results of the analysis showed that when queueing was minimized at
Dodd Road and MN 110 that operations were generally acceptable at S
Plaza Drive, Market Street, and Maple Street. By reconfiguring to a reduced
access design, delays at the study intersections were decreased from
unacceptable to acceptable conditions. Although right-in right-out access
at N Plaza Drive was modeled and preferred, the option of keeping
southbound access into Mendota Plaza should be considered in the future.
Figure 17 – Full access (left) and reduced access (right) alternatives
X
X X X
Roundabout
Option
Roundabout
Option
18
MARIE AND WENTWORTH
Dodd Road intersections with Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue are
both slightly skewed all-way stop controlled intersections. With volumes on
Marie and Wentworth expected to increase from 3,000-4,000 existing to
5,000-6,000 in 2040 cross street traffic will drive the need for an alternative
intersection that will benefit both safety and operations.
Table 8 – 2040 alternative assessment results – Marie and Wentworth
Alternative
High-
Level
Cost*
Marie Avenue Wentworth
Avenue
Delay (s)
/ LOS
Delay (s)
/ LOS
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
AM
Peak
PM
Peak
All-way Stops - 36 / E 63 / F 89 / F 128 / F
Signals $0.6-1.2M 21 / C 21 / C 19 / B 23 / C
Mini Roundabouts $0.4-0.8M 28 / D 18 / C 21 / C 16 / C
*Cost of two signals or two mini roundabouts; one at each study intersection
The results of the analysis showed that both signals and mini roundabouts
would provide operational benefit at the intersections. However, mini
roundabouts would offer additional safety benefits, especially negating
right-angle crashes, and non-peak benefits to the intersections compared
to the signal alternatives. Mini roundabouts will also promote slower
speeds along the corridor compared to signalized options. The mini
roundabouts are also expected to cost less than the signalized intersections
both in initial cost, right-of-way cost, and operating costs.
Figure 18 – Existing all-way stop (top) and mini roundabout (bottom) options
Source: Tollgate & MacPhail Mini-Roundabout - Department of Public Works, Harford County, MD
19
WAGON WHEEL TRAIL AND DECORAH LANE
With MnDOT’s TH 149 reconstruction project, Wagon Wheel Trail and
Decorah Lane will be reconstructed into a three-lane segment with a
pedestrian crossing median between the intersections. This improvement
is a near-term solution to increase both vehicle and pedestrian safety at the
intersection. However, as volumes increase on Dodd Road this intersection
will have future unacceptable operations and long-term alternatives will
need to be considered.
Table 9 – 2040 alternative assessment results – Wagon Wheel and Decorah
Alternative High-Level
Cost
Wagon Wheel Trail/
Decorah Lane
Delay (s) / LOS
AM Peak PM Peak
Two-way stop - 462 / F 685 / F
Two-way stop
(realigned)
$200k 37 / E 66 / F
Signal $200-400k 18 / B 30 / C
Signal (realigned) $400-600k 10 / B 10 / B
Mini Roundabout
(realigned) $400-600k 8 / A 14 / B
Using the final design footprint, it was shown that the intersection could be
signalized with acceptable levels of service. Because of the offset nature of
the intersection, minor approaches would need to have split cycles. If the
intersection was realigned, signal and mini roundabout options would both
be acceptable at the intersection. A signal would be the preferred option if
future volumes warrant a signal; however, it is expected that a signal will
not be warranted. If minor approach volumes don’t warrant a signal, the
mini roundabout would provide acceptable operations.
Figure 19 – Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane final design from TH 149 study
20
LAKE DRIVE
The Lake Drive analysis was conducted to quantify operations around the
school in the AM and school peak hour. Comments that cars were using
Swan Drive as a cut through were analyzed and it was recorded that only
five vehicles used this route during the school peak. However, several
reasons that could cause cut through movements on different days include:
➢ Southbound delay at Lake Dr/Mendota Heights Rd and signal delay
at Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road
➢ Limited sight distance caused by vertical curve at Lake Dr/Dodd
Rd looking south
Understanding these issues before suggesting improvements allows both
reactionary (to physically prevent cut through traffic) and preventative
(improve preferred routes) improvements to be considered.
➢ Reactionary Improvements
o Build a cul-de-sac on Swan Drive to close access.
o Restrict west-north access at Lake Drive and Swan Drive
by constructing a raised median on Lake Drive.
➢ Preventative Improvements
o Consider traffic enforcement to direct traffic at Lake
Drive/Mendota Heights Road as a temporary measure to
minimize southbound delay during the school departure.
o Install a roundabout at Lake Drive/Mendota Heights Road
to improve operations and safety.
o Install dynamic or static intersection warning system at
Dodd Road and Lake Drive in the northbound direction to
flash when there is entering traffic from Lake Drive.
The recommended action is to do nothing. Reactionary improvements are
not preferred as these would impact access into the neighborhood.
Although preventative improvements would provide operations and safety
benefits, the higher cost of these options do not provide enough benefit to
justify them.
Figure 20 – Lake Drive options
21
DELAWARE AVENUE
Delaware Avenue is expected to see the highest percentage increase in
development traffic in the study area. Volumes are expected to increase
from 3,000 daily trips to more than 13,000 daily trips in the full build
scenarios. If these volumes are not mitigated, Delaware Avenue will be at
capacity with several intersections that have unacceptable conditions.
If the Argenta Interchange is constructed at the locally preferred location,
this will alleviate development volumes that were routed to Delaware
Avenue. It is expected that 90 percent of development traffic using
Delaware Avenue will be shifted to using the Argenta Interchange restoring
the acceptable operations of the corridor in the 2040 Base Conditions. The
Argenta Interchange at the preferred location 1,500 feet east of the existing
overpass should be the preferred option to limit congestion on Delaware
Avenue. If the interchange is not built, Delaware Avenue will need to be
expanded to a 3-lane or 4-lane option.
The existing cross section of Delaware Avenue is very narrow with only
two to four-foot shoulders and five to ten feet of clear zone in certain
locations. With an existing crash trend of run-off-road type crashes,
additional guardrail segments or future construction of curb and gutter
should be considered along the corridor where clear zones are narrow and
shoulders are under 4 feet. These improvements will increase safety along
the corridor especially during inclement weather by not allowing vehicles
to run off the road into trees and brush that line the corridor.
Figure 21 – Location of preferred argenta interchange from Dakota County
Regional Roadway System Visioning Study
Figure 22 – Narrow Delaware Avenue segment south of Huber Drive
22
Multimoda l Considerations
Although this study was focused on identifying vehicular traffic due to
regional development, bike and ped facilities are an important
consideration for the final corridor vision. In depth pedestrian and bike
facilities were not analyzed as part of the current study (as a previous trail
study was finished in Nov 2017). Many of the alternative recommendations
will coincide with multimodal improvements and will be analyzed in depth
during preliminary design of the concepts.
The Dodd Road Trail Feasibility Study (Nov 2017) identified Dodd Road as a
major N-S regional trail facility. The existing facilities are mostly on-street
trails (wide shoulders) however north and south of MN 110 there are
existing sections of off-street trails. A Ped/Bike tunnel was just recently
constructed under MN 110 connecting these two segments. Trail crossings
were also proposed at Wagon Wheel Trail / Decorah Lane as part of the TH
149 resurfacing project in addition to existing crossings at Mendota Heights
Road, South Plaza Drive, and Marie Avenue. The recommendations of the
study were to build seven additional sections of off-street trail segments
along Dodd Road with public support as construction would require
property owners to sell property or easements for the trail segments.
Due to the limited right-of-way along Delaware Avenue, pedestrian
accommodations in the study area between I-494 and MN 110 would be
constrained by roadway grade profiles and right-of-way needed from
property owners. Existing off-street trails on Huber Drive and Mendota
Heights Road allow connections from Delaware Avenue to the west and
serve as alternative multimodal routes to the narrow corridor.
Figure 23 – Existing trail facilities in Mendota Heights
23
Summary and Key Considerations
The recommendations in this report are a starting point for the City of
Mendota Heights to work with MnDOT and Dakota County in identifying
improvements to Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. This report identified
the operations and safety deficiencies expected from future regional
growth and development. The following considerations are listed to help
identify preferred alternatives that should be constructed as operations
deteriorate on Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue.
Dodd Road and I-494 North and South Ramps
➢ With the existing 4+ lane section of Dodd Road and i mprovements
to the north ramps as part of the TH 149 MnDOT reconstruction,
future intersection operations are expected to be acceptable with
periodic signal timing adjustments during Viking Lakes
development expansions.
➢ During events during weekday peak or over 4,000 expected
attendance, event signal timing adjustments will be needed at the
I-494 ramp intersections. This mitigation was recommended in the
Viking Lakes Event Travel Demand Management Plan.
Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive Improvements
➢ No improvements are recommended at Lake Drive and Swan Drive.
➢ Consider temporary use of traffic enforcement to direct traffic at
Lake Drive/Mendota Heights Road to minimize southbound delay
during the school peak departure. A long-term solution to increase
safety could be a single-lane roundabout at this intersection
similar to the existing roundabout at Visitation Drive to the east.
Wagon Wheel Trail and Decorah Lane
➢ Improvements as part of the TH 149 reconstruction will address
safety concerns at the study intersection with the addition of a
pedestrian median and dedicated left turn lanes.
➢ Future operational deficiencies can be addressed by signalizing the
reconstructed intersection if future signal warrants are met or
realigning Decorah Lane and providing a mini roundabout.
MN 110 Intersections
➢ With increased volumes on MN 110, Dodd Road, and Delaware
Avenue providing unacceptable existing traffic operations, the MN
110 corridor should be analyzed to develop a corridor vision from
Hwy 55 to I-494. The City should lead this effort to apply for grants
and spur MnDOT interest to make this project a priority to study.
➢ Corridor improvements that can alleviate traffic congestion on MN
110 include Superstreet, Continuous Flow, or SPUI alternatives.
However, a long-term solution will need additional analysis.
Market, Maple, and South Plaza Drive
➢ The recommended alternative includes reducing access at Market
Street and North Plaza Drive to right-in/right-out or 3/4 access and
providing signalized full access at a realigned Maple Street/Hilltop
Road and South Plaza Drive.
Marie Avenue and Wentworth Avenue
➢ The recommended alternative is to construct mini-roundabouts at
both intersections to provide safety and operational benefits, limit
corridor speeds, and provide corridor continuity.
Delaware Avenue
➢ It is recommended to provide additional guardrail segments or
curb and gutter along Delaware Avenue to address a high number
of run-off road type crashes.
A
ATTACHMENT A
EXISTING CRASH RESULTS
Mendota Heights N-S Mobility Study
Mendota Heights, MN
Intersection Crash Statistics
N S E W K A B C PD
Dodd Road and I-494 South Ramps Signal 15300 22900 11800 45 5 45.7 16 0 0 1 1 14 $73,240 0.52 0.35 0.80 0.44
Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps Signal 7800 15300 12000 45 5 32.1 17 0 0 2 5 10 $170,600 0.52 0.53 0.86 0.62
Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road Signal 7400 7800 3400 4300 45 5 20.9 8 0 0 1 2 5 $76,600 0.52 0.38 0.94 0.41
Dodd Road and Lake Drive Urban Thru/Stop 7400 7400 690 45 5 14.1 1 0 0 0 1 0 $17,400 0.18 0.07 0.51 0.14
Dodd Road and Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane Urban Thru/Stop 7400 7400 1550 1050 45 5 15.9 2 0 0 0 0 2 $3,120 0.18 0.13 0.49 0.26
Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive Urban Thru/Stop 8600 7400 1500 40 5 16.0 4 0 0 1 2 1 $70,360 0.18 0.25 0.49 0.51
Dodd Road and TH110 Signal 9900 8600 29000 27500 55 5 68.5 48 0 0 2 9 37 $282,320 0.40 0.70 0.60 1.17
Dodd Road and Market Street Urban Thru/Stop 9400 9900 2050 100 40 5 19.6 1 0 0 0 1 0 $17,400 0.18 0.05 0.46 0.11
Dodd Road and Maple Street Urban Thru/Stop 9200 9400 700 40 5 17.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0.18 0.00 0.47 0.00
Dodd Road and Marie Avenue All Way Stop 7400 9200 2600 3300 40 5 20.5 5 0 0 1 1 3 $56,080 0.35 0.24 0.71 0.34
Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue All Way Stop 5800 7400 3550 2600 40 5 17.7 10 0 0 2 3 5 $128,000 0.35 0.57 0.74 0.76
Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive Urban Thru/Stop 1000 4300 3650 40 5 8.2 3 0 1 0 0 2 $121,120 0.18 0.37 0.63 0.58
Lake Drive and Swan Drive Urban Thru/Stop 300 690 690 30 5 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0.18 0.00 1.40 0.00
Delaware Avenue and O’Neill Drive Urban Thru/Stop 3000 2600 300 45 5 5.4 1 0 0 0 0 1 $1,560 0.18 0.19 0.75 0.25
Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road/Grieve Glen Lane Urban Thru/Stop 3650 3000 100 1750 45 5 7.8 2 0 1 0 0 1 $119,560 0.18 0.26 0.64 0.40
Delaware Avenue and Huber Drive/Charlton Road Urban Thru/Stop 5400 3650 300 1100 45 5 9.5 5 0 0 0 2 3 $39,480 0.18 0.52 0.59 0.89
Delaware Avenue and TH 110 Signal 5700 5400 30000 29000 55 5 64.0 28 0 0 2 5 21 $187,760 0.40 0.44 0.61 0.72
151 0 2 12 32 105
Corridor Crash Statistics
K A B C PD
Dodd Rd - I-494 to Hwy 110 7400 1.4 55 5 18.9 31 0 0 3 8 20 $272,400 1.85 1.64 2.68 0.61
Dodd Rd - Hwy 110 to Wentworth Ave 7500 1.1 55 5 15.1 24 0 0 2 8 14 $229,040 1.85 1.59 2.78 0.57
Deleware Ave - Oneill Dr to Hwy 110 3600 1.7 55 5 11.2 13 1 1 0 3 8 $2,382,680 1.25 1.16 2.16 0.54
13 1 1 0 3 8
AADT Miles
Total
Crashes
Crash Severity Statewide
CR
Observed
CR Critical CR Critical
Index
Urban 2-lane : ADT∈[1500,4999]
Total
Crashes
Crash Severity Statewide
CR
Observed
CR Critical CR Critical
IndexCrash Cost ($/yr)
Urban 2-lane : ADT∈[5000,7999]
Crash Cost ($/yr)
Urban 2-lane : ADT∈[5000,7999]
Segment Max SL Years of
Crash Data
Million
Entering
Vehicles
Years of
Crash Data
Million
Entering
Vehicles
Intersection TCD Max SL
AADT
Mendota Heights N-S Mobility Study
Mendota Heights, MN
Intersection Crash Statistics
Dodd Road and I-494 South Ramps
Dodd Road and I-494 North Ramps
Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road
Dodd Road and Lake Drive
Dodd Road and Wagon Wheel Trail/Decorah Lane
Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive
Dodd Road and TH110
Dodd Road and Market Street
Dodd Road and Maple Street
Dodd Road and Marie Avenue
Dodd Road and Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights Road and Lake Drive
Lake Drive and Swan Drive
Delaware Avenue and O’Neill Drive
Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road/Grieve Glen Lane
Delaware Avenue and Huber Drive/Charlton Road
Delaware Avenue and TH 110
Corridor Crash Statistics
Dodd Rd - I-494 to Hwy 110
Dodd Rd - Hwy 110 to Wentworth Ave
Deleware Ave - Oneill Dr to Hwy 110
Segment
Intersection
Rear End Sideswipe Left Turn
Right
Angle Head On Other Dry Wet
Snow/
Slush/Ice Light Dark Sunset
0.71 0.42 3.41 0.12 8 2 0 4 0 2 11 4 1 15 1 0
0.71 0.81 4.19 0.19 10 1 0 3 1 2 12 3 2 14 2 1
0.71 0.57 5.47 0.10 2 0 0 5 1 0 6 2 0 7 1 0
0.26 0.14 5.55 0.03 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0.26 0.13 5.07 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0
0.26 0.50 5.04 0.10 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 2
0.55 0.89 2.42 0.37 23 8 8 3 0 6 40 3 5 35 10 3
0.26 0.10 4.31 0.02 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0.26 0.00 4.67 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.50 0.39 4.94 0.08 2 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 1 3 2 0
0.50 0.96 5.49 0.18 1 0 0 6 1 2 7 2 1 7 1 2
0.26 0.73 8.69 0.08 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1
0.26 0.00 38.18 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.26 0.19 12.39 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
0.26 0.64 9.07 0.07 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0
0.26 0.73 7.64 0.10 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 5 0 0
0.55 0.58 2.51 0.23 18 2 3 3 0 2 20 6 2 23 3 2
46%9%8%20%3%15%75%15%10%77%15%7%
Rear End Sideswipe Left Turn
Right
Angle Head On Other Dry Wet
Snow/
Slush/Ice Light Dark Sunset
2.54 2.38 9.89 0.24 7 4 1 14 1 4 26 4 1 23 5 3
2.54 2.39 11.13 0.21 8 0 2 9 1 4 17 4 3 20 3 1
1.82 2.06 11.47 0.18 4 1 0 2 1 5 8 2 3 8 5 0
31%8%0%15%8%38%62%15%23%62%38%0%
Light Conditions
Road Conditions Light Conditions
Critical SR Severity
Index
Statewide
SR
Crash TypeObserved
SR
Crash Type Road Conditions
Critical SR Severity
Index
Statewide
SR
Observed
SR
Planning Staff Report
DATE: January 28, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: Grand Real Estate Advisors
PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Owned Lots in The Village (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.)
ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development]
ACTION DEADLINE: March 6, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Grand Real Estate Advisors, as “Applicants” are requesting approval to amend a previously approved
planned unit development (PUD) development plan, which would allow a new mixed-use development
proposal for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded
by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden
Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital).
Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved planned
unit development final development plan by conditional use permit.
A public hearing for this concept plan review was posted and published in the local newspaper, and notice
letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1,320-ft. (1/4 mile) of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties consist of four parcels: Lot 1/Blk. 3 at 0.48 acres, Lot 2/Blk. 3 at 0.79 acres, and Lot
1/Blk. 2 at 0.45 acres; plus, Outlot D at 0.95 acres, or a total of 2.67 acres available for this development.
The properties are currently guided and zoned MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] and have
been since 2002. There are no zoning or land uses changes needed for this development.
The original and approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Master Plan for the Mendota Heights
Town Center (now known as The Village at Mendota Heights) included a mix of retail, office and
residential uses. The Village PUD is now substantially complete, with the exception of the last phase,
referred to as the “West Neighborhood” in the PUD Master Plan. This West Neighborhood originally called
for 14 residential townhomes with 5 home-office style townhomes; however, these 19-units never
materialized under the former developer.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 2 of 17
The City acquired the ownership rights to the four undeveloped parcels a number of years ago, and since
that time the city received a number of inquiries to selling and/or developing the lots by third-parties. In
2017, the City considered a separate proposal from Trammell-Crow to develop a 150-unit senior luxury
apartment building on the subject properties, which eventually led to a decision by the council to reject a
letter of intent and later withdrawal by the developer of this development plan.
In March 2019, the city requested development proposals (RFP’s) on the city owned parcels, whereby the
city received five (5) development proposals from various development or real estate firms. After a follow-
up workshop meeting in May; and a June 4th Council review/interview session with two of the development
trams, the Council selected Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) as the developer of the city owned lots;
and tentatively accepted a letter of intent and purchase agreement.
The Village of Mendota Heights PUD
The final Master Development Plan and Design Standards for The Village was approved in 2002-2003 and
constructed in phases, with most of the center’s construction completing around 2007. The development
was to contain the following uses and amenities:
• Diverse mix of retail/office space (single and two-story)
• On-street and underground public parking facilities (approximately 400 spaces)
• 36-unit condominium units (2 buildings)
• 20 row homes (3 buildings)
• 60-unit senior apartment building (owned and operated by the Dakota County CDA)
• Market Square Park (0.24-acre open space with fountain)
• River to River Greenway Trail connection (regional trail)
Any changes to a final (approved) development plan requires an Amendment to the Final PUD Plan in
compliance with Title 12, Chapter 1, Article K of the City Code and approval by the City Council. All
amendments to a previously approved PUD are performed through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
application process.
General Location of
City-Owned Lots
(Townhomes/Offices)
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 3 of 17
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
New Structure and Site Improvements
The project proposes a 48-unit (originally 47) market-rate apartment building targeted for seniors, aged 55+
(restricted) housing. Units range from 1-bedroom units approx. 810-sf. to 950-sf. in size, with 2-bed units
1,000 to 1,350-sf. in size, and 2-bed + den units up to approx. 1,500-sf. in size.
The building will provide on-site amenities for the residents including a community room, fitness center
and private terrace.
The plan also includes a new 4,352-sf. sit-down restaurant, with a 1,056-sf. outdoor seating/patio area. The
name of the restaurant has yet to be named or identified by the developer.
It should be noted that the developer has eliminated the original proposed co-working space area of 1,757-
sf., which was presented previously at the December 5th neighborhood meeting and during the concept
review held at the December 19, 2019 planning commission meeting. As part of this work space removal,
the developer was able to provide one additional residential unit.
The overall development will take place over two separate “lots” as identified by the developer in their site
plans. The single, “L-shaped” building would be built on the proposed “North Lot” (a combination of Lots
1 & 2 – Block 3 and Outlot D), and consists of a new 3-story wood framed structure, with a single-floor
footprint of 29,304-sf, which leads to gross square footage of living restaurant space of 87,912-sf. The sub-
floor is an enclosed, private parking area for the residents, consisting of 25,002-sq. ft. Combined floor
space equals 112,914-sq. ft. The building footprint is approximately 30.6% of the total site area.
The “South Lot” (Lot 1-Block 2) is identified as new off-site parking area for the development, and will
likely serve as the parking lot for restaurant customers.
The new building is shown with a 20.6-ft. and 26.24-ft. setback off Dodd Road; a 74.45-ft. setback from
the north line; 25.6-ft. off the front from Linden Street; and 16.45-ft. off Maple Street. The surface parking
lot areas are setback from 2.95-ft. - 3.33-ft. - 3.66-ft. from property lines.
Access to the apartment building site will take place off Maple Street to the south and from Linden Street
to the east. No access is planned onto Dodd Road.
The new restaurant is planned for 4,352-sf. of total seating/kitchen area, with a 1,056-sf. outdoor
seating/patio space located on the south side of the restaurant/building. At the December 2019 meeting,
the developer indicated the new restaurant would seat approximately 130-140 patrons. (Note: no final
design or interior floor plan have been submitted on this use).
Parking for the apartment/restaurant development will include 24 surface parking spaces in the front of the
building. Access to the private (residents only) underground parking will come directly from the main
access point off Linden Street (east side), with a sloped driveway leading underneath the building. This
underground area is shown with 69 spaces, along with bike and resident storage areas, and a work room.
The overall development site will also be provided with 41 spaces in the small triangular shaped parcel (the
“South Parcel”) located across Maple Street. A total of 134 spaces will be provided for the development.
A majority area north of the new apartment facility (Outlot D) will not be developed, and is intended to
serve as natural buffer space between the Linden Lofts Condo development. This outlot was created or
platted by the original developers RMF Group, and a drainage and utility easement was placed over the
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 4 of 17
entire outlot. Today part of this outlot serves as a small drainage area, with a catch-basin and storm pipe
inside the lot, that connects into the city storm water system under Linden Street.
The lot also contains a compact, wooded patch long the north area of this lot, with a variety of volunteer
trees (ash, bur oak, silver maples, cottonwoods, box-elders) and miscellaneous vegetation. During the
preliminary review and assessment of these city-owned properties, staff and the developer noticed an
existing boulder retaining wall (built for the Linden Lofts condos site) is encroaching into this Outlot D
parcel. The developer, city and condo association reps have been discussing the option of separating a
segment of this Outlot D to the condo association ownerships, or providing an easement and agreement for
the condo owners to take over the ownership and control of this retaining wall.
(Looking Northerly – towards back of Linden Lofts Condos – wooded area and retaining wall)
The overall Village at Mendota Heights (PUD) site encompasses approximately 20+ acres of previously
developed (and some undeveloped lands) in this NE quadrant of Highway 62 and Dodd Road. The City’s
other mixed-use development, The Plaza of Mendota Heights, is located directly across the highway to the
south, and are now linked together by the new underpass trail system installed by MnDOT and Dakota
County. The proposed project includes integrated commercial and high-density residential developments
with connections to existing retail uses, shared parking facilities, and adjacent off-street trail systems.
Removal/Erosion Control Plans ((Plan Sheet C-004)
The plan calls for th removal of some existing trees along the westerly edge of Dodd Road (10 trees) and
approximately 36 trees in the outlot to the north. The developer provided a tree survey in this outlot area,
and most appear to be identified mostly of ash, bur oak, silver maples, cottonwoods, box-elders.
The City Code of Ordinances contains various standards pertaining to erosion and sediment control, surface
water drainage, wet soils, and steep slopes. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the
applicable plans and provided comments to the Developer, which will include recommended conditions of
approval prior to any issuance of building permit. In addition, all construction activities must comply with
the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
Landscape Plans (Plan Sheet L-101)
The developer has provided a detailed landscape plan that includes new trees and ground plantings in and
around the parking lot areas and building; along with a large placement of new trees in the outlot area to
replace those removed as part of this new development. This landscape plan was given to the city’s Master
Gardeners for review and input. As of the preparation and completion of this report, staff had not yet received
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 5 of 17
their review or comments. As with other reviewed developments, the city has included a condition that the
MG’s will review the final landscape plans and ensure the site meets compliance with the city’s pollinator
friendly policies.
Utility Plans (Plan Sheet C-401)
The plans show that all utilities are readily available to the site, with gas, water and sanitary services to be
installed near the south corner (Near Maple Street and Dodd Road intersection).
There appears to be two separate water main service lines feeding into the apartment building (assume one
for potable/resident water needs and other for fire-service/sprinklers); and a third (separate) water main line
at the south side for the restaurant use.
Storm Sewer Plans (Sheet C-501)
The plans include a small number of new catch-basins and storm pipes to serve this new development. A
trench drain is situated at the top of the ramp leading into the underground parking garage, and two catch
basins and two new manholes in the front surface parking area. This system feeds over to an underground
storm chamber system underneath the parking lot in the triangular shaped parcel, across Maple Street. The
system includes an emergency over-flow outlet pipe leading out to the city’s storm systems underneath
adjacent Linden Street. The Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the storm water plans and
has provided comments to the Developer, which will include recommended conditions of approval before
any building permit is issued.
Building Architecture and Elevations (Plan Sheets A2.0; A3.1; A3.2, A3.3 & A3.4)
The proposed building is an L-shaped design facility, and runs generally north-south between Maple Street
and the vacant outlot and Linden Lofts Condos to the north. According to the applicant, design for this
project is guided by a desire to respect and fit into the already established village development in terms of
scale and materiality; and [the developer] will continue to develop the design with this principle in mind.
The proposed 3-story building height (mean measurement – per architect) is 39.58 feet.
The proposed building’s exterior is a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent
with the City Code and Design Standards:
• Face brick
• Stone veneer
• Stone sills
• Cement board siding and trim
• Prefinished metal trim
• Prefinished aluminum railings (decks)
• Pre-Cast Concrete wall panels
• Asphalt shingles
Park Dedication
As with recent and previous multi-family developments, the city requires new developments to 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
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 6 of 17
Since this development is a “mixed-use” of residential (apartment) with commercial (restaurant), staff is
recommending the city only apply the current $4,000/unit fee on the residential component of this
development, and not assess any fees on the commercial element. Payment of this park dedication fees is
included as part of the building permit review/approvals.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcels are guided Mixed-Use PUD in the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and
commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. Areas of the community with this
land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road.
The subject parcels are also guided Mixed-Use PUD in the proposed (but not yet adopted) 2040
Comprehensive Plan, which includes the following statements:
The largest concentration of commercial or business uses in the City is not guided Business, but rather
Mixed Use, at Highway 62 and Dodd Road, in the Mendota Plaza and The Village of Mendota Heights
developments.
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and
commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. This land use designation is located
both north and south of the Hwy. 62 and Dodd Road intersection, the City’s only significant retail area.
The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use center known as The
Village at Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center
which has seen renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s pharmacy;
White Pine Senior Living, a 50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project
developed by At Home Apartments.
As indicated earlier, the entire Village at MH development was re-guided and rezoned to MU-PUD as part
of a previous PUD approval process. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential
uses are consistent with the future land use designations.
Construction of the proposed 48-unit, high-density residential development could contribute slightly to the
projected amounts of Year 2040 forecasted population and household numbers, which are approx. 12,000
and 5,000 respectively. According to the applicant, the proposed project includes senior- aged restricted
“market-rate” units, which will likely not meet or include “affordable” numbers or definitions per
Metropolitan Council requirements.
Since the development of Lexington Heights Apartment in 1984, along with several condominiums,
townhouse, and senior apartment developments, the City has not experienced a lot of demand or
construction of similar high-density residential developments, except in the last 4 years. The proposed
high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for senior (targeted) residential units
in the community, which appears to remain a strong trend or demand in suburban and metro-wide
communities. The availability of desirable senior [rental] units may also appeal to existing senior
homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the
existing single-family residential housing stock for newer, younger, or growing families seeking to live in
the city.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 7 of 17
For these reasons, the proposed mixed-use project fits many of the land use and housing goals/policies in
the Comprehensive Plan.
PUD Master Development Plan – Existing (2002)
The current Mendota Heights Town Center - PUD Final Master Development Plan was approved in 2002.
A full copy of this final PUD plan is included and appended immediately after this report.
The PUD Agreement generally provides for the following: Introduction, which includes goals and
objectives, plan submittal requirements, and other general information. This leads to the Master Plan
information, which includes Site Development principles addressing Land Use; Setbacks;
Grading/Drainage/Stormwater; Parking; Landscaping; Open Spaces; Architecture; Lighting, and Signage.
The “Submittal Process and Requirements” include the following statements:
All development within Mendota Heights must meet the requirements of the City of Mendota Heights
Zoning Ordinance. The Mendota Heights Town Center is zoned as a Mixed-Use Planned Unit
Development (MU-PUD) district and in addition to complying with the Zoning Ordinance, must comply
with the Mendota Heights Town Center Master Development Plan and Design Standards, as adopted
by the Planning Commission and the City Council under the PUD approval process.
The Master Development Plan and Development Guidelines are intended to work in conjunction with
the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance and City Code standards. Where there is a difference
between the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and this document, this document shall take
precedence. The terms used in this document shall be understood as defined by the Zoning Ordinance,
except to the extent terms are further defined in the Glossary included at the end of this document.
The Planned Unit Development section of the city zoning code should be used as a guide regarding
rights to a planned unit development, approval and administration, and granting of a conditional use
permit. Unless specifically defined or approved as part of this document, all development must comply
with City standards. All development within Mendota Heights Town Center shall be subject to any and
all conditions for PUD development approval.
The PUD also provided the following [selected] statements on building setbacks, orientation and coverage
are noted:
In keeping with the intent of the Master Development Plan, substantial separation of buildings by use
is not encouraged. The central business district on the Town Center plan includes a senior housing site,
and is then ringed by three residential neighborhoods. Since integration is the major theme of a mixed-
use district, setbacks based on use, and use restrictions based on adjacency to residential uses may not
generally apply in this district.
a) Strong relationships between the buildings and the streets and sidewalks are encouraged, therefore
building setbacks from streets within the town center will generally be less than those required
under other existing zoning districts (see each district for specific requirements);
b) Maximizing open space for public use is encouraged, while reducing less usable yards.
c) The maximum overall building site coverage should be limited to 40% of the total site area. The
remainder of the site shall be developed as parking, pedestrian walks, or landscaped open space
as shown Master Development Plan.
In keeping with the mixed-use theme called for under this 2002 PUD Plan, it identified the two “districts” of
developments: (1) Town Center Commercial District and; (2) Residential Neighborhoods. These residential
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 8 of 17
neighborhoods were identified separately by four separate sub-groupings known as (a) Senior Housing, (b)
West, (c) East and (d) North neighborhoods.
As part of this PUD Amendment application, city staff encouraged the developer to focus on the original
“Senior Housing” and “West Neighborhood” sections, and apply these site standards and regulations to their
own [amended] development plan. If the new development plan required specific changes or modifications
to fit or meet their new development plans, the developer was asked to call these out and request additional
allowances or flexibility towards their own new design plan and layouts, as necessary.
The Senior Housing area is referenced to the Dakota County CDA Apartments, constructed in 2003. The
PUD Agreement stipulated age-restricted (55+) housing for seniors, with on-site amenities encouraged. The
senior building was approved with reduced 20-foot setbacks; balconies allowed to encroach up to 10-feet
into setbacks; and building coverage limited to 60% of lot area. Parking was to be provided under the
building at one (1) space per unit, with 0.25 spaces/unit for guest parking; and encouraged “shared-parking”
inside the development.
The original “West Neighborhood” was targeted for single and multi-level row houses and “Hoffices” which
are dwelling units with a dedicated home office work environment and allowance. Setbacks again were
reduced to 20-feet; structures were required to meet a 50-foot setback from the “wetlands buffer”; overall
building coverage limited to 40% of lot; and parking noted at 2 spaces per unit (inside) with 0.5 spaces per
unit for guest parking.
PUD Master Development Plan - Amendments
The applicant intends to amend the existing PUD Final Development Plan with this submitted and new
mixed-use residential apartment/restaurant facility. According to Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code:
Amendments to Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development
plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures
provided below:
1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by
the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan
was approved. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the
council.
2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made
by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional
use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the
community.
The proposed amendment(s) as requested under this new PUD plan submittal qualifies under No. 2 above
and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit.
The Developer is requesting to amend this 2002 PUD Plan/Agreement by including another “Senior
Residential” development or component to the original project area. This 48-unit senior (age restricted
55+) housing is similar to what was approved for the Dakota County CDA site; the only difference is the
new project will be for market-rate rentals while the CDA was built to accommodate qualified/affordable
senior rentals.
The three residential living levels will be accessed by a main front door/lobby area on the east side of the
building, with an elevator to shuttle residents/guest to the upper floors. Stairways are also included. The
living units range in smaller 812-sf. to 941-sf. one bedroom units; 1,100-1,180-sq. ft. two bedroom units;
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 9 of 17
and 1,291 to 1,552-sq. ft. two-bedroom plus den units. The residents will have a private fitness center room,
a simulated golf driving center; a community room with attached private terrace, and storage rooms.
The proposed 4,300 sq. ft. restaurant use is intended to be a complete service, sit-down style restaurant (no
drive-thru or service windows), and a small, seasonal outdoor seating area for customers. Although this
restaurant will be connected to the senior residential building, customers will not be allowed to enter the
private residential areas (unless accompanied by a resident), as access will be restricted by the developer
and restaurant ownership.
Site and Setback Allowances
The Senior and West Neighborhood standards under the 2002 PUD indicated allowing a reduced 20-foot
setback for structures in these areas. The new apartment/restaurant building is shown with a 20.6-ft. setback
off Dodd Road; 74.45-ft. from the north, 25.6-ft. from the east off Linden Street; and a 16.45-ft. setback off
Maple Street to the south. The developer was encouraged to push or site this building as close to the south
as possible, in order to provide a s much separation from the existing condos to the north, and help minimize
any impacts to the storm water system (pipe) and natural buffers created in the outlot to the north. The
Planning Commission will need to determine if this reduced 16.45 setback and all other noted setbacks are
acceptable, and should make a recommendation accordingly.
Parking Allowances
The proposed development includes 134 parking spaces, some of which will be shared by guests of residents
and restaurant patrons. The 69-spaces underneath the building will be exclusively reserved for the tenants
and possibly some limited parking for employees of the apartment and restaurant (assuming space is
available). This leaves 24 surface spaces in the front of the building, plus the 41 spaces in the triangular
shaped lot across Maple Street, or 65 spaces.
According to Title 12-1E-E of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces (in the R-3
District) is a “…minimum of 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. “The number of
off-street parking spaces for restaurants/café is “…1 space for each employee per shift and 1 space for each
3 seats in the facility.” Holding to these regular City Code standards, the apartment would require 120
spaces alone, and the restaurant approximately 44 to 50 spaces for seating, plus an estimated 10-15
additional spaces for employees. In total, approximately 170-185 spaces needed.
The 2002 Village PUD anticipated some varying degrees of parking demands, but the mixed-use nature of
this plan suggested that somewhat less parking should be allowed than what current zoning standards
require. With that noted, the original PUD allowed restaurants to provide 1 space per 4 seats (with no added
standard for employees). With 130-150 seats planned, the restaurant would only require 33 to 38 spaces,
depending on the estimated seating levels.
The overall “Residential Design Standards” in the 2002 PUD stipulated 2 spaces /dwelling unit for
residents, and 0.25 spaces /dwelling unit for guests, unless specified differently in the individual
neighborhood section. If the Commission would agree to treat this new senior apartment similar to the pre-
existing “Senior Housing” use, then only one (1) space per unit plus 0.25 spaces for guest parking would
be required; or 48 spaces plus 12, or 60 spaces. The spaces underneath the building and surface parking in
front of the building should sufficiently provide for the resident and guest parking needs on this site.
It should also be noted that the 2002 PUD identified and encouraged shared parking across the entire PUD
areas, and allowed for the utilization of on-street parking spaces where available (which is normally not
allowed under regular or standard parking rules for uses, unless specifically authorized by the city). Below
is an image with red-circled area that show where some of these on-street parking areas are located along
the public streets, and which can be used by visitors or customers to this new development site:
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 10 of 17
(Aerial Image – illustrating bump-outs for on-street parking
The current PUD site is also provided with a public parking garage, which was funded by the city as part
of a cooperative agreement with the original developer RMF Group. This garage contains 134 underground
spaces, plus 54 spaces above (outside) the structure, all of which is free for customers and clients to use
when visiting/shopping at this mixed-commercial center, and which parking can also be used by the
visitors/customers to the new apartment/restaurant development as well.
(Image of Public Parking Garage)
As noted previously, the surface parking lots appear to have setbacks ranging from 2.95-ft. to 3.66 feet in
areas. City Code requires parking in R-3 Districts (for high density residential) areas to have a minimum
of 40-foot setback from roadways. The 2002 Agreement however, allows “Guest parking may be located
within the setbacks, with required buffers from the street.” This provision never indicated or gave a
minimum setback distance, nor details on what was required for the buffers (i.e. landscaping, berming,
fencing, etc.). The developer is showing new plantings to be installed within these narrow setback spaces
between the open parking lot and roadway edges (refer to Landscape Plans – L-101).
As per the suggestion of the commissioners, the city is requesting the developer to provide a clearly marked
cross-walk for customers parking in the separated lot across from Maple Street.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if these reduced parking setbacks are acceptable under
this amendment plan, and make a recommendation accordingly.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 11 of 17
Traffic and Parking Impacts
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-17: TRAFFIC STUDIES:
A. 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.
B. The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County
traffic impact analysis guidelines.
C. When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under county, state, or
adjacent city jurisdiction, the city reserves the right to request additional review and comment from
those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application.
During the Concept Plan Review at the December 19th meeting, staff asked the commission if a traffic or
parking study was needed for further review in this application case. Although there was some discussion
on parking, access and vehicle movements, there was no direction or recommendation to perform a study.
Staff however, in follow-up with the developer, requested they provide some information related to
expected trip generations and statements on the parking for the site. As of the preparation of this report,
this information was not yet ready, but may be available at the Jan. 28th meeting.
In 2017 when the city was working with Trammel-Crow on the proposed 150-unit senior housing
development, T-C presented a Traffic Impact Study from Spack Consulting for city staffs’ review. This
report was presented to the council at workshop settings, but was never released or presented to the public,
due to T-C withdrawing their development request before it reached any official application review. The
Spack Report did include the following “executive summary” statement on that plan’s proposal:
A senior housing development is proposed between Dodd Road and Linden Street near Hilltop Road in
Mendota Heights, Minnesota. The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts associated
with the build out of the proposed development on the study roads and intersections where significant
impact is anticipated.
Results:
• The proposed senior housing development is expected to generate approximately 555 new trips
during an average weekday, 30 new trips during the a.m. peak hour and 40 new trips during the
p.m. peak hour.
• All roadways in the study network are forecast to operate within capacity through 2019 with the
exception of TH 110 which is currently operating at or above capacity.
• All study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in terms of queues through the 2019 build
scenarios.
• The westbound 95th percentile queue on Market Street at Dodd Road in the 2019 Build p.m. peak
hour is forecast to be just under five vehicles in length.
Based on the results of this study, with the construction of an extension of Hilltop Road to Linden Street
to replace the vacated Maple Street as part of this proposed development, no additional mitigation
measures are needed in the study area. The Market Street intersection with Dodd Road should
continue to be monitored into the future if general growth in the area exacerbates the queuing for the
westbound approach.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 12 of 17
There is other technical information provided in this Spack report, and staff is unsure if this information
can be made public or shared at this time (since the report was never officially made public) and because
the two developments are somewhat different from each other.
The senior residential vs. commercial restaurant uses being proposed under this PUD Amendment will
likely produce varying traffic and trip generations for each use. Staff anticipates the trip/traffic generations
from the 48-senior residential units will be minimal throughout a typical day; but the restaurant use, with
typical AM, Noon and PM peak-hour activities and vehicle movements, may require more information for
the commission to make a comfortable determination (or recommendation) that this development can
operate and function properly at this location, and not create any serious impacts to the surrounding uses or
road systems.
Density
The density calculation for this particular development (alone) is calculated as follows:
Number of Units: 48 / Lot Area: 2.667 acres = 17.99, or 18 Units/Ac.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code:
…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.
The applicable standard residential district for the proposed use may be the R-3 High Density Residential
District. The corresponding future land use designation for the R-3 District is HR-High Density Residential,
which has a maximum allowed density of 8.5 units/acre. Under the 2040 Plan Update, the HR-High Density
Residential land use category was recommended to have densities of more than 6.0 but not to exceed 9.0
units/acre. Based on analysis of other high-density residential uses developed as a PUD or under the R-3
District standards, some, if not all existing high-density developments in the city exceed the maximum
density amounts noted in the current (and updated) Comprehensive Plan.
However, the Code provision above does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed
density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3
of the City Code:
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.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if this proposed density is found to be acceptable under
this PUD Amendment, and make a recommendation accordingly.
Zoning and Land Use Information
The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code:
MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide
the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 13 of 17
uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2
zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided
they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the
authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit.
The proposed mixed use of residential and restaurant uses can be considered consistent with those other
mix of uses in the existing Village PUD site and as called for under the 2002 Development Plan.
According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD:
The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the
natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given
development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to
permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time
limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD:
Standards for Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the
following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities
on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize
with adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure
completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and
deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
The proposed amendment is a unified plan for the project site and connects well with the existing adjacent
uses. Although this project area is technically (and physically) separated from the main body of The Village
Center by Linden Street, this roadway separator does not and will not impede the future development of
these parcels.
All portions of the design and construction of this new mixed-use development will be financed privately
by Grand Real Estate Advisors (or their subsidiaries) through traditional means, such as both private/owner
equity and a construction loans provided by a lending institution. There are no public funds, such as TIF
(Tax Increment Financing), city, county or federal grants, or others being requested or allocated for this
proposed development.
Since the overall PUD project area is currently guided as MU-PUD and is not being changed as part of this
requested application, the proposed amendment can be considered consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and the yet to be adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 14 of 17
Preliminary/Final Plat
Although not part of this CUP application, the Developer will be requesting a re-platting of these city-
owned parcels under a future preliminary and final plat application review. The idea is to take the combined
areas noted as the “North Lot” (Lots 1 & 2 – Block 3 and Outlot D) and create one large single, combined
developed parcel site, and replat the “South Lot” (a/k/a Lot 1-Block 2) into a new platted lot of record.
As part of this re-platting, the developer will be required to re-establish and dedicate (on the plat map) new
drainage and utility easements. According to Title 11-3-4 of the City Code:
A. An easement for utilities at least five feet (5') wide shall be provided along the side line of lots. A
similar easement of at least ten feet (10') in width shall be provided along the front and rear of
each line of lots. If necessary for the extension of water main, sewer lines, similar utilities, or access
to adjoining property, easements of greater width may be required along lot lines or across lots.
Additional easements may be required, as determined appropriate by the city engineer.
B. Utility easements shall connect with easements established in adjoining properties. These easements,
when approved, shall not thereafter be changed without the approval of the city council, after a
recommendation from the planning commission.
C. Additional easements for pole guys should be provided at the outside of turns. Where possible, lot
lines shall be arranged to bisect the exterior angle so that pole guys will fall alongside lot lines.
D. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel, or stream, a storm sewer
easement, drainage right of way or park dedication, whichever the planning commission may deem
the most adequate, conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourses, shall be provided,
together with such further width or construction, or both, as will be adequate for the storm water
drainage of the area. The width of such easements shall be determined by the city engineer.
In some areas of this development plan, it appears that not all parts will be able to accommodate the
minimum 5-foot wide easement width, due to the parking lot setbacks along the roadways and the zero-foot
setback on the restaurant’s outdoor seating area (near the corner of Maple Street with Dodd Road). The
final placement and design of these easements will need to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer.
As was noted previously, there is an apparent encroachment on the current Outlot D parcel, of a large
boulder-style retaining wall that was installed as part of the Linden Lofts Condo project around 2004.
Although this new development includes a small segment of this outlot, the developer stated early on that
they did not want to be responsible for the ownership or maintenance of this wall, since it benefits only the
condominium association. Initial thoughts were to subdivide this outlot into two separate parcels, whereby
the developer keeps about one-half the parcel while the other half is transferred to the condo association.
Concerns were recently expressed however, that in creating a new parcel for addition into the already
established condo association, may prove somewhat of a challenge due to the numbers and different
ownership rights involved with the association, and possible (complicated) title issues.
A suggestion by city staff was to have the developer split-off a section of Outlot D of what they need to
accommodate their development, and the remaining Outlot D would remain with the city – including the
retaining wall, whereby the city may consider drafting a separate agreement with the condo association on
the maintenance and ownership of said retaining wall. More information on this issue will be presented
later at the time of the plat review.
MnDOT Review
As recommended by city staff, the Developer submitted an original concept plan to MnDOT approximately
3 months ago for their review. That initial concept plan included a proposal to have a driveway or access
point onto Dodd Road, lining up across from Hilltop Road intersection. MnDOT rejected this access; and
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 15 of 17
suggested they provide access to the development through the local road systems, which the plans currently
illustrate.
The updated plans set provided under this CUP-PUD Amendment application has been submitted to MnDOT
again for review. As of the preparation of this report, the city has not received any comments or review letter
from this state agency.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development
amendment, based on the attached finding of facts, with conditions;
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for the requested planned unit development
amendment, based on amended finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit approving an Amendment to the 2002 Mendota
Heights Town Center (The Village at Mendota Heights), which would allow a new mixed-use development
consisting of a 48-unit senior apartment building with a restaurant, based on the attached findings of fact,
along with the following suggested conditions of approval:
1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a
form prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council.
2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking
lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director.
3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the
Public Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services.
4. 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.
5. Any ground-level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or
more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process.
6. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with the city pollinator
friendly policy.
7. 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.
8. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 16 of 17
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards.
12. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement.
13. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s
Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
14. 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.
Planning Case 2020-01 CUP-PUD Amend. (GREA) Page 17 of 17
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment
Mendota Senior Housing Development
725 Linden Street & 735 Maple Street
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development.
2. The proposed amended planned unit development can 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 proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to:
a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development;
b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of 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 new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize
with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and
would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and
f. 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
6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting
the projected Metropolitan Council’s 2040 forecasted population and household numbers.
7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other
surrounding uses in the existing PUD area.
8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development
project will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota
Heights PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods.
STATE HIGHWAY 62ST
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
4
9
(
D
O
D
D
R
O
A
D
)LINDEN STREETMAPLE STREETOAK STREETMAIN
STREETWESLEY LANEHILLTOP ROADRIDGE PLACE5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-001COVER SHEETENGINEERWENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(P) - 763-252-6800CONTACT: DAN LAVENDER, P.E.VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEPRELIMINARY SITE CONSTRUCTION PLANSFORMENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR APARTMENTS725 AND 721 LINDEN STREET; 735 MAPLE ROADMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTAFEBRUARY 2020PROJECT LOCATIONCITY: MENDOTA HEIGHTSCOUNTY: DAKOTAPROJECT SITEARCHITECTPOPE ARCHITECTS1295 BANDANA BLVD N. SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108(P) - 651-642-9200CONTACT: JOSEPH KIMBRELLTHIS PLANSET CONTAINS 15 SHEETSSHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEC-001COVER SHEETC-003EXISTING CONDITIONSC-004REMOVAL PLAN AND PRECONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLANC-101SITE PLANC-201POST CONSTRUCTION STABILIZATION PLANC-301GRADING PLANC-401UTILITY PLANC-501STORM SEWER PLANL-101LANDSCAPE PLANL-102LANDSCAPE DETAILS AND NOTESEX-1VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN2-SHEETSCERTIFIED SURVEY1-SHEETTREE SURVEY1-SHEETPHOTOMETRIC PLAN11111112
MAPLE
STREET
STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)
LINDEN
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
8
9
°
5
9
'
4
5
"W
7
6
.
4
7
N
8
9
°
5
9
'
4
5
"
E
5
0
.
3
0
S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26S41°59'00"W 113.00
S30°29'3
7
"
W
1
2
2
.
4
3
S42°15'19"W 318.57
S
8
9
°
5
9
'
4
5
"W
1
2
3
.
5
3
S0°12'52"E 195.67KARLHOHENSTEINPLACEHILLTO
PROAD
S42°15'19"W
7.96 L =2 1 4 .7 0 R =6 8 6 .3 8 Δ =1 7 °5 5 '2 0 "
C H =2 1 3 .8 3 C H B =N 3 3 °1 7 '3 8 "E
L=87.61R=135.00Δ=37°10'58"L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"L=114.30 R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"L =1 6 0 .9 1 R =4 8 0 .0 0
Δ =1 9 °1 2 '2 6 "L
=
4
6
.52R=135.00Δ=19
°44'37"L=254.31 R=5 7 0.0 0 Δ =2 5 °3 3 '4 5 "CH=25 2.20 CHB=N4 1°5 3 '2 7 "E
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 4
PARCEL 1
VICINITY MAP
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND
NOTES CORRESPONDING TO SCHEDULE B - 2
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION TABLE "A" OPTIONAL ITEMS
CERTIFICATION
STATEMENT OF POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS
MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>L=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26S41°59'00"W 113.00S30°29'37"W 122.43S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92S0°12'52"E 195.67 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346I
I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88III865865870870
8
7
0
8708
7
0
8708
7
0
8
7
0870870
8
7
5
8
7
5
875
8
8
0
880
8
8
5
885 863863864864866866 866 866
866866867867867867867867867 8678688688688
6
8
868868868 868868869869869869869869
869869 871871871
87
1
8718
7
1
8718
7
2
8
7
2
8728
7
3
8
7
3
874
8
7
4
8
7
4
876876876876876876
87
6
8778
7
7
877
87
7
8
7
8
878
878
8
7
9
879
8
8
1
881
8
8
2
882
8
8
3
883
8
8
4
884
8
8
688688
7
5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-003EXISTING CONDITIONSXX>>>>LOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINEEXISTING RAILROAD TRACKEXISTING FENCE LINEEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING RETAINING WALL LINEEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERFMEXISTING FORCEMAINIEXISTING WATERMAINIRRIRREXISTING IRRIGATION LINEGASGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS LINECOMCOMEXISTING UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINEF/OF/OEXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINEUEUEEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINEOUEXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINEEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING EDGE OF GRAVELEXISTING ROAD CENTERLINEEXISTING DITCH CENTERLINEWETEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING CONCRETE SURFACEEXISTING ASPHALT SURFACEEXISTING GRAVEL SURFACEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURRIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER WELLEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING AUTO SPRINKLEREXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WATER METEREXISTING SPRINKLER HEADEXISTING IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEEXISTING GAS MARKEREXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTALEXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLEEXISTING ELECTRICAL PEDESTALEXISTING ELECTRIC METEREXISTING TRANSFORMEREXISTING SIGNEXISTING BOLLARD/POSTEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING ANCHOR CABLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING DECORATIVE LIGHTEXISTING STUMPEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEXISTING SHRUB/BUSHLEGENDEXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLEEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING WETLAND
MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 311TRD 343TRD 391I
I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88III865865865865870 8638638648648668
6
6
8
6
7
867868
868869
871
87087
5869869871
872
87
3
87
4
87
6
8
7
7870875
8
6
6
866
867867868868869871871871
872
873
874
87
6
87
7
870
870
875
88
0
8
8
5867867868
868
869
869
871
871
872
873
874
876
877
878
879
88
1
88
2
8
8
3
8
8
4
8
8
6
8
8
7
888870870870870867868868869869871871 11111122222222233333334445556777889910111111812121313131321212121.121.12122222121212323232323232424242424242424252626272727272727910141420202012021.15898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-004REMOVAL PLAN ANDPRECONSTRUCTIONEROSION CONTROLPLANLEGENDEASEMENT LINEPROPERTY LINE TO BE VACATEDEASEMENT LINE TO BE VACATEDPROPERTY BOUNDARYREMOVE SIGNREMOVE LIGHT POLEREMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTREMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENTREMOVE CURB AND GUTTERSAWCUT PAVEMENTCLEAR AND GRUB AREA1.SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2.CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL HAVE STABILIZED EXIT AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLETO PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS FROM CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF.3.UNTRENCHED SILT FENCE OR ORANGE SNOW FENCE MAY BE USED FOR TREEPROTECTION.4.CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AND SILT FENCE SHOWN OFFSET FROM PROPERTY LINEFOR CLARITY, WHEN APPLICABLE.5.WATER SERVICES WERE NOT SURVEYED AND ARE SHOWN SCHEMATICALLY.CONTRACTOR SHALL POTHOLE AND VERIFY ELEVATION, LOCATION, SIZE, ANDMATERIAL, AND COORDINATE FINAL DESIGN WITH ENGINEER.6.SEE TREE SURVEY FOR SPECIFIC TREES TO BE REMOVED.NOTESREMOVE TREEROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESILT FENCEINLET PROTECTIONBIOROLLTREE PROTECTION1.SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.)2.REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.)3.REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.)4.REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.)5.CLEAR AND GRUB AREA (TYP.)6.CLEAR AND GURB AS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION. DO NOT CLEAR ANDGRUB BEYOND PROPERTY LINE. (TYP.)7.REMOVE TREE (TYP.)8.REMOVE AND RELOCATE HANDHOLES/PEDESTALS AND UTILITY LINE(S) ASNEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION. COORDINATE WITH UTILITY COMPANY.9.SALVAGE SIGN AND POST. SEE SHEET C-101 FOR REINSTALLATION LOCATION.10.SALVAGE LIGHTPOLE. COORDINATE WITH CITY ON REINSTALLATIONLOCATION.11.APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF TREE LINE AFTER CLEAR AND GRUB COMPLETED.COORDINATE ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVALS WITH OWNER AND LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.12.VACATED PROPERTY LINE13.VACATED EASEMENT LINE14.REMOVE SANITARY STUB TO MAIN15.THRU 19 NOT USED20.BIOROLL (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL21.SILT FENCE (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL21.1.DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE ADJACENT TO LOW AREA22.ROCK CONSTRUCTION EXIT - SEE DETAIL23.INLET PROTECTION SEE DETAILS24.TREE PROTECTION - SEE NOTE 325.PROTECT EXISTING HYDRANT26.PROTECT EXISTING LIGHTPOLE27.PROTECT EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE AND PIPESKEYNOTES#11
MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETOUOUOUOUOUOUGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUCOMCOMPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'233482106127439'18'18'9'18'9'9'18'9'1
8
'24'24'64.6'24'24.8'24'24'24'25.2'25.6'17'10.4'9'18'24'24'9'18'9'25.2'9'18'18'9'24'2
4
'R3.67'R20'R20'R20'R5'R5'R484'R3.67
'
R
3
.
6
7
'R1
9
9
'R3.67'R10'R20'R100'R20'R10'R3.67
'R3.67'R3.67'R
2
5
9
'R30'R3.67'R3.67'R5'R10'R10'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'R3.67'20.6'25.3'26.24'74.45'0.12'111111111R100'222222333233333333344555556R544'6778899101111111111111111111111111111111122222222212131313131313131313131313131414141515161616.45'171711181818181818R0.67'R5'R5'R5'3.33'2.95'3.36'3.33'3.33'3.66'19517171720202020202215898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2LOT LINEEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYCURB AND GUTTER#PROPOSED PARKING COUNTBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE PAVEMENTRETAINING WALL [BY OTHERS]C-101SITE PLANLEGEND1.SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2.REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR UNDERGROUND PARKING COUNT.3.SEE SHEET C-601 FOR PAVING PLAN.4.IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) ROW WERECOMPLETED AFTER SURVEY WAS COLLECTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYLOCATION AND ELEVATION OF SIDEWALK AND CONFIRM PROPOSED SIDEWALKCONNECTION MEETS ALL ADA CRITERIA. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYLOCATION OF POWER POLES WITHIN DODD ROAD ROW AND CONFIRM NOIMPACT IS REQUIRED. COORDINATE WITH UTILITY COMPANY AS NEEDED.NOTES1.MATCH EXISTING (TYP.)2.CONCRETE PAVEMENT (TYP.) - SEE SHEET C-6013.BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP.) - SEE SHEET C-6014.ADA CURB RAMP - SEE SHEET C-301 FOR DETAILED GRADING5.ADA CURB RAMP WITHIN PUBLIC ROW - SEE DETAIL6.ADA STALL WITH SIGN - SEE DETAILS7.VAN ADA STALL WITH SIGN - SEE DETAILS8.ADA AISLE - SEE DETAIL9.PAINT STRIPE (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL10.STRIPE 4" SWSL11.DOOR LOCATION/STRUCTURAL STOOP/STAIRS WITH LANDING - SEEARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DETAIL AND PRECISE LOCATION12.RAMP TO UNDERGROUND PARKING - SEE ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURALPLANS FOR DETAIL (INCLUDING PAVEMENT TYPE) AND PRECISE LOCATION13.HANGING BALCONY/COLUMN - SEE ARCHITECTURAL/STRUCTURAL PLANS FORDETAIL AND PRECISE LOCATION14.STOP SIGN - SEE DETAIL15.INSTALL SALVAGED SIGNPOST - COORDINATE WITH CITY ON FINAL LOCATION16.INSTALL SALVAGED STREETLIGHT - COORDINATE WITH CITY ON FINALLOCATION17.SNOW STORAGE LOCATION18.RETAINING WALL BY OTHERS - COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT19.PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN - SEE DETAIL20.PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK MARKING - COORDINATE WITH CITY FOR EXACTLOCATION AND DETAIL.21.PROPOSED LOT LINEKEYNOTES#SNOW STORAGE AREA111111
MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI
I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870
868
869
8
6
9
867
868
869870868869870
8718658708638648668678688698711111.1111870
875
866866867
8
6
8
869871871871
872
873
874
87
6
87
7
870
875
880
8
8
5
868
869
871
872
873
874
876
877
878
879
881
88
2
88
3
8
8
4
8
8
6
866
8
6
6
86786786886886987087
5869871872
873
87
4
87
622333333344344555666666667771.11.13335898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-201POST CONSTRUCTIONSTABILIZATION PLANEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYROCK CONSTRUCTION EXITSILT FENCEINLET PROTECTIONEROSION CONTROL BLANKETSEED/SOD - SEE SHEET L-101TREE PROTECTIONEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWERIEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVESTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTGATE VALVESTORM SEWERLEGEND1.SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2.CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL HAVE STABILIZED EXIT AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUTTHE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLETO PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATERS FROM CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF.3.UNTRENCHED SILT FENCE OR ORANGE SNOW FENCE MAY BE USED FOR TREEPROTECTION.4.CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AND SILT FENCE SHOWN OFFSET FROM PROPERTY LINEFOR CLARITY, WHEN APPLICABLE.5.EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL SLOPES 4:1 ANDSTEEPER UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING.NOTES1.SILT FENCE (TYP.) - SEE DETAIL1.1.DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE ADJACENT TO LOW AREA2.CONSTRUCTION EXIT - SEE DETAIL, NOTE 23.INLET PROTECTION - SEE DETAIL4.TREE PROTECTION - SEE NOTE 35.EROSION CONTROL BLANKET - SEE DETAIL6.SEED/SOD (TYP.) - SEE SHEET L-1017.BIOROLL (TYP.) - SEE DETAILKEYNOTES#BIOROLL11
865865870870
870
87
0 87087
5
87
5
875
8
8
0
88
0
8808
8
5
88
5 8638638648648
6
6
866
8668668678678678678678
6
7 868868868868868
868
86
9
869 86986986987
1
871
871871871
87
1 871872
87
2 872873
87
3
87
3
874
87
4
87
4
87
6
87
6
87
6
8
7
7
87
7
877
8
7
8
878
878
8
7
9
879
879
8
8
1
88
1
8818
8
2
88
2
8828
8
3
88
3
8838
8
4
88
4
8848
8
6
88
6
8
8
7
88
7 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI
I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870867
867868868868868868869869869 869
868868868 868870870870870
867
868
869869
869
8
6
9
87187
1
8
7
1
871
865863864866867868869870
868
869
870
868
869 870869 870868868869869870870870870
8688688688
6
8 868868869869869869 869871871
4:14:14:14:110:14:19:1
13:18:110:19:1
1.7%1.5%1
.
4%4.9%0.8%
1.9
%
10.9%
4.5%2.9%1.4%3.5%2.1%3.9%1.9
%3.3%1
.
8%
2
.
4%3.1%
2.5
%
1
.
3%
1.8
%2.2%2.8%1.5%2.4%2.4%2.8%3.7%1.5%2.4%1.6%1.6%EOF=70.04EOF=69.24EOF=67.90EOF=67.34EOF=67.528.3%1.0%4.8%1.1
%
8.4%0.7%1.5%
2.6
%1.0%5.0%1.5%1
.
6%2.2%9:1
13:1CBMH 100CB 101STMH 107STMH 109STMH 108CBMH 102CB 105CBMH 106TRENCH DRAIN 24.2
%1.2%1.4%2.1%
1.
7
%3.8%1.0%1.6%1.6%0.5%0.8%TC=66.57TC=68.09TC=68.92FG=62.551STMH 103STMH 10425898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-301GRADING PLANEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITSFL=9XX.XXFG=9XX.XXME=9XX.XXSW=9XX.XXEP=9XX.XXEOF=9XX.XXTC=9XX.XXTW=9XX.XXBW=9XX.XXFLOW LINE ELEVATIONFINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONMATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONSIDEWALK ELEVATIONPAVEMENT ELEVATIONEMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATIONTOP OF CURB ELEVATIONTOP OF WALL ELEVATIONBOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION (AT GRADE)SURFACE GRADE & FLOW DIRECTIONEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONSTORM SEWERSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINEXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWERIEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVESANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTGATE VALVEHP=9XX.XXLP=9XX.XXTOP=9XX.XXTOE=9XX.XXRIM=9XX.XXHIGH POINT SPOT ELEVATIONLOW POINT SPOT ELEVATIONTOP OF DITCH SPOT ELEVATIONTOE OF DITCH SPOT ELEVATIONSTRUCTURE RIM SPOT ELEVATIONTNH=9XX.XXTOP NUT HYDRANT SPOT ELEVATIONSURFACE SLOPE (H:V) & FLOW DIRECTION3.0:11.00%3.0:1LEGEND1.SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.NOTES1.UNDERGROUND RAMP DRAINAGE TO BE COLLECTED VIA INTERNAL TRENCHDRAIN (DESIGN BY OTHERS) AND DISCHARGED VIA INTERNAL SUMP TOUNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITHPLUMBING AND STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR EXACT LOCATION, DESIGN, ANDDETAIL OF RAMP DRAINAGE SYSTEM.2.SEE SHEET C-501 FOR UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM DETAILKEYNOTES#11
MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI
I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870870
87
5
875
875
88
0
8
8
5
866
8
6
6
8678678688688688
6
8 868869869 869871871871
871
871
872
872
872
873
873 87
3
874
874
87
4
87
6
876
87
6
877877
87
7
878
879
88
1
88
2
8
8
3
8
8
4
8
8
6
866866867
8
6
8
870870868868869
869
8
6
9
865870863864866867868869871870868869870
868
869 BLDG SAN SERVICE8" INV OUT=858.97 (S)SEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION8 LF OF 8" PVC @ 2.00%SAN STUB CONNECTION8" INV IN=858.80 (N)VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION6" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION22.5° BEND8" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION45° BEND8" GVCONNECT TO EXISTING 8" DIP STUBVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION6" GVWET TAP EXISTING 8" DIP WM WITH 8"x6" TEEVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION11.25° BEND6" GV6" DIP WM6" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION45° BEND6" HYDRANT6" GV8" DIP WM8" DIP WM SERVICESEE MEP PLANS FOR CONTINUATIONVERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION8" GV11.25° BENDWET TAP EXISTING 8" DIP WM WITH 8"x6" TEEVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATIONCONNECT TO EXISTING 8" DIP WM STUBVERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, MATERIAL, AND ELEVATION5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2C-401UTILITY PLANEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVE>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERIEXISTING WATERMAINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900LEGEND1.SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT, AND MATERIAL OF ALLUTILITY CONNECTIONS TO UTILITY MAINS AND STUBS.NOTES
MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMI
I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=856.88IIIPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870868
868869868870868869 868869
870870870
867
868
869869
869
8
7
1
8658658708638638648648668668678678688688698698688708
6
9
870868869CBMH 106RIM=869.2212" INV IN=864.00 (NE)12" INV OUT=863.36 (SW)STMH 107RIM=868.0512" INV IN=862.33 (W)12" INV OUT=857.80 (SE)CB 101RIM=867.2212" INV OUT=862.05 (W)CB 105RIM=867.4012" INV OUT=862.67 (NW)CBMH 100RIM=866.9912" INV IN=861.09 (E)18" INV IN=861.09 (N)18" INV OUT=861.09 (SW)TRENCH DRAIN 212" INV=864.30STMH 109UNGD OUTLETSEE NOTE 2 THIS SHEETRIM=867.5912" INV OUT=862.80 (E)STMH 108UNGD INLETRIM=867.1818" INV IN=861.00 (NE)30 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%15 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%29 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%48 LF OF 12" RCP @ 2.00%19 LF OF 18" RCP @ 1.00%47 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%9 LF OF 18" RCP @ 1.00%CBMH 102RIM=866.6715" INV IN=861.29 (N)18" INV OUT=861.28 (S)CORE RECTANGULAR ORIFICE INTO EXISTINGOUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE ON NORTHWEST SIDEORIFICE TO BE 30" LONG x 6" TALLIE: 867.80'TRENCH DRAIN 112" INV=864.00117.4'15.6'98 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%STMH 104RIM=868.1512" INV IN=862.38 (NE)12" INV IN=862.38 (SE)12" INV OUT=862.38 (SW)42 LF OF 12" RCP @ 1.00%STMH 103RIM=867.8612" INV IN=861.96 (NE)12" INV IN=863.85 (E)15" INV OUT=861.96 (S)67 LF OF 15" RCP @ 1.00%5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2>>>>IC-501STORM SEWER PLAN#LEGEND1.SEE SHEET C-002 FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECT NOTES.2.INSTALL WEIR WITH ORIFICE IN STMH 109 PER DETAILNOTESEASEMENT LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING WATERMAINSTORM SEWERSANITARY SEWERWATERMAINSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTGATE VALVEPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR9001.UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM 1KEYNOTES1
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANT29,304 SFMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUGGGUEUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMCOMTRD 316TRD 3246" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.6216.4'19.5'17.7'18.1'18.2'TRD 360TRD 356TRD 354TRD 302TRD 335TRD 383TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 313TRD 303TRD 393TRD 314TRD 306TRD 312TRD 330TRD 333TRD 342TRD 389TRD 323TRD 319TRD 321TRD 347TRD 384TRD 331TRD 337TRD 326TRD 388TRD 381TRD 339TRD 308TRD 320TRD 348TRD 346TRD 329TRD 328TRD 344TRD 341(1) QB(1) QB(1) QB(1) AM(1) AM(1) QB(1) PD(1) PD(1) QB(3) DS(7) HA(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(7) HA(7) HA(7) HA(3) HA(3) DS(3) DS(3) DS(4) CA(4) CA(8) CA(4) CA(7) CA(4) CA(4) CA(4) CA(4) CA(4) CA(13) CS(4) CS(9) CS(11) CS(11) CS(1) SD(1) SD(2) TA(1) GD(1) TA(4) AG(2) AG(1) TA(2) AG(1) SD(1) GD(2) CO(1) CO(8) DS(8) DS(11) HA(11) HA(1) SD(1) SD(1) AM(1) AM(1) PD(15) CA(14) CA(13) CA(30) CA(27) CA(107) NR5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2L-101LANDSCAPE PLANLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDDECIDUOUS TREESHRUB/PERENNIAL PLANTEXISTING BUFFER TREESPROPOSED ROCK MULCHDOUBLE SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH111111111.CONTRACTOR SHALL PLANT ALL PROPOSED TREES NORTH OF THE PROPOSEDBUILDING BY HAND TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF SOIL AND DAMAGE TO ROOTSYSTEM OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BEALLOWED WITHIN THE NORTHERN WOODED AREA ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.2.QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN SHALL SUPERSEDE QUANTITIES SHOWN INTHE PLANTING SCHEDULE SHOULD THERE BE A DISCREPANCY.NOTES222SEEDJRNLNJ
5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 2L-102LANDSCAPE DETAILSAND NOTES1.TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE QUANTITY, SIZE, GENUS, SPECIES, AND VARIETY ASCHOSEN BY THE OWNER/OWNER AS LISTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN L 101.2.TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS STOCK, GROWN IN RECOGNIZED NURSERY INACCORDANCE WITH GOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICE AND FREE OF DISEASE, INSECTS, EGGS, LARVAE,AND DEFECTS.3.OWNER RETAINS THE RIGHT TO INSPECT TREES AND SHRUBS FOR SIZE AND CONDITION OF BALLS ANDROOT SYSTEMS, INSECTS, INJURIES, AND LATENT DEFECTS, AND TO REJECT UNSATISFACTORY ORDEFECTIVE MATERIAL AT ANY TIME DURING PROGRESS OF WORK.4.NURSERY STOCK SHALL BE DELIVERED DIRECTLY FROM NURSERY. HEEL IN IMMEDIATELY UPONDELIVERY IF NOT TO BE PLANTED WITHIN FOUR HOURS, COVERING WITH MOIST SOIL OR MULCH TOPROTECT FROM DRYING. STORE PLANTS IN SHADE AND PROTECT FROM WEATHER.5.PROTECTION FROM EXTREMES IN EXPOSURE AND ROUGH HANDLING SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALLPLANT MATERIALS DURING TRANSPORT AND STORAGE.6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PLANTING SO THAT A MUTUALLYAGREEABLE TIME MAY BE ARRANGED FOR INSPECTION.7.LAY OUT INDIVIDUAL TREE AND SHRUB LOCATIONS WITH STAKES CENTERED AT PROPOSED PLANTINGLOCATIONS FOR APPROVAL BY OWNER.8.DO NOT START PLANTING WORK UNTIL LAYOUT IS APPROVED BY THE OWNER.1.UPON APPROVAL OF STAKING LOCATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE PLANTING HOLES CENTEREDAT STAKED LOCATIONS.2.DIG HOLES AS DETAILED AND TO A DIAMETER A MINIMUM OF TWO TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR CONTAINER.3.REMOVE STICKS, RUBBISH, FOREIGN MATERIALS AND UNDESIRABLE PLANTS AND THEIR ROOTS.REMOVE STONES MEASURING OVER 1-1/2 INCHES IN ANY DIMENSIONS.4.SET BALLED AND BURLAPPED (B&B) STOCK ON LAYER OF COMPACTED PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE, PLUMBAND IN CENTER OF PIT OR TRENCH WITH TOP OF ALL AT SAME ELEVATION AS ADJACENT FINISHEDLANDSCAPE GRADES.5.ROOT FLARE OF THE TREE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.6.CUT ALL CORDS AND TWIN AND REMOVE WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF BALLS;RETAIN BURLAP ON BOTTOMS.7.WHEN SET, PLACE ADDITIONAL PLANTING SOIL BACKFILL AROUND BASE AND SIDES OF BALL, AND WORKEACH LAYER TO SETTLE BACKFILL AND ELIMINATE VOIDS AND AIR POCKETS.8.WHEN EXCAVATION IS APPROXIMATELY 2/3 FULL, WATER THOROUGHLY BEFORE PLACING REMAINDEROF BACKFILL.9.REPEAT WATERING UNTIL NO MORE IS ABSORBED. WATER AGAIN AFTER PLACING FINAL LAYER OFBACKFILL.10.FOR CONTAINER GROWN STOCK, SAME AS FOR BALLED AND BURLAPPED STOCK, EXCEPT CUTCONTAINERS ON SIDES INTO QUARTERS WITH SHEAR. REMOVE CONTAINER BEFORE SETTING PLANTSO AS NOT TO DAMAGE ROOT BALLS.11.WATER EACH PLANT WITHIN 2 HOURS OF PLANTING.12.ALL PLANTINGS TO BE MULCHED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN.13.PLACE 4-INCH THICKNESS OF MULCH AROUND TREES AND SHRUBS WITHIN A PERIOD OF 48 HOURSAFTER THE SECOND WATERING.14.DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TRUNKS OR STEMS.1.LANDSCAPE WORK WILL BE INSPECTED FOR ACCEPTANCE IN PARTS AGREEABLE TO THE OWNER,PROVIDED WORK OFFERED FOR INSPECTION IS COMPLETE, INCLUDING MAINTENANCE, FOR THEPORTION IN QUESTION.2.AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD, WHICH WILL BE ONE YEAR FOLLOWING INITIALINSTALLATION A FINAL INSPECTION OF PLANTING WILL BE MADE TO DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS OFAREAS SPECIFIED FOR LANDSCAPING.3.WHEN INSPECTED LANDSCAPE WORK DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS, REPLACE REJECTEDWORK AND CONTINUE SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE UNTIL RE-INSPECTED BY OWNER AND FOUND TO BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE REJECTED PLANTS AND MATERIALS FROM SITE.1.WHEN INSPECTED LANDSCAPE WORK DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS, REPLACE REJECTEDWORK AND CONTINUE SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE UNTIL RE-INSPECTED BY OWNER AND FOUND TO BEACCEPTABLE. REMOVE REJECTED PLANTS AND MATERIALS FROM SITE.2.BEGIN MAINTENANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING.3.MAINTAIN TREES AND BUSHES INCLUDING WATERING FOR ONE YEAR AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER.IT IS CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY FOR COORDINATE WATERING.4.TRIM, PRUNE, REMOVE CLIPPINGS AND DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES, AND TREAT PRUNED AREAS ANDOTHER WOUNDS.5.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION WHETHER OR NOT TO STAKE TREES. THE CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION THROUGHOUT THE ONE-YEARGUARANTEE PERIOD.1.PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE FULL YEAR AFTER OWNER ACCEPTANCE AND SHALLBE ALIVE AND IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION AT THE END OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. SUCHGUARANTEE EXCLUDES VANDALISM.2.AT THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD, INSPECTION WILL BE MADE BY THE OWNER UPONWRITTEN NOTICE BY THE CONTRACTOR AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE ANTICIPATED DATE. ANYPLANT MATERIAL REQUIRED UNDER THE CONTRACT THAT IS DEAD OR NOT IN SATISFACTORYCONDITION, AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE, AND SHALL BEREPLACED AS SOON AS CONDITIONS PERMIT DURING THE NORMAL PLANTING SEASONS.3.THE OPINION OF THE OWNER SHALL GOVERN IN ANY AND ALL DISPUTES BY THE CONTRACTORREGARDING THE CONDITION AND DISPOSITION OF UNSATISFACTORY MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ORREJECTED PLANTS.4.ALL REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE PLANT MATERIAL OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE AS SPECIFIED IN THEPLANT LIST. REPLACEMENT COSTS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR.5.REPLACEMENT PLANTINGS REQUIRED AT THE END OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD ARE NOT TO BEGUARANTEED. THE PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND REJECTION BY THE OWNERBEFORE AND AFTER PLANTING.1.EDGE RESTRAINT BETWEEN PLANTING BEDS AND TURF SHALL BE BLACK COMMERCIAL GRADELANDSCAPE EDGING BY COL-MET OR APPROVED EQUAL, 6"x12 GAUGE STEEL.2.THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD FOR SOD SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION, WITH THEAPPROVAL OF THE OWNER, AND CONTINUE UNTIL THE DATE THAT THE OWNER PERFORMS A FINALINSPECTION.3.THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD FOR SODDED AREAS IS 1 YEAR.4.SOD SHALL CONFORM TO MNDOT SPEC. 3878.2.A MINERAL SOD; SOD SPECIES COMPOSITION SHALL BEMINNESOTA STATE SEED MIX 25-151 - HIGH MAINTENANCE TURF.5.FERTILIZER SHALL CONFORM TO MNDOT SPEC. 3881, TYPE 2 PHOSPHOROUS-FREE.6.FERTILIZER SHALL HAVE A FORMULA (N-P-K) AS DETERMINED BY THE RESULTS OF A SOIL TEST.CONTRACTOR TO CONDUCT SOIL TEST AND PROVIDE RESULTS ALONG WITH RECOMMENDED FERTILIZERFORMULA TO OWNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO APPLICATION.7.TOPSOIL SHALL BE IMPORTED AND CONFORM TO MNDOT SPEC. 3877.2B LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW.TOPSOIL SHALL BE SCREENED, PULVERIZED, AND CONTAIN LESS THAN 30% CLAY.8.6" OF TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN ALL SEEDING AREAS.9.INSTALLATION OF SOD SHALL OCCUR WITHIN ONE (1) WEEK OF COMPLETING THE GRADING.10.PLACE ALL SOD STRIPS WITH LONG EDGES PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS. STAGGER ALL JOINTSALTERNATELY WITHOUT SPACE BETWEEN. SECURE THE SOD TO SLOPES WITH BIODEGRADABLE ANCHORSYSTEMS.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER DURING THE PLANTING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING:1.COORDINATION WITH ALL OTHER TRADES.2.DETAILED DESIGN OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE SITE. THE LIMITS OF THE AREA TO BE IRRIGATEDARE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. DESIGN SHALL INCLUDE PIPE SIZING, HEAD SELECTION, LOCATIONSOF HEADS, ZONING, AND CONTROL SYSTEMS. DESIGN SHALL PROVIDE NO OVERSPRAY ONTO WALKS.IRRIGATION PLAN, DESIGN DETAILS AND PRODUCT SHEETS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER ANDOWNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PURCHASING ANY MATERIALS.3.LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY TO INSTALL A NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN IN GENERAL ONTHE PLAN. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ANDINSTALLING THE IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEM ALONG WITH ANY CONNECTIONS MADE TO THE WATERSERVICE.4.TESTING OF THE COMPLETE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.5.STARTUP AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE SYSTEM.6.PROVIDE OWNER'S EMPLOYEES WITH OPERATIONAL TRAINING ONSITE AND SUBMIT OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE MANUALS FOR ALL COMPONENTS.7.AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHOWING THE LOCATION AND FEATURES OF ALL IRRIGATION COMPONENTS.1.ALL WORK AND MATERIALS TO BE IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH LATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THEDIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, AMERICANSWITH DISABILITIES, AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS OR REGULATION.2.NOTHING IN THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOTCONFORMING TO THESE CODES.3.FURNISH, WITHOUT EXTRA CHARGE, ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AND LABOR AS REQUIRED TO COMPLYWITH THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS, THOUGH THE WORK IS NOT MENTIONED IN THESE PARTICULARCONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.1.BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH ALL SITE CONDITIONS. LOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES AND EQUIPMENT TOREMAIN. SHOULD UTILITIES OR OTHER WORK NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS BE FOUND DURINGEXCAVATIONS, PROMPTLY NOTIFY ENGINEER. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL MAKE CONTRACTOR LIABLE FORANY AND ALL DAMAGE ARISING FROM OPERATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO DISCOVERY OF SUCH UTILITIES NOTSHOWN ON DRAWINGS.2.TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS. REPAIR ANY DAMAGED ITEMTO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION OR FURNISH AND INSTALL EQUIVALENT REPLACEMENT AT NO ADDITIONALCOST TO OWNER.1.THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE LAWS AND ORDINANCESAND WITH THE ESTABLISHED CODES ALLOCABLE THERETO.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE OUT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, ARRANGE FOR ALL NECESSARYINSPECTION, AND PAY ANY FEES AND EXPENSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAME AS PART OF THEWORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT.1.SCHEDULE AND COORDINATE WORK WITH OTHER TRADES TO FACILITATE WORK AND AVOID CONFLICTS INCONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION.2.REVIEW ENTIRE PLAN SET AND COORDINATE WITH OTHER TRADES AS REQUIRED BY SEQUENCE OFCONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE PROVISION OF MAINLINE AND ELECTRICAL CONDUIT STUB-OUTS AT ALLREQUIRED LOCATIONS.LANDSCAPE NOTESTURF RESTORATION NOTESINSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCEPLANTING NOTESMAINTENANCE NOTESGUARANTEE AND REPLACEMENTSCONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITYCODES AND INSPECTIONQUALITY ASSURANCEPROTECTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONSCOORDINATIONPRUNE ANY DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES. DONOT CUT LEADER.ROOT FLARE MUST BE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE WITH MULCH; MULCHSHOULD NOT TOUCH TRUNK.DOUBLE SHRED, HARD WOOD MULCH (4") MIN.ROUGH THE SIDES OF THE HOLE SO THEY ARE NOTGLAZED FROM DIGGING.LOOSEN SIDES OF ROOT BALL AND PRUNE DAMAGED,DESICCATED, OR GIRDLING ROOTS. REMOVE ALL BURLAPTWINE BEFORE PLANTING.SET ROOT BALL ON SOIL BACKFILL SO THAT TOP OF ROOTBALL IS ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.BACKFILL AROUND THE ROOT BALL WITH LOOSE SOIL. WORKSOIL TO SETTLE AND ELIMINATE VOIDS AND AIR POCKETS.WATER THOROUGHLY WHEN BACKFILLED 2/3 FULL AND ALLOWTO SETTLE.2X ROOT BALL DIA. MINDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGSPECIES AS SHOW ON PLAN1L-102NOT TO SCALESHRUB/PERENNIAL PLANTINGROCK MULCH (2") MIN. MULCH SHOULDNOT TOUCH BASE OF PLANT.COMMERCIAL METAL EDGING, SEEPLANCONTAINER GROW MATERIALS SHALLHAVE ROOTS HAND LOOSENED UPONPLANTINGUNDISTURBED SUBGRADESCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ENTIREBED WITH SPADE BY HAND TO BIND WITHPLANTING SOIL6"MINPREPARE SOIL FORTHE ENTIRE BEDPLANTING SOIL18" MIN.SEE PLAN2L-102NOT TO SCALE111
STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
L
=16
0.9
1
R
=
4
8
0.0
0
Δ
=19°12'2
6"
C
H
B
=
S
3
3°5
5'4
7"
W
C
H
=
16
0.16
L
=
1
1
4
.
3
0
R=4
8
0
.00Δ=
1
3
°
3
8
'
3
5
"CHB=S5
0
°
2
1
'
1
7
"WCH=
1
1
4
.
0
3
S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L
=
2
14.7
0
R
=
6
86.38
Δ
=
17°5
5'2
0"
C
H
B
=
N
3
3°17'3
8"
E
C
H
=
2
13.8
3S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26S
4
1
°
5
9
'
0
0
"W
1
1
3
.
0
0
S30°29'37"W 12
2
.
4
3
S42°15'19"W 318.57 S42°15'19"W 7.96I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIIIII>>>>>>I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I>>>>>>>>INV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=867.60INV=863.7 SEOU
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
GGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
COMCOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 3465898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/20POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCITY COMMENTREVISION 202/18/20WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/20CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/20CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/20CITY COMMENT REVISION 21-SHEETTREE SURVEYLEGENDREMOVE TREE - SEE REMOVALS SHEET C-004REMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVEDREMOVED1
PAGE 1 OF 1Drawn By: SANDYDate:1/9/2020Scale: AS NOTEDRevisions# Date CommentsGENERAL NOTES:A. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION ORCOMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERALLIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES.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.MULTI FAMILY HOUSINGMENDOTA HEIGHTSChecked By: TRENTLuminaire ScheduleSymbolQtyLabelArrangementLLFLuminaire Location SummaryLumNoDescriptionLabelXYZOrientTiltCalculation SummaryLabelArr. WattsLum. Lumens25AA2554967.2-241155.220026BB554785.4-241266.2290027BB554716.9-241266.22CalcType900Units28BB554821.1-241195.22220.748029BB554678.81AA2BACK-BACK0.900AvgMax-241198.22311.604030BB555017.8-241216.22102.556MinAvg/MinMax/MinSITE GROUNDIlluminanceFc0.84MCGRAW GLEON-AF-02-LED-E1-5WQ MOUNT ON 20FT POLE WITH 2FT BASE22613123031BB554867.4-241152.8BBSINGLE0.900MCGRAW GLEON-AF-02-LED-E1-SL4-HSS MOUNT ON 20FT POLE WITH 2FT BASE113101112239.908032BB554901.3-241202.2230.446012.2234BB554720.8-241158.22311.604035CC555065.6-241140.80.0N.A.N.A.MAIN PARKINGIlluminanceFcCCSINGLE0.9001800362.703.71.02.70LUMARK XTOR2B WALL MOUNT AT 8FT18.22135CC554832.6-241088.3.70SW PARKING1DDSINGLE0.900LUMARK XTOR4B WALL MOUNT AT 10FT37.742698218.486037DD555041.5-241114.102700IlluminanceFc2.624.11.02.624.10Plan ViewScale: 1 inch= 40 Ft.M A PL E ST R E E TSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETIN V 859.346" P V C S A N S TU B
IN V 858.626" P V C S A N S TU B
T PT P TP TP
TPT P
T PBBCC
CCDDAA2BBBBBBBBBBBBBB0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.10.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.31.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.12.8 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.6 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.92.8 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.30.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.62.4 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.5 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.90.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.32.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 2.0 1.71.3 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.2 2.8 3.3 3.5 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.02.1 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.0 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 2.7 2.7 2.2 1.81.6 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.12.2 2.6 3.3 3.3 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.12.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.7 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.0 3.5 4.1 3.7 3.1 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.12.4 2.6 2.7 2.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.32.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.5 1.9 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.8 4.0 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.32.8 2.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.72.9 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.40.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 0.30.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 3.8 3.7 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.43.1 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 0.80.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.2 3.1 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.3 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.12.5 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.60.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.2 0.3 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.0 2.3 1.81.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.80.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.8 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.2 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.31.0 0.8 0.9 3.4 7.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.32.5 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.31.3 2.7 4.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 2.3 2.01.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.4 4.9 5.01.2 0.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.31.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.3 11.2 12.2 1.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.21.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.70.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 4.0 3.8 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.80.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 4.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 fc1 fc0.5 fc0.25 fcTYPE AA2 & BBTYPE CC & DD
STAIR 2-1
4,352 SF
RESTAURANT
STAIR 1-1TRASH ROOM1,058 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
812 SF
1 BEDRM.493 SFSTORAGE1,097 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,410 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,551 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,490 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,840 SF
LOBBY
1,105 SF
FITNESS
VEST.
ELEC.524 SFGOLF1,056 SF
R. PATIO
RESTROOMSR. TRASH1,342 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,291 SF
2 BEDRM. +
HALL HALL
5'-0"MAIL1,342 SF
2 BEDRM. +
LEASING
OFFICE
25,002 SF
PARKING LEVEL 67
CARS
488 SF
UTILITY
STAIR 2-0STAIR 1-0695 SF
WORK ROOM
288 SF
UTILITY
BIKE STRG.
AHUAHUBIKE STRG.ELEV.CIRCULATION
1,551 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,291 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,343 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,102 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,552 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,490 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,100 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,500 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,670 SF
COMMUNITY ROOM
610 SF
C. TERRACE
STAIR 1-2STAIR 2-2
1,525 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
918 SF
STORAGE
189 SF
ELEC.
204 SF
TOILET AND
STORAGE
810 SF
1 BEDRM.
812 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
TRASH
CIRCULATION
1,551 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
1,302 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,343 SF
2 BEDRM. +
1,102 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,552 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,490 SF
2 BEDRM. +DEN
918 SF
STORAGE
1,100 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,206 SF
2 BEDRM. +
842 SF
1 BEDRM.
810 SF
1 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,180 SF
2 BEDRM.
1,525 SF
2 BEDRM. +DENSTAIR 1-3STAIR 2-3
1,386 SF
2 BEDRM. +
ELEC.
941 SF
1 BEDRM.
812 SF
1 BEDRM.
TRASH
APARTMENTS - ONE BEDROOM
AREA PLANS KEY
LEASING OFFICE
PARKING
APARTMENTS - TWO BEDROOM
APARTMENT COMMUNITY ROOM
APARTMENT FITNESS
APARTMENTS - TWO BEDROOM +, TWO BEDROOM + DEN
RESTAURANT
RESTAURANT KITCHEN
CIRCULATION AND ENTRY LOBBY
STORAGE, UTILITY, RESTROOMS
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:01:46 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A2.0
OVERALL PLANS -
AREA PLANS
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
2 FIRST LEVEL
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
1 LOWER LEVEL
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
3 SECOND LEVEL
3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0
4 THIRD LEVEL
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
PROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT
NORTHTRUE NORTHGROSS UNIT SCHEDULE
Level Name Count Area Comments
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,525 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,552 SF
17 20,438 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 810 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 842 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
THIRD LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,100 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,102 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,206 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,302 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,343 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,386 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,525 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF
THIRD LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,552 SF
19 22,382 SF
TOTAL UNIT COUNT: 48 57,275 SF
GROSS UNIT SCHEDULE
Level Name Count Area Comments
GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF
GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
GROUND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,058 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,097 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,291 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,342 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,342 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,410 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,490 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1 1,551 SF
12 14,455 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 810 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 812 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
SECOND LEVEL 1 BEDRM.1 941 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,100 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,102 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM.1 1,180 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,291 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,343 SF
SECOND LEVEL 2 BEDRM. +1 1,500 SF
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"
STN-2
SHINGLE-1
STN-1
FCB-1
FCB-2SHINGLE-2 FCB-1 SHINGLE-2
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"3'-4"STN-2
SHINGLE-1
BRICK-1
SHINGLE-1
SHINGLE-2
FCB-1
FCB-2
STN-1
EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
PCAST - 1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH/ SERIES COLOR LOCATION
STN - 1
STN - 2
FCB - 1
FCB - 2
FLASH - 1
AFS FLASH - 1
PRECAST CONCRETE
WALL PANELS
STONE VENEER
SIDING
SIDING
CAP FLASHING
WINDOW SILL
FLASHING
ALUMINUM WINDOW
FRAMES
PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERSCPAV-1
AFS-1
BRICK-1 FACE BRICK
STONE VENEER
SIOUX CITY SMOOTH BLACK HILLS GROUND LEVEL
NOTE:
THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS.
STONE BAND
RESTAURANT
BUMP-OUT
BUMP-OUT AND COLUMNS
SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE
SHINGLE-2 SHINGLE
CORONADO WHITE
CORONADO LIGHT GREY
FRENCH LIMESTONE
SAWTOOTH LEDGE
JAMES HARDIE
JAMES HARDIE
NIGHT GREYSIDING PANEL
FRENCH WHITESIDING PANEL
TBD CREAM
TBD TAN
UPPER LEVELS
GABLES
CHARCOAL GREY
CHARCOAL GREY
BLACK
CMG
CMG
TBD
QUATTROTECTURA HBL740 COMMUNITY DECK
OWNER APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS:
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:02:09 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.1
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1
4 WEST ELEVATION
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"
STN-2
SHINGLE-1
STN-1
FCB-1
SHINGLE-2
GROUND LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
113'-0"
THIRD LEVEL
124'-1 7/8"
JOIST BEARING
133'-2"
LOWER LEVEL
89'-0"
BRICK-1
SHINGLE-1
STN-1
FCB-2
FCB-1
BRICK-1
STN-1
EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE
PCAST - 1
MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH/ SERIES COLOR LOCATION
STN - 1
STN - 2
FCB - 1
FCB - 2
FLASH - 1
AFS FLASH - 1
PRECAST CONCRETE
WALL PANELS
STONE VENEER
SIDING
SIDING
CAP FLASHING
WINDOW SILL
FLASHING
ALUMINUM WINDOW
FRAMES
PRECAST CONCRETE
PAVERSCPAV-1
AFS-1
BRICK-1 FACE BRICK
STONE VENEER
SIOUX CITY SMOOTH BLACK HILLS GROUND LEVEL
NOTE:
THE "BASIS OF DESIGN" MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT ARE LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE ABOVE. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND OTHER APPROVE D SUBSTITUTIONS.
STONE BAND
RESTAURANT
BUMP-OUT
BUMP-OUT AND COLUMNS
SHINGLE-1 SHINGLE
SHINGLE-2 SHINGLE
CORONADO WHITE
CORONADO LIGHT GREY
FRENCH LIMESTONE
SAWTOOTH LEDGE
JAMES HARDIE
JAMES HARDIE
NIGHT GREYSIDING PANEL
FRENCH WHITESIDING PANEL
TBD CREAM
TBD TAN
UPPER LEVELS
GABLES
CHARCOAL GREY
CHARCOAL GREY
BLACK
CMG
CMG
TBD
QUATTROTECTURA HBL740 COMMUNITY DECK
OWNER APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR DESIGN AND MATERIALS:
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. PHASE:
OWNER SIGNATURE:DATE:
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:02:31 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.2
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2
1 NORTH ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2
2 EAST ELEVATION
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:04:06 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.3
EXTERIOR
PERSPECTIVES
JK
DD
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
A3.3
3 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
A3.3
2 SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE
A3.3
1 SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
Issues and Revisions:
Commission No:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
SHEET
1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200
ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735
(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101
www.popearch.com
POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1"
TRUE SHEET SCALE
1/7/2020 3:05:52 AM
C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA
HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt
A3.4
AERIAL PERSPECTIVE
Checker
Author
36142-19071
MENDOTA SENIOR
HOUSING
MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
MN
1 CONCEPT
SUBMITTAL
11-18-19
2 PDU AMENDMENT 01-06-20
A3.4
1 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE