2020-09-22 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
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Approve the August 25, 2020 regular meeting minutes
3.Public Hearings
a.Case No. 2020-19: Variance to install new parking pad and driveway with a zero-
foot (0’) setback from the side-yard at 2142 Fox Place. Kelly Veazie – Applicant.
b.Case No. 2020-14: RECONSIDERATION of a Critical Area Permit and
Conditional Use Permit for a new single-family dwelling, located at 1217 Victoria
Curve. Calvin Tran w/ Tempo Homes - Applicant & Vinh Truong - Owner
4.Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
5.Adjourn Meeting
PC Packet Page # 1
Approved: __/__/2020
August 25, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 5
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 25, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
25, 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those
absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of July 28, 2020 Minutes
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2020.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 2 (Mazzitello and Petschel)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-16
GRAND REAL ESTATE ADVISORS/MH DEVELOPMENT LLC, 725 LINDEN
STREET AND 735 MAPLE STREET – PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Pope Architects, acting on behalf
of Grand Real Estate Advisors, is requesting consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of
the former City-owned parcels, 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. The
proposed title of the plat is “Mendota Heights Senior Living”.
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.
PC Packet Page # 2
Approved: __/__/2020
August 25, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 5
Chair Magnuson asked if Outlot A would contain trees that would provide screening between the
condominiums and this facility.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that area would remain undisturbed and
function as a needed drainage area and would also provide buffering.
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 TOTH TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2020
meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE 2020-18
JOHN STEVEKEN, 781 PONDHAVEN LANE – WETLAND PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that John Steveken is seeking approval
of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool on the property
located at 781 Pondhaven Lane.
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 Mazzitello asked if the height requirement for a pool is five feet.
PC Packet Page # 3
Approved: __/__/2020
August 25, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 5
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the ordinance requires a minimum
of five feet.
Commissioner Toth referenced the ordinary high-water level of 874 and asked if that water level
has been stable over the years.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained how the number was developed through
modeling. He noted that the buffer requirement begins from that point.
Chair Magnuson stated that she cannot recall a situation where someone has been allowed to
encroach on the 25-foot setback and asked what would be done to ensure that there would not be
damage to the wetland from erosion or land disturbance.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Natural Resources Technician is a
great resource and advocate for helping residents with projects of this nature and also conducts
reviews to ensure erosion control measures are in place.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that minimum construction activity is required for
fencing and therefore staff is not too concerned.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that there will be disturbance within the 25-foot buffer to
construct the pool and noted that draft condition four states that the applicant must restore plantings
in coordination with the Natural Resources Technician.
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 TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A WETLANDS PERMIT TO JOHN STEVEKEN AND
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 781 PONDHAVEN LANE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND FENCE LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE NEW POOL STRUCTURE SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STANDARDS AND
RULES UNDER TITLE 9 BUILDING REGULATIONS SECTION 9-2-1: SWIMMING
POOLS, AND TITLE 12 ZONING OF THE CITY CODE, AND THE MINNESOTA
STATE BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS. THE NEW FENCE MUST BE A
PC Packet Page # 4
Approved: __/__/2020
August 25, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 5
MINIMUM OF 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AND FULLY INSTALLED AND INSPECTED
PRIOR TO USING THE SWIMMING POOL
2. THE NEW SWIMMING POOL AND RELATED STRUCTURE WORK SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS NOTED
UNDER TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2 WETLANDS SYSTEMS OF CITY CODE.
3. DRAINING OR BACK-FLUSHING OF WATER FROM THE POOL SHALL BE
DIRECTED ONTO THE OWNER’S PROPERTY ONLY AND SHALL NOT DRAIN
DIRECTLY INTO THE POND/WETLAND SYSTEMS. ANY DRAINAGE ONTO
PUBLIC STREETS OR OTHER PUBLIC DRAINAGE WAYS SHALL REQUIRE
PERMISSION OF THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL CITY OFFICIALS.
4. THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL REPLANT AND RE-VEGETATE THE 25 FOOT
WETLAND BUFFER AREA WITH PLANTINGS AND MATERIALS PER THE
DIRECTION FO THE CITY’S NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN.
5. ANY NEW EXCAVATING, GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
RELATED TO THE NEW POOL AND FENCE WORK 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. FULL EROSION/SEDIMENT MEASURES SHALL BE
INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND MAINTAINED
THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
6. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THIS POOL. SITE CONSTRUCTION SHALL
OCCUR ONLY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS;
AND 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS.
7. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED, PROTECTED AND PERMANENT
GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE POOL PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2020
meeting.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
The Park Commission reviewed the Culligan request and provided comments. Staff shared
concerns along with concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. The applicant is
completing soil borings/samples. This request is scheduled to come back to the Planning
Commission at the September meeting. The applicant is also investigating some of the variances
included in the original application.
In August, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request from 1217 Victoria
Curve but that application has been postponed because of concerns from neighbors. The applicant
PC Packet Page # 5
Approved: __/__/2020
August 25, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 5
is reviewing the possibility of moving the home further south and will continue to hold discussions
with the neighboring property owners. He asked if the Planning Commission would feel
comfortable with the case still going forward to the City Council if the home were moved, as a
second public hearing would be held at the City Council or whether the Commission would feel it
necessary for the case to return to the Commission.
Commissioner Katz stated that he would like the case brought back to review in its totality.
Commissioner Field agreed that it would be difficult to have that recommendation of approval
remain if there are changes made to the request. The Commission confirmed consensus.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked and received confirmation that changes to the application would
result in the 60-day review period timeline starting over.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the City Council has changed its
meeting time to 6:00 p.m. He asked if the Commission would be interested in moving its start
time to 6:00 p.m. as well.
The Commission confirmed consensus with leaving the start time at 7:00 p.m.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti reported that the cell tower CUP was approved for
Verizon at Deerwood Bank and noted that Peterson Plat was also approved by the City Council
with a vote of 3-2.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:33 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
PC Packet Page # 6
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 1
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: September 22, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-19
VARIANCE to Side-Yard Setback for Driveway
APPLICANT: Kelly Veazie
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2142 Fox Place
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 23, 2020
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Kelly Veazie is seeking a variance from the side-yard setback standards to install a new driveway/parking
pad next to an existing attached two-car garage. The subject property is located at 2142 Fox Place.
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 applicant has provided a
“Neighbor Signatures of Consent” from four of her neighbors not objecting to the variance request. The
city received no other comments or objections from neighboring residents.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is generally located mid-block on Fox Place, between Creek Avenue to the north and
Aztec Lane to the south.
The subject site measures approx. 85-feet wide by 114-ft. deep, with 9,705 sf. of lot area. The property
contains an existing 1,471-sq. ft., single story rambler dwelling built in 1957, with a 456-sf. two-car
attached garage. The driveway coming off Fox Place is approximately 18-ft. in width.
PC Packet Page # 7
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 2
The current home sits approximately 30-ft. from the front lot line; 10-ft. from each side yard; and 22-ft.
from the rear lot line. Based on some of these reduced setbacks and smaller lot size, this property (and
many others in this older Friendly Hills neighborhood) is considered a legal, non-conforming property of
record under the R-1 One Family Residence district.
The Applicant has been parking 7’ x 18’
camping trailer along the north side the
garage (see image – right), and was
notified that this was not allowed unless
parked on a hard-surface area.
The Applicant is requesting to add a new
driveway/parking pad area along the
north side of the existing driveway and
attached garage. The new parking pad
measures approx. 10-ft. wide by 45’ in
depth, ending at the back edge of the
attached garage.
Staff determined a rough calculation of hard-surfaces (house, deck, driveway) on the subject property at
approx. 3,010-sq. ft. of area, which equates to 31% of total lot coverage. The additional 500-sf. of hard
surfaced driveway increases the total lot coverage to approx. 3,510-sq. ft. or 36% of total lot area.
City Code Section 12-1D-13-5 provides regulations for outside storage in residential districts, namely the
parking and storage of recreational vehicles, as follows:
a) The outside parking and storage of recreational vehicles is permitted in one side yard only or rear
yard in all residential zoning districts, provided, that any such side yard or rear yard storage shall
not be adjacent to a street; and further provided, that all setback requirements shall be met;
b) The vehicle must be parked on a paved surface other than a typical driveway;
c) In the case of a residential subdivision surrounding a lake or pond, rear yard storage is prohibited
where neighbors can see it from across the water unless adequately screened; and
d) All RVs stored or parked outside must be adequately screened.
City Code Section 12-1D-16 requires all residential driveways (including off-street parking areas) to be
setback at least 5-feet from any lot line. The applicant seeks a variance to encroach up to the north side-lot
line leaving a zero-foot (0’) setback from this line.
PC Packet Page # 8
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 3
VARIANCE ANALYSIS
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.
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 side park is for camper parking. We request the additional cement for
better durability. This would coincide with other neighbors that have built variance for extra parking
along side of garages (example: 2130 Fox Place and 766 Creek Avenue).
Staff Response: Staff checked city records to determine if the two properties noted in the Applicant’s
narrative had received variances for their driveways, and there appears to be no record of any variances
or special approvals granted on these sites (see Google Street images – below).
2130 Fox Place 766 Creek Ave.
PC Packet Page # 9
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 4
Even though these driveway encroachments exist in the same neighborhood, they do not provide any
precedence or supporting value to the granting of this variance on the property in question.
The intent of this 5-foot setback for driveway/parking space areas in residential zones is to ensure there
is access for utilities, and provide adequate space to prevent any negative impacts to side-yard drainage
between homes. When residential subdivisions are considered, most communities require the
dedication of drainage and utility easements along lot lines, usually 5-ft. on each side-yard and 10-ft.
along front and rear yards. These easements do not appear or are shown to dedicated under the original
Friendly Hills plat for this neighborhood. Nevertheless, it is required to provide adequate setbacks of
structures and hard surfaced areas, such as driveways and parking pads from adjacent lot lines.
In a standard R-1 zoned residential area, homes must maintain setbacks of 10-feet or more from their
respective side-yard lines, which means homes are meant to be spaced at least 20-feet from each other.
The subject property structure is 10-feet off the interior side line, while the neighboring home to the
north is approximately 10-feet from their line. By allowing this 0-ft. setback, the proposed (continued)
parking of the camper will only be 10-ft. from the neighboring home, which may negatively impact this
neighboring property – not only for the current owners, but future homeowners. (Note: it should be
pointed out the homeowner to the north at 2136 Fox Place does not object and supports the Applicant’s
petition to the variance).
The Applicant has stated they are currently parking a camper on the side yard area next to the garage.
From staff’s experience in talking and meeting with residents throughout the community, there appears
to be a high demand for added parking and driveway space, especially in older areas or parts of the city
such as this neighborhood. While it may seem “reasonable” to have this added parking space along the
side area of a home, the standards of the Zoning Code are clear for requiring a 5-foot setback, and the
Planning Commission will need to determine if this requested variance is reasonable and in harmony
with the general purpose and spirit of City Code.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: My lot size is under the 100-ft. average, [thus] requiring this request for
variance to the property line.
Staff Response: The city acknowledges there are many lots/properties in this and the surrounding
Friendly Hills neighborhood that do not meet the 100-ft. lot width minimum or 15,000-sf. lot size
minimum area for the underlying R-1 Zone standards. The current driveway and two-car garage are
probably too small to adequately support the added parking or storage of multiple vehicles and
recreation vehicles on this property, such as the camper owned by the homeowner. However, these
circumstances are not entirely unique to this property, as there are many other properties in the
neighborhood and in other parts of the city that have or share the same situation as the Applicant.
Code currently provides a reduced setback allowance for driveways of 5-feet, which affords an
opportunity for owners to expand or widen out a driveway as needed, but still maintain a certain level
of open area or un-impacted space between properties. Unfortunately, Zoning Code does not provide
any reduced setback allowances or special provisions to accommodate the Applicant’s request without
approval of a variance.
3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: The side park along the garage holds the camper back and flush with the
garage. It will not be an “eye sore” according to our neighbors.
Staff Response: Staff investigated the two neighboring properties with expanded driveways as noted
by the Applicant (2130 Fox and 766 Creek) in the narrative, and was unable to find any record of any
PC Packet Page # 10
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 5
variance(s) or permit approvals for these driveways. Based on physical drive-by/inspections and review
of current aerial imagery, many of the dwellings in this neighborhood appear to have very similar and
standard 10-ft. setbacks from their respective side lot lines.
Ideally, it is preferred (and required) that residents store their campers and trailers on a hard surface
versus a grassed/mulched area as the Applicant was doing. If a side yard does not work, residents are
allowed to utilize a rear-yard. However, since the back yard is currently fenced off and this area
contains an existing laundry clothesline system, this becomes somewhat limited in subject lot, and may
not support an effective storage space for a camper.
The Applicant indicated the camper is 7-ft. wide with a 4-ft. wide wheel/chassis base. Based on these
dimensions, the 10-ft. wide parking pad could possibly be narrowed or reduced. If the amount of added
hard-surface or potential drainage impacts that could occur between properties is of some concern, the
city may consider allowing two narrow concrete parking or drive-strips (or even permeable pavers?)
along this side-yard, with a small triangular shaped driveway approach (see revised plan image by city
staff – below).
City planning and engineering staff would agree to work with the homeowners to ensure the least
amount of hard surface was installed and that side-yard drainage would be maintained between both
properties. Staff would also work with the Applicant on an effective screen as well.
Knowing that the Applicant would like to retain full use of their own driveway to the existing garage,
and the fact the side-yard, even though only 10-ft. in width would still allow for the effective storage
of the camper off the driveway, may lend some support to the Applicant’s arguments requesting
approval of this variance.
Allowing this encroaching driveway and parking pad may not drastically “alter the essential character”
of the neighborhood, but may pose some short-term or even long-term impacts, including drainage
issues, visibility and aesthetics between the properties.
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
PC Packet Page # 11
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 6
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 minor driveway/parking
pad addition to her home to provide for the safe and effective means of parking a camper trailer on
the property.
One can conclude this new driveway/parking pad will provide some economic value to the owner
by allowing her to park the trailer on her own property, instead of paying to store it off-site at a
commercial storage facility or another private property. It is not always clear how economic
considerations alone may affect the outcome of this variance request, but 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.
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 not requesting such use. The R-1 districts are
most predominant throughout the community, and this zoning district is intended to maintain the
character of even older neighborhoods, including Friendly Hills.
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; and encourages “mechanism[s]” for maintaining
and reinvesting features for non-conforming properties.” The city may wish to consider if this
variance is one of those mechanisms used to enhance or improve a non-conforming property in this
neighborhood. The requested variance should still preserve the residential character of the
neighborhood, and provides a “reasonable” amount of investment into a property to enhance its
overall use and enjoyment by the owner. Staff also believes the proposed driveway/parking pad
poses no threat or any impacts on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public
safety.
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
PC Packet Page # 12
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 7
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 request for the variances to encroach into the required side-yard setback is relatively
minor in its overall scope and impacts, and can be considered in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the Applicant proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner;
ii.) the existing conditions of the property and placement of the home, both of which were not
created by the current homeowner, present a case of a practical difficulties for the homeowner
to provide a wider and more useable driveway and parking area for the residential property;
and said improvement will be more convenient to the homeowner and future owners of the
property;
iii.) the requested variances are considered a reasonable request and the impacts caused by the
increased encroachment may not negatively affect the adjacent or neighboring properties;
iv.) 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;
v.) approving the variance preserves the residential character of the neighborhood, and provides
a reasonable amount of investment into a property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment
by the owner; and
vi.) the new driveway/parking addition and its request for approval under a 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 2142 Fox Place 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-
19, dated and presented September 22, 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:
1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new
driveway or parking pad area.
PC Packet Page # 13
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 8
2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway and parking pad area shall not extend over
the adjacent side-property lot line.
3. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document.
4. 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 permit for construction and installation of the proposed driveway addition
within one-year from said approval date.
5. The Applicant must provide an effective screen (with fence or landscaping) of the trailer
along the side of the garage.
6. [If the separated driveway system/plan is allowed] The Applicant shall provide concrete
drive-strips / permeable pavers with a center area consisting of landscaped mulch or other
approved materials to aid in stormwater runoff and surface drainage.
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 City of Mendota Heights hereby deems the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating
the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for the reduced
setbacks on the driveway and parking pad. The City of Mendota Heights further hereby declares:
i.) the proposed driveway/parking pad addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and
continued use of the property;
ii.) the fact the driveway/parking pad addition requires a variance to normal setback standards is
not considered a reasonable use of the property, especially if the Applicant were to reduce
the driveway/parking pad size;
iii.) the proposed driveway encroachment into the required side-yard setback area for an interior
lot line is inconsistent with the intent of the City Code to promote open and green space areas
between residential uses, preserve or maintain positive and adequate drainage and utility
easement corridors, and for adequate buffering between residential structures;
iv.) a similar hard-surfaced area could be installed on the back side of the home, thereby avoiding
the need for a setback variance; and
v.) the proposed encroachments into the required side-yard setback area constitute an
unreasonable use of this setback area and may negatively affect or alter the essential character
of the neighborhood.
PC Packet Page # 14
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 9
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 of the variance of the proposed
driveway and parking pad addition as requested, and the Commission should make a motion on one of the
three alternatives of action noted above, and accept or modify the proposed findings-of-facts and/or
conditions as presented herein.
Attachments
1. Aerial/Site Location Map
2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
PC Packet Page # 15
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 10
SITE PHOTOS of 2142 FOX PLACE
PC Packet Page # 16
Planning Case #220-19 (Veazie) Page 11
PC Packet Page # 17
PC Packet Page # 18
PC Packet Page # 19
PC Packet Page # 20
PC Packet Page # 21
PC Packet Page # 22
2142 FOX PLACE
Property Information
September 3, 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.
PC Packet Page # 23
666666666666666666666666 66
66666666666666666666"6666666666666666 6
6666666!!2
9384114
79105
915783494711572 131
143
16117
113 39299 12142
2150
2136
2147
2153
2143
2145
2135
2137
2153 236.2'143.1'187.5'
2142 FOX PLACE(K. Veazie res.)City ofMendotaHeights030
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
9/3/2020
PC Packet Page # 24
PC Packet Page # 25
8411483
2142
2136
2142 FOX PLACE(K. Veazie res.)City ofMendotaHeights010
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
9/8/2020
PC Packet Page # 26
Planning Staff Report
(Supplemental to July 28, 2020 Report)
DATE:September 22, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2020-14
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT:Calvin Tran w/ Tempo Homes (Applicant) & Vinh Truong (Owner)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:1217 Victoria Curve
ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:October 27, 2020 (60-Day Review Extension)
INTRODUCTION
Calvin Tran and Vinh Truong are requesting re-consideration of a previously considered Critical Area
Permit (CAP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications on the property located at 1217 Victoria
Curve. The CAP is needed for all major development activities in the critical area overlay district; and the
CUP approves an oversized attached garage up to 1,480-sf. in size.
This item is being presented once again under a fully noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing
was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the
subject property.
BACKGROUND
At the July 28th regular meeting, these applications were presented to the Planning Commission under a
public hearing, with an original site plan showing the new home located in the back half of the parcel,
approximately 133-feet from the front lot line. All other setbacks met Zoning Code. Staff provided a
number of letters of concern as attachments with the first report; and some neighbors did appear before the
Planning Commission that evening expressing their concerns with the new home project and layout (refer
to 07/28/2020 PC Mtg. minutes).
Upon the close of the hearing, the PC voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the CAP and
CUP request for this property. This recommendation was then scheduled to be forwarded and presented to
the City Council for consideration under a separate public hearing at the August 18
th regular meeting (note:
City Code requires an additional public hearing before the city council on all CAP requests).
On August 17th, the city was provided a copy of a report from Westwood Engineering, hired by the
neighboring residents, which questioned and raised issues with the proposed grading and drainage plans for
PC Packet Page # 27
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 2
this site and new home. The recommendations made in the report called for the new home to move further
south and closer to the Victoria Curve roadway frontage; in essence match up with the front setbacks of the
neighboring dwellings.
Since staff, the applicant and their own engineering consultant did not have enough time to review and
address this Westwood report, staff asked the applicants to postpone the Aug. 18th hearing, which they
obliged by agreeing to (officially in writing).
Staff shortly thereafter met with the Applicants and their engineering consultant to review the Westwood
report and discuss other site issues; and staff later met with some of the neighboring residents and walked
the surrounding areas of the subject property. The Applicants met individually with some of the
neighboring residents; and later agreed to host a meeting with the immediate neighbors on September 3rd at
City Hall to discuss the issues related to this new home project. At this meeting, the Owner agreed to
consider moving the house further south into the lot, and have their engineer address/respond to some of
the drainage and soil issues raised in the separate Westwood Report.
UPDATED SITE PLAN
The setbacks on the previously reviewed site plan called for the home with a front line setback of 132.5 ft.,
side yard setbacks of 15.3-ft. and 20-ft. respectively, and 62.3-ft. from the rear line. The revised plan now
calls for the same foot-print on the home, with new setbacks of 56.8-ft. from the front/south line; 17.4-ft.
from the side/east lot line; 20-ft. from the side/west lot line; and 138-ft. from the rear/north line.
As was noted in the previous site plan presentation, Zoning Code includes a special setback standard on
new developments situated between adjoining structures along a street edge, whereby the minimum front
yard setback is determined by the adjoining structures, commonly referred to as the “string-line” rule. City
Code Section 12-1D-4; Subpart D. Front Yard Requirements states:
1. Each lot shall have a front yard of not less than thirty feet (30') in depth facing any street or road.
2. Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no
building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the
required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. See figure 1D-
4.2 of this section.
FIGURE 1D-4.2: FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
The neighboring home of 1215 Victoria Curve is setback 49.3 ft., while 1219 Victoria Curve is approx. 44
ft. from the front line. Based on this rule, the minimum front yard setback on this new house would be
approx. 46 ft. The new front-yard setback of 56.8-ft. as shown on this revised plan meets this minimum
setback standard.
PC Packet Page # 28
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 3
Architecturally, the house design remains as a modern, two-story flat-roofed structure, with full-basement
look-out (instead of a walk-out in previous plans), with 3,124-sf. of living space. The home includes an
attached garage 1,480-sf. in size, with two 18-ft. wide overhead doors. Zoning Code permits attached
garages up to 1,200-sf. in size, and those over 1,200-sf. but not exceeding 1,500-sf. in size may be allowed
by conditional use permit. Code also states garage doors must not exceed 36 (linear) feet in measurement.
The plan calls a similar circular turn-around driveway in the front yard area of the home, with a curved
driveway leading down to Victoria Curve.
The plan also identifies 13 significant trees (of 6” or more) that need to be removed as part of the house and
driveway construction; along with approx. 20 trees in the front ROW area, due to re-grading and shaping
this front yard area down to Victoria Curve roadway section, in order to provide positive drainage towards
the street. It was recommended the contractor/owner attempt to save and protect as many trees on the lot
as possible, especially along the side yard areas to preserve a natural vegetative screen and buffer from next
door neighbors. The contractor will notify the city if more trees along these side yard areas need to be
removed due to construction of the new home.
The site plan also includes a revised grading plan for the site and new home location. The grading plan
shows most of the drainage along the west and south (front) areas will be directed towards Victoria Curve
and into this large (wide) right-of-way space for this roadway. The contractor indicated he plans to install
roof scuppers and gutters that funnel or direct most of the water run-off from the dwelling down and out
southward towards Victoria Curve (the front yard area).
A minimal amount of surface drainage along the east and north sides of the new home will be directed
northeasterly, which follows or matches in with the drainage patterns already existing on this parcel.
The small retaining wall on the westside of the lot proposed under the first plan submittal has been removed
or is no longer needed under this revised plan.
Please refer to the Applicant’s Engineering Report from Lake and Land Surveying for information on area
soils; along with a detailed report/study addressing drainage, with existing vs. proposed drainage area plans
provided. The city’s Public Works Director and the Applicant’s consultant engineer will be available at
the hearing to answer any questions related to drainage and other information contained in their report.
(Note: this is a condensed version of the report. The HydroCAD calculations, tables and graphs are not
included as these are technical in nature. A full copy of the report can be provided for review if requested).
ANALYSIS (Same as Provided for in the 07/28/2020 Report)
Critical Are Permit
According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is:
…to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to
promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to
preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element
in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…
The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are:
Section 12-3-5. Site Plan Requirements:
A: Site Plan Required: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or
certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter
until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
PC Packet Page # 29
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 4
Section 12-3-8: Development Standards:
A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and
natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed
to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-
site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent
pollution of surface and ground water.
B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks:
1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward
from the bluff line of the river.
2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than
one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body.
C. Height of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning
district regulations or thirty-five feet (35')
The subject property does not contain any bluffs or bluff impact zones. The subject property is situated
over 250-ft. from the nearest bluff impact zone under the current MRCCA-GIS mappingfor the community,
which is located immediately to the west of the property (red shaded area – image below).
There are no water bodies or features in or directly adjacent to the subject property. The nearest major
water body is Augusta Lake, which is located southwest of the subject property, and is well over 1,450-feet
from the closest corner of the lot. The next closest water feature is City Hall Pond directly to the east,
which sits approximately 830-ft. from this site.
Zoning Code limits the heights of homes to 2-stories and 25-feet in overall or measured height. For flat
roofed dwellings, the uppermost point or projection of the roof is measured. The new home is shown with
a 25-ft. measured height.
The construction of this new residential dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact
neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during
and after construction of the new home.
PC Packet Page # 30
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 5
City staff still believe that approving this critical area permit and allowing construction of this proposed
(and revised layout) of the single-family dwelling, should have little, if any effect upon the existing
Mississippi Critical Area or the surrounding neighborhood environment.
Conditional Use Permit
The proposed attached, private garage requires a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed the maximum
allowed size of an attached garage in the R-1 District. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory
Structures, Subpart C.1; residential dwellings are permitted to have one attached private garage up to 1,200-
sq. ft. in area, and provides an allowance for owners to request up to 1,500-sq. ft. by means of a CUP.
Under this request, the Applicant is seeking to provide a 1,480-sq. ft. garage.
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request, with
the following principles to be taken into consideration:
The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupantsor surrounding lands;
existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met:
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community;
will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
The new garage proposed by the Applicant is designed to fit within the overall “squared” footprint of the
dwelling structure, and should easily accommodate the needs of parking personal vehicles and added
personal storage and equipment. All setbacks will be met under this revised plan.
Although the former owner did remove a number of trees and vegetation under the previously approved
Administrative Critical Area Permit, this new house project and driveway will necessitate the removals of
some additional trees and vegetation to accommodate this project. The Applicant identified all significant
trees 6-inches or greater on the plans. The Applicant has indicated they will re-plant one new tree for every
significant tree 6” or more in diameter that is removed under this new home project.
City staff believes the new single-family residential dwelling, with the oversized attached private garage,
will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community; or
cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The
proposed dwelling appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan; and the CUP as presented herein is supported and may be approved.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
x DNR Staff acknowledged receipt of the new/revised plan set, and indicated appreciation of the
Applicant’s efforts to reducing overall impervious surface coverage with new home layout; and
plans for tree replacement. No other comments, objections or conditions submitted; nor any request
for additional information in this case.
PC Packet Page # 31
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 6
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1217 Victoria Curve,
which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an oversized attached
garage up to 1,480-sf. in area, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant
with the policies and standards of the City Code with certain conditions; or
2. Deny the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit request for 1217 Victoria Curve, based
on the findings of fact that the applications do not meet certain policies and standards of City Code,
as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the application; and request the Applicant to officially extend their statutory review period
for adetermined and agreed amount of time. The original 60-Day review period for this application
was set to expire August 28, 2020; but was officially extended by city staff an additional 60-Days
(as allowed by State Statute) to October 27, 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for 1217
Victoria Curve, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an oversized
attached garage up to 1,480-sq. ft. in size, with the following conditions:
1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of
Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
3. 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.
4. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval
as part of any new building permit process. The Applicant agrees to replant one new tree (minimum
2.5” caliper size for deciduous and 6’-ft. for evergreens) for each significant tree removed from the
site for this home project. As per the city’s Pollinator Friendly Policy, all new trees and landscaping
shall meet the city’s Native Plant List.
5. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AMto 8:00 PM Monday through
Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
6. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and
permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
ATTACHMENTS
- Location Map – 1217 Victoria Curve
- Plan Set – including Survey; Site & Grading Plan; Erosion Control Plan; and Tree Preservation Plan
- New Dwelling Elevation Plans
- Engineering & Drainage Report – Lake & Land Surveying 09/11/2020 (condensed version)
- Neighboring Resident Emails (receive d after the 07/28/2020 PC meeting)
PC Packet Page # 32
Planning Case #2020--14 (Tempo Homes) Page 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit & Conditional Use Permit
for
1217 Victoria Curve
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the general purpose and intent of the Critical
Area Overlay District.
2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed
minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
3. The proposed oversized garage requested under this application can be considered a reasonable
request, and will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Zoning Code that allow such
structures by means of a conditional use permit.
4. The proposed single family dwelling with over-sized garage will not be detrimental to the health,
safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor
hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The overall construction of this proposed residential home with over-sized garage will comply with
all standards and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; represents
reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals
for residential land uses; fits well with the current developed character of the neighborhood; and
will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
PC Packet Page # 33
$16666666666666666 66666666666666
66666666666666
66
666666666666666 6 6
666 66666 6
6666666
6
FMFMFMFMFMFMF
M
11791215
1919
1948
2025
1190
1200
19911949
1242
1954
1199 1187
1936
1219
1942
12001206
1205
1941
1921
1169
1903
1181
1940
1916
1230
1224
1920
1935
1235 1908
1914
1905 190719081248
2020
1203
1193
1933
1163370
1901
1290
1290
1264
1902
HWY 62 HUNTER LNCULLIGAN LN
GLENHILL RDCENTRE POINTE CUR
VICTORIA CUR
VERONICA LN
HWY 62 0'476'351'
295'327'322'282'360'
249'226'
308'
299'205'287.5'217'175'15
1
'95'128'80'75'88'58
'62'274'0'249'1217 VICTORIA CURVE
(Tempo Homes)
City of
Mendota
Heights0190
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
7/2/2020
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PC Packet Page # 34
PC Packet Page # 35
PC Packet Page # 36
PC Packet Page # 37
PC Packet Page # 38
PC Packet Page # 39
PC Packet Page # 40
91REVISIONSBYDESIGN and DRAFTING BY:
PC Packet Page # 41
29TEMPO HOMES
PC Packet Page # 42
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
September 11, 2020
Mr. Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mr. Vinh Truong - 1217 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 – Site Plan Requirements
Job No. 2020.027
Dear Mr. McNeill,
As per City Code § 12.3-5(C)(2): Site Planning Requirements.
The applicant
2. The following information shall be provided in the site plan:
a. Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining
roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks.
See Vicinity Map.
b. The name and address of the owner(s) or developer(s), the section, township, range, north
point, date, and scale of drawings, and number of sheets.
See Certificate of Survey
c. Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than
two feet (2') per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams,
including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site.
See Certificate of Survey, Site & Grading Plan
d. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the
volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the
site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to
stream or lake.
See attached existing Hydrocad models with drainage areas.
e. A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be
disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of
development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial
steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be
identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing topsoil and soil type of the new contour. The
location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soil’s description.
Soil map and soil types attached and were provided by the USDA Web Soil Survey.
As per the 2020 MN Residential Code, Chapter 4 of the 2018 IRC, R401.4 Soil Testing building
officials shall determine to require soil tests. In lieu of a compete Geotechnical Evaluation table
R401.41 shall be used. Area of excavated soil storage, to be removed from the site, is shown
on the Site and Grading Plan.
PC Packet Page # 43
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
f. A description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon,
setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site.
As per the City Planner, existing trees 6” in diameter and larger are shown on the Certificate of
Survey. The Tree Preservation Plan shows tree to be removed.
g. A description of any features, buildings, or areas which are of historic significance.
No historical significance as per aerial photos, indicates that the property was of agricultural use
from 1937 to 1957, changing to vacant urban property as the farming stopped to present.
h. A map indicating proposed finished grading shown at contours at the same intervals
proposed above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing
topography and remaining features.
Final construction house plans to match Site and Grading Plan.
i. A landscape plan drawn to an appropriate scale including dimensions, distance, location,
type, size, and description of all existing vegetation, clearly locating and describing any vegetation
proposed for removal and all proposed landscape materials which will be added to this site as part of
the development.
Tree Preservation Plan shows which trees are to be removed, all disturbed areas to have 4
inches of topsoil, fertilizer and sod or seed.
j. A proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume, and at
what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where
stormwater will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released to
stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity of all structures to be constructed or
exiting structures to be utilized, including volume, or holding ponds and design storms.
See attached proposed Hydrocad models with drainage areas.
k. An erosion and sedimentation control plan indicating the type, location, and necessary
technical information on control measures to be taken both during and after construction including a
statement expressing the calculated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in tons/acres/year both
during and after construction.
Gross soil loss calculations are not required for Single-Family Home Construction in the City of
Mendota Heights. In order to minimize soil loss, upon excavation of the foundation, removal of
all excess soil, trees, and debris from the site, all disturbed areas within 10 feet of the
foundation shall be temporary seeded and the driveway shall be graveled. See Erosion Control
Plan.
l. The proposed size, alignment, height, and intended use of any structures to be erected or
located on the site.
See Architectural Plans for the proposed house, and Site and Grading Plan.
PC Packet Page # 44
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
m. A clear delineation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced including a description of
the surfacing material to be used.
See Site and Grading Plan.
n. A description of the method to be provided for vehicular and pedestrian access to the
proposed development and public access to the river and/or public river view opportunities both
before and after development; a description of the development's impact on existing views of and
along the river.
Not Applicable
o. A description of all parking facilities to be provided as part of the development of the site
including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development.
No parking facilities are required for a Single-Family house. The Architectural Plans, and The
Site and Grading Plan shows a 4-stall garage with the driveway in front of garage allowing for
4 additional cars.
p. A delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use.
Not Applicable
q. A delineation of the location and amounts of excavated soils to be stored on the site during
construction.
Cut and fill volumes are provided on the Site and Grading Plan. Area of excavated soil storage,
to be removed from the site, is shown on the Site and Grading Plan.
r. Any other information pertinent to that particular project which in the opinion of the inspector
or applicant is necessary or helpful for the review of the project. (Ord. 387, 10-7-2003)
It is my opinion that all of the information pertinent to this project has been addressed as per,
2020 Minnesota Residential Building Code, the above City of Mendota Heights requirements,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Storm Water and Best Management Practices,
for constructing a Single-Family House.
ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Respectfully submitted,
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Jonathan L. Faraci, P.E.
Minnesota Registration 16464
Encl.
PC Packet Page # 45
PC Packet Page # 46
PC Packet Page # 47
PC Packet Page # 48
PC Packet Page # 49
PC Packet Page # 50
PC Packet Page # 51
100mUSNG UTM DMS DM Degrees15T VK 88355 70387LayersPDFsOpen Street MapsMap Catalog4*5&-0$"5*0/PC Packet Page # 52
6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
:1
0DSSURMHFWLRQ :HE0HUFDWRU&RUQHUFRRUGLQDWHV :*6(GJHWLFV 870=RQH1:*6
)HHW
0HWHUV
0DS6FDOH LISULQWHGRQ$SRUWUDLW [ VKHHW
6RLO0DSPD\QRWEHYDOLGDWWKLVVFDOH
PC Packet Page # 53
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²6HS7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQGLPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH:HE6RLO6XUYH\1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\ 3DJHRIPC Packet Page # 54
0DS8QLW/HJHQG
0DS8QLW6\PERO 0DS8QLW1DPH $FUHVLQ$2,3HUFHQWRI$2,
%:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQW
VORSHVHURGHG
&:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQW
VORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG
.HQQHEHFVLOWORDP
7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
6RLO0DS²'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 55
'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
%²:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVHURGHG
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO I \N
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ $OODUHDVDUHSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
:DGHQDHURGHGDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRI
WKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI:DGHQD(URGHG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP 2XWZDVKSODLQV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO %DFNVORSH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO 2XWZDVK
7\SLFDOSURILOH
$SWR LQFKHV ORDP
%Z WRLQFKHV ORDP
&WRLQFKHV VDQG
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
'UDLQDJHFODVV :HOOGUDLQHG
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWRKLJK WR LQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
&DOFLXPFDUERQDWHPD[LPXPFRQWHQW SHUFHQW
$YDLODEOHZDWHUFDSDFLW\ 0RGHUDWH DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG H
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS %
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
)RUDJHVXLWDELOLW\JURXS 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG * ;101
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG
* ;101
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVHURGHG'DNRWD&RXQW\
0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 56
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
.HQQHEHF
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'DWD6RXUFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD 'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ-XQ
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVHURGHG'DNRWD&RXQW\
0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 57
'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
².HQQHEHFVLOWORDP
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO I [F
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ $OODUHDVDUHSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
.HQQHEHFDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRI
WKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI.HQQHEHF
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP 2XWZDVKSODLQV
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQFDYH
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO $OOXYLXP
7\SLFDOSURILOH
$S$$WRLQFKHV VLOWORDP
&WRLQFKHV VLOWORDP
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
'UDLQDJHFODVV 0RGHUDWHO\ZHOOGUDLQHG
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWRKLJK WR LQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH $ERXWLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
$YDLODEOHZDWHUFDSDFLW\ 9HU\KLJK DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS &
)RUDJHVXLWDELOLW\JURXS 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG *;101
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG$FLG
*;101
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ .HQQHEHFVLOWORDP'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 58
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'DWD6RXUFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD 'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ-XQ
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ .HQQHEHFVLOWORDP'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 59
'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
&²:DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\
HURGHG
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO ZG
(OHYDWLRQ WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ )DUPODQGRIVWDWHZLGHLPSRUWDQFH
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
:DGHQDPRGHUDWHO\HURGHGDQGVLPLODUVRLOV SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRI
WKHPDSXQLW
'HVFULSWLRQRI:DGHQD0RGHUDWHO\(URGHG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP 7HUUDFHVRXWZDVKSODLQV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO 6XPPLWVKRXOGHUEDFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO 7UHDGULVH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQYH[
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
3DUHQWPDWHULDO /RDP\JODFLRIOXYLDOGHSRVLWVRYHUVDQG\DQG
JUDYHOO\RXWZDVK
7\SLFDOSURILOH
$SWRLQFKHV ORDP
$WRLQFKHV ORDP
%ZWRLQFKHV ORDP
&WR LQFKHV JUDYHOO\ORDP\FRDUVHVDQG
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
'UDLQDJHFODVV :HOOGUDLQHG
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW 0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWRKLJK WRLQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH 0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ 1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ 1RQH
&DOFLXPFDUERQDWHPD[LPXPFRQWHQW SHUFHQW
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\ 1RQVDOLQHWRYHU\VOLJKWO\VDOLQH WR
PPKRVFP
$YDLODEOHZDWHUFDSDFLW\ 0RGHUDWH DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ LUULJDWHG 1RQHVSHFLILHG
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG'DNRWD
&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 60
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ QRQLUULJDWHG H
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS %
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
)RUDJHVXLWDELOLW\JURXS 6ORSLQJ8SODQG1HXWUDO *;601
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG1HXWUDO
*;601
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
(VWKHUYLOOH
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
/DQGIRUP 7HUUDFHVRXWZDVKSODLQV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO 6XPPLWVKRXOGHUEDFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO 7UHDGULVH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQYH[
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6DQG\ *;601
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'LFNLQVRQ
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW SHUFHQW
/DQGIRUP 2XWZDVKSODLQVWHUUDFHV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WZRGLPHQVLRQDO 6XPPLWVKRXOGHUEDFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO 7UHDGULVH
'RZQVORSHVKDSH &RQYH[
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH /LQHDU
(FRORJLFDOVLWH 5;<016DQG\8SODQG3UDLULHV
2WKHUYHJHWDWLYHFODVVLILFDWLRQ 6ORSLQJ8SODQG1HXWUDO
*;601
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ 1R
'DWD6RXUFH,QIRUPDWLRQ
6RLO6XUYH\$UHD 'DNRWD&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ-XQ
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQ :DGHQDORDPWRSHUFHQWVORSHVPRGHUDWHO\HURGHG'DNRWD
&RXQW\0LQQHVRWD
1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
:HE6RLO6XUYH\
1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
3DJHRI
PC Packet Page # 61
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
September 11, 2020
Mr. Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mr. Vinh Truong - 1217 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118– Drainage Calculations
Job No. 2020.027
Dear Mr. McNeill,
Please find the attached revised Drainage Summary.
1) Peak storm water runoff rates may not exceed existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year, & 100-year storm events, see
HydroCAD TR-20.
Table I Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the Northeast
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.04
0.19
0.85
EXISTING PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.05
0.25
1.09
DIFERENCE
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
Table II Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the Northeast
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED RUNOFF
VOLIME (AF)
0.007
0.025
0.090
EXISTING RUNOFF
VOLUME (AF)
0.010
0.035
`
0.127
DIFERENCE
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
LESS THAN EXISTING
PC Packet Page # 62
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Land Surveying, Civil and Geotechnical Engineering
1200 CENTRE POINTE CURVE STE 375, ST. PAUL MN 55120
PHONE: 651-776-6211 EXT 222 / FAX: 651-776-6711
JONFARACI@HOTMAIL.COM
Table III Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the South
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.34
0.70
1.65
EXISTING PEAK
RUNOFF (CFS)
0.02
0.13
0.57
DIFERENCE
MORE THAN EXISTING,
AS PER CITY ENGINEER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
SIZED TO HANDLE
INCREASE.
MORE THAN EXISTING,
AS PER CITY ENGINEER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
SIZED TO HANDLE INCREASE.
MORE THAN EXISTING,
AS PER CITY ENGINEER
EXISTING STORM SEWER
SIZED TO HANDLE INCREASE.
Table IV Summary of HydroCAD TR-20 Drainage Calculations to the South
2-YR 24 HR STORM
10-YR 24 HR STORM
100-YR 24 HR STORM
PROPOSED RUNOFF
VOLIME (AF)
0.026
0.053
0.126
EXISTING RUNOFF
VOLUME (AF)
0.002
0.009
`
0.031
ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
Respectfully submitted,
LAKE & LAND SURVEYING, INC.
Jonathan L. Faraci, P.E.
Minnesota Registration 16464
PC Packet Page # 63
PC Packet Page # 64
PC Packet Page # 65
9/10/2020 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=44.8847&lon=-93.1540&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/2
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA*
Latitude: 44.8847°, Longitude: -93.154°
Elevation: 910.51 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, DaleUnruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin
NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1
Duration Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.355
(0.295‑0.435)
0.421
(0.349‑0.516)
0.533
(0.441‑0.656)
0.632
(0.518‑0.781)
0.774
(0.612‑0.999)
0.889
(0.683‑1.16)
1.01
(0.743‑1.36)
1.14
(0.796‑1.57)
1.31
(0.877‑1.87)
1.45
(0.938‑2.10)
10-min 0.520
(0.432‑0.638)
0.616
(0.511‑0.756)
0.781
(0.645‑0.961)
0.925
(0.759‑1.14)
1.13
(0.896‑1.46)
1.30
(0.999‑1.70)
1.48
(1.09‑1.99)
1.66
(1.17‑2.30)
1.92
(1.28‑2.74)
2.12
(1.37‑3.07)
15-min 0.634
(0.527‑0.777)
0.752
(0.624‑0.922)
0.953
(0.787‑1.17)
1.13
(0.925‑1.39)
1.38
(1.09‑1.78)
1.59
(1.22‑2.08)
1.80
(1.33‑2.42)
2.03
(1.42‑2.81)
2.34
(1.57‑3.34)
2.59
(1.68‑3.74)
30-min 0.885
(0.735‑1.09)
1.06
(0.876‑1.30)
1.35
(1.12‑1.66)
1.61
(1.32‑1.98)
1.97
(1.56‑2.55)
2.27
(1.75‑2.98)
2.59
(1.90‑3.48)
2.92
(2.04‑4.04)
3.37
(2.25‑4.81)
3.73
(2.42‑5.39)
60-min 1.16
(0.960‑1.42)
1.37
(1.14‑1.68)
1.76
(1.46‑2.17)
2.12
(1.74‑2.62)
2.67
(2.13‑3.49)
3.14
(2.42‑4.14)
3.65
(2.70‑4.94)
4.20
(2.95‑5.85)
4.98
(3.34‑7.15)
5.62
(3.64‑8.13)
2-hr 1.43
(1.19‑1.73)
1.69
(1.41‑2.05)
2.17
(1.81‑2.65)
2.64
(2.18‑3.24)
3.37
(2.72‑4.40)
4.01
(3.12‑5.27)
4.71
(3.51‑6.35)
5.48
(3.89‑7.60)
6.60
(4.47‑9.41)
7.52
(4.91‑10.8)
3-hr 1.60
(1.34‑1.93)
1.88
(1.57‑2.27)
2.42
(2.02‑2.94)
2.96
(2.46‑3.61)
3.83
(3.12‑5.01)
4.61
(3.62‑6.07)
5.47
(4.11‑7.39)
6.44
(4.61‑8.94)
7.87
(5.36‑11.2)
9.05
(5.94‑12.9)
6-hr 1.88
(1.59‑2.26)
2.19
(1.85‑2.63)
2.82
(2.37‑3.39)
3.46
(2.89‑4.18)
4.51
(3.71‑5.88)
5.47
(4.33‑7.16)
6.54
(4.96‑8.79)
7.76
(5.60‑10.7)
9.56
(6.58‑13.5)
11.1
(7.32‑15.7)
12-hr 2.12
(1.81‑2.53)
2.49
(2.12‑2.97)
3.21
(2.72‑3.83)
3.91
(3.28‑4.69)
5.02
(4.13‑6.44)
6.01
(4.78‑7.76)
7.10
(5.41‑9.40)
8.31
(6.03‑11.3)
10.1
(6.99‑14.1)
11.6
(7.71‑16.3)
24-hr 2.46
(2.11‑2.90)
2.81
(2.40‑3.32)
3.50
(2.99‑4.15)
4.20
(3.56‑5.00)
5.33
(4.43‑6.78)
6.34
(5.09‑8.13)
7.47
(5.75‑9.83)
8.74
(6.40‑11.8)
10.6
(7.42‑14.8)
12.2
(8.19‑17.0)
2-day 2.86
(2.47‑3.34)
3.18
(2.75‑3.73)
3.85
(3.31‑4.52)
4.54
(3.87‑5.35)
5.67
(4.75‑7.16)
6.69
(5.42‑8.52)
7.85
(6.09‑10.3)
9.16
(6.77‑12.3)
11.1
(7.83‑15.3)
12.7
(8.63‑17.6)
3-day 3.14
(2.72‑3.66)
3.46
(3.00‑4.03)
4.12
(3.56‑4.82)
4.81
(4.12‑5.64)
5.94
(5.00‑7.46)
6.98
(5.67‑8.83)
8.15
(6.35‑10.6)
9.47
(7.03‑12.7)
11.4
(8.11‑15.7)
13.1
(8.92‑18.0)
4-day 3.36
(2.92‑3.90)
3.70
(3.21‑4.30)
4.38
(3.79‑5.11)
5.08
(4.37‑5.95)
6.23
(5.25‑7.77)
7.26
(5.92‑9.15)
8.43
(6.59‑10.9)
9.75
(7.26‑13.0)
11.7
(8.32‑16.0)
13.3
(9.12‑18.3)
7-day 3.89
(3.40‑4.48)
4.33
(3.78‑4.99)
5.14
(4.47‑5.95)
5.91
(5.11‑6.87)
7.11
(5.99‑8.71)
8.15
(6.65‑10.1)
9.28
(7.27‑11.8)
10.5
(7.86‑13.8)
12.3
(8.80‑16.7)
13.8
(9.51‑18.8)
10-day 4.38
(3.84‑5.02)
4.90
(4.30‑5.63)
5.83
(5.09‑6.71)
6.67
(5.78‑7.71)
7.91
(6.65‑9.58)
8.95
(7.31‑11.0)
10.1
(7.90‑12.7)
11.2
(8.41‑14.6)
12.9
(9.25‑17.3)
14.3
(9.88‑19.4)
20-day 5.93
(5.24‑6.74)
6.63
(5.86‑7.55)
7.81
(6.87‑8.91)
8.79
(7.68‑10.1)
10.2
(8.56‑12.1)
11.2
(9.22‑13.6)
12.3
(9.72‑15.3)
13.4
(10.1‑17.2)
14.9
(10.8‑19.8)
16.1
(11.2‑21.7)
30-day 7.31
(6.49‑8.27)
8.16
(7.24‑9.24)
9.54
(8.43‑10.8)
10.7
(9.35‑12.2)
12.2
(10.2‑14.3)
13.3
(10.9‑15.9)
14.4
(11.4‑17.7)
15.5
(11.7‑19.7)
16.9
(12.2‑22.2)
18.0
(12.6‑24.1)
45-day 9.12
(8.14‑10.3)
10.2
(9.07‑11.5)
11.8
(10.5‑13.4)
13.2
(11.6‑14.9)
14.9
(12.5‑17.3)
16.1
(13.3‑19.1)
17.3
(13.7‑21.0)
18.4
(13.9‑23.1)
19.7
(14.3‑25.6)
20.6
(14.6‑27.5)
60-day 10.7
(9.58‑12.0)
12.0
(10.7‑13.4)
13.9
(12.4‑15.7)
15.4
(13.6‑17.4)
17.3
(14.6‑20.0)
18.6
(15.4‑22.0)
19.8
(15.8‑24.1)
21.0
(15.9‑26.2)
22.3
(16.2‑28.8)
23.1
(16.4‑30.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates(for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upperbounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
PC Packet Page # 66
9/10/2020 Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=44.8847&lon=-93.1540&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/2
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov
Disclaimer
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
PC Packet Page # 67
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: Proposed home construction at 1217 Victoria Curve.
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:04:46 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alan <olstein@comcast.net>
Date: August 13, 2020 at 8:56:50 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>
Subject: Proposed home construction at 1217 Victoria Curve.
Dear Mayor Garelock:
To: Mendota Heights City Council and Mayor Garlock
We live at 1954 Glenhill Road in Mendota Heights. We are writing you to express our
concerns and objections to the request for approval of a Critical Area Permit and
Conditional Use Permit for property located at 1217 Victoria Curve (the “Property”).
Our home is adjacent to the west of the Property, fronting on Glenhill Road. Because
of the 130- foot setback planned for this home, our neighborhood and our home will be
adversely impacted. The lengthy setback is entirely inconsistent with the character of
the neighborhood. All current homes have consistent set -backs ( ~ 50’ ) and we
believe this consistency should be continued with the home to be constructed on the
Property. As the attached diagram shows, the 130 -foot set back will affect our sight
line and greatly diminish the view we have enjoyed for the 20 years we have lived in
our home. Additionally, the wintertime will afford the residents a clear view of our
master and bath and bedroom.
We are also concerned about the drainage which will result from the 130 -foot setback.
The plan is for the area where the home is to be built to be raised to an elevation of 913
ft., so it will be higher than all of the lots adjacent to the Property. The back of our
house is at 908 ft. elevation, which is 5 feet below the elevation of the proposed house.
While there is a retaining wall proposed for the western periphery of the property the
wall does not extend the entire length of the yard and therefore drainage from the
northwest corner of the property will end up in both our yard and the yard of Kae
Lovaas. The height of the retaining wall is not specified in the site plan, which the
Critical Area Overlay rules require (12-3-5 C-l). We already have a drainage issue on
the area between our house and that of our neighbor, Kae Lovaas, at 1948 Glenhill
PC Packet Page # 68
Road. Kae and we jointly hired a grading expert to raise the grading in this area, but
the excess water buildup when it rains continues. The planned home on the Property
will only exacerbate this drainage problem.
Calvin Tran from Tempo Homes testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the
reason for the significant setback was because they wanted to save some trees.
However, the trees on the lot are largely cottonwood and Buckthorn shrubs, which are
not entirely desirable. Trees will have to be removed regardless of the location of the
home, because the Property is totally covered by trees and vegetation. It is possible
that more trees will have to be removed to make space for the lengthy driveway
resulting from the 130-foot setback than if the home was built within the 50-foot
setback for all adjacent homes. If this house were to comport with the setbacks of all
the houses in the neighborhood much of the vegetation could be spared and the
drainage problems would be alleviated because the house would be that much closer to
Victoria Curve.
We have been informed by Xcel Energy that because of the lengthy set back, they have
been asked to move the power line which would be affected by the planned home, to
follow along the property lines of the Bolin’s, us and Kae Lovaas. These new power
lines will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood and our property. This
significant change to the power lines would be entirely unnecessary if the house is
required to conform to the setback for all of the other homes in the neighborhood, since
the power line would have to be buried to accommodate the footprint of the house. In
addition to the objectionable esthetics of having a “wrap-around” overhead power line,
these overhead power lines would render the delivery of power to the surrounding
homes at greater risk during turbulent storms from straight line winds and downed
trees.
It should also be mentioned that Tempo Homes has made no efforts to discuss this
project with the adjacent homeowners. We were shocked to receive the notice of the
Planning Commission hearing two weeks before the hearing. We knew absolutely
nothing about this planned project. At the Planning Commission meeting, after hearing
from several neighbors, Mary Magnuson told Calvin Tran from Tempo Homes that he
should contact the neighbors to discuss their concerns. He has not done so. Further,
unable to find any contact information online about Calvin Tran or Tempo Homes, I
asked Tim Benetti for Mr. Tran’s contact information. I then sent Mr. Tran an e-mail
message stating that I would like to discuss our concerns with him. I received a
response that he was working with City officials. He had no interest in hearing our
concerns.
In addition, this project does not comply with the requirements for a Critical Area
Permit. For example:
1.Section 12-3-5 B. states that a written application for site plan approval must be
filed with the zoning administrator “containing evidence adequate to show that
the proposed use will conform with the standards set forth in this chapter.” It is
PC Packet Page # 69
our understanding that no such application has been filed.
2.Section 12-3-5 C. 2. lists the elements of a site plan which must be submitted.
The site plan we were provided by the City of Mendota Heights fails to include:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->•<!--[endif]-->A proposed drainage plan
of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume and at
what rate storm water will be conveyed from the site and setting
forth the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to
collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released
to stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity
of all structures to be constructed or exiting structures to be
utilized, including volume or holding ponds and design storms.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<!--[endif]-->Section 12-3-8 B. f: states that “
Construction of a single family dwelling on a lot approved by the city …. In no
case shall a dwelling be placed closer to the bluff line or normal high water
than the average setback of the structures on the immediately adjacent
lots.”
4.Section 12-3-16 states that when considering a proposal for a variance or other
applications within the Mississippi River corridor critical area, the planning
commission and city council must address a number of items in making their
decision. One of the items is “The compatibility of the proposed development
with uses on adjacent land.” (No. 10)
For all of the above reasons, we respectfully request that the City Council deny
approval of a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the Property as
presently planned.
PC Packet Page # 70
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: 1217 Victoria Curve Home Construction up for approval at next City Council Meeting
Date:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:15:13 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "egbolin@comcast.net" <egbolin@comcast.net>
Date: August 11, 2020 at 8:19:29 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>
Subject: 1217 Victoria Curve Home Construction up for approval at next City Council
Meeting
Mayor Garlock,
We live at 1215 Victoria Curve, next to the proposed house at 1217 Victoria Curve
which will come before the Council for permit approvals at next Tuesday's Council
Meeting.
While we look forward to having new neighbors, we have several concerns
regarding their plans. We respectfully request you to consider the concerns listed
below.
Water Flow/Drainage Issues:
The Site Plan contemplates adding 3 feet of fill in front of the house,
increasing the elevation from 910' to 913'. The corner of our house is 908'.
The build up creates a severe slope toward neighboring properties, including
ours, of approx. 33% to 35% from the edge of the built-up areas.
The elevation difference where the properties touch neighbors lot lines is
minimal. This increased elevation is at the center of the properties.
The Site Plan's water flow is designed to send the bulk of the drainage to
Victoria Curve, yet the home is set at the back of the lot.
In addition, the length of the driveway, plus the circular feature, results in a
greatly increased impervious area.
Our Soil has a very heavy clay content, which is not accurately reflected in
the State's overall soil mapping. This has created flooding in our basement in
the past (south side of house) and we have spent a considerable amount of
money berming and excavating/sealing some of our basement walls already.
To date we have not had that issue on our west side and do not wish to have
a problem there.
Sight Lines:
Currently there are only 6 homes on Victoria Curve, all with the same set
back from the street. 1217 will be the last site developed along Victoria
Curve. The proposed home is set substantially back from that line,
PC Packet Page # 71
obstructing the views of numerous neighbors' backyard space.
When we renovated our home, we built assuming an in-line home being
built on the vacant lot. But, we will now be looking directly at their home
and they will be looking into our sunroom and backyard patio. The
photo attached is from edge of our lot where their home will be placed.
We will have an opposite view of their home.
Not only will we feel like we are living in a 'fish bowl', but this will
negatively affect the value of our home.
The homes surrounding the remainder of the block (on either side of Glenhill,
Culligan, and Hunter) all have equivalent setbacks. 1217 would be the only
house among the immediate 24 homes that has a different setback. There
has been an orderly development up to this point. This will adversely affect
the character of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission, and we, were told the house could not be aligned
with the other homes due to the steep trajectory or slope of the driveway as it
would create a driveway too steep for city code.
We engaged counsel for advice (Taft law firm(fka Briggs & Morgan))
and they estimated the driveway could easily be developed to meet city
code with the house aligned with the other homes.
The Planning Commission, and we, were told the house drawings submitted
were flipped and that the garage would abut our yard. That, apparently, was
incorrect and the taller living space will look over our yard, thus increasing
privacy issues.
The Community Development Director told the Planning Commission, and us,
that it took some discussion to clarify the vague string rule with the City's
Attorney, but that it does not apply to homes moved back in lots, only those
moved forward. However, a reading of the rule would result in the house
being situated no greater than 1/3 of the lot depth. The plan currently shows
a 54% setback.
We would request a review of the placement of the proposed home and further
analysis of the drainage issues.
We hoped to discuss with the homeowner and contractor several ideas we have
regarding the soil drainage, the home's location, and privacy issues. However, our
current neighbors reached out to the contractor and were told (rather bluntly) that
they are following up with the Community Development Director and following city
and state guidelines to address any issues. They implied they did not want or need
to talk to us.
Because we have been unable to speak with the contractor or homeowner, we
reached our to Tim Benetti last week to request copies of all his correspondence,
meetings, phone conversations and emails related to the proposed construction.
We were hoping to look for their rationale for proceeding the way they are. We
have been told these are public records. Unfortunately we have not heard back
from Mr. Benetti, yet.
As of today, we discovered a new issue. Xcel indicated they are designing a
relocation of the above-ground power lines around the perimeter of the 1217 lot. It
currently bisects the lot with 123 linear feet. This new configuration will result in
369 linear feet (3 times the existing length) and will directly impact 3 adjacent lots
with overhead lines. We are just beginning to look into this, but additional overhead
lines bordering our lot is not advantageous.
PC Packet Page # 72
We welcome new neighbors and Mendota Heights' desire to support new
development. And, we have always appreciated the city's desire to make sure new
development did not adversely affect existing homes and neighborhoods.
Could we spend a few moments, at your convenience, to discuss this with you in
person before the Council Meeting on Tuesday? We will follow up in the next few
days .
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Edie & Greg Bolin
EGBolin@comcast.net
651-905-9318
PC Packet Page # 73
From:egbolin@comcast.net
To:Tim Benetti
Cc:Ryan Ruzek
Subject:Proposed Home at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 7:57:56 PM
Tim,
Please add this to the information the City Council will receive for their meeting next
week. We have reviewed the "Certificate of Survey" and the "Site & Grading Plan"
that you forwarded today and have additional comments.
During the Planning Commission meeting last night, several Commissioners
discussed the various elevations of the 1217 property. We do not read surveys on
even a limited basis, so we could not always follow along.
I spoke last night at the meeting and at the end of my time, Commissioner Magnuson
asked me the difference in elevation between my property and the 1217 property. I
responded that it was 1 or 2 feet. That is the present difference between the
properties.
What I did not realize, and what was not made clear at the meeting (at least to us), is
that the owner of the 1217 property will build up their lot an additional 3 feet in the
middle. It appears the top of their driveway and even the front steps of the proposed
house are at an elevation of 913.87.
The foundation of my house directly east of this area, is at an elevation of 908.28.
This is a difference of 5.59 feet lower, not 1 or 2 feet. Please note that we have a
basement under this part of the house and it has never flooded in 20+ years.
It also appears this decrease in elevation of 5.59 feet will occur over a distance of
approximately 30 feet. This seems rather drastic for a slope that is not there now and
will be man-made.
Furthermore, the water will run straight at our house with no diversion. That will
negatively impact our home.
Frankly, after reviewing the Site & Grading Plan, the build-up appears to flood our
entire yard all along the property line, not just by our home.
We request of the City Council that this item be tabled for further study.
Please call with any questions.
Greg & Edie Bolin
1215 Victoria Curve
651-247-9080
PC Packet Page # 74
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: Proposed House at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:05:25 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>
Date: August 13, 2020 at 4:46:46 PM CDT
To: "egbolin@comcast.net" <egbolin@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Proposed House at 1217 Victoria Curve
See you tomorrow after 1
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2020, at 2:34 PM, "egbolin@comcast.net"
<egbolin@comcast.net> wrote:
Mayor Neil Garlock,,
We are writing to follow up on our email sent on Tuesday.
Specifically, we would like to expand upon the first bullet points
under "Sight Lines" and the subsequent paragraph regarding
the Xcel power lines.
We described how all of the homes in the immediate
neighborhood along Victoria Curve, Hunter Lane, Glenhill
Road, and Culligan Lane all have equivalent setbacks. The lot
at 1217 is the very last undeveloped lot on our block. The
proposed house at 1217 would be the only home substantially
set back from one of those roads. The attached Exhibit A
shows the homes and the setbacks. As you can see, the red
lines show there is very little variation. The purple, cross-
hatched rectangle is the approximate location of the proposed
home at 1217.
Everyone's backyard presently forms an open green space.
The location of the proposed home is not a good fit for the
neighborhood since it will impact the open space. Additionally,
PC Packet Page # 75
the proposed location of 1217 directly and negatively affects
the overall character of the neighborhood, which is opposite of
the goals embedded in Mendota Heights' comprehensive plan.
The immediate neighborhood has had orderly development up
to this point. The above items contradict orderly development.
With respect to comments regarding the Xcel power lines, we
understand the owner/builder at 1217 is in discussion with Xcel
about relocating the power lines from bisecting the 1217 lot to
surrounding the lot on the north side. This is depicted on the
attached Exhibit B. Again, the purple, cross-hatched rectangle
is the approximate location of the proposed home at 1217.
The dashed purple line is the current power line. The dashed
green line is their proposed relocation of the lines.
The relocation of the power lines negatively affects the open
green space; is not a good fit for the neighborhood; negatively
affects the overall character of the neighborhood; and
contradicts orderly development.
Sorry to bother you with another email, but the exhibits
illustrate clearly what we tried to describe on Tuesday. (I
should have thought of it then.)
Thank you for your time.
Edie & Greg Bolin
<Exhibit A - Set Backs.jpeg>
<Exhibit B - Power Lines.jpeg>
PC Packet Page # 76
From:Mark&Julie Hunt
To:Tim Benetti;Mark McNeill;Ryan Ruzek;Liz Petschel;Jay Miller;Joel Paper;Ultan Duggan;Neil Garlock
Subject:Your vote deciding the 1217 Victoria Curve variance request
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 9:04:05 PM
Dear Mayor Garlock, Council Members and Mendota Heights Staff:
We would like to voice our concerns over the requests for variances from
the homeowner and contractor at 1217 Victoria Curve. Though we welcome them in
our neighborhood and look forward to meeting them when their house is
complete,we oppose their plan that only benefits their desire to be further away
from a busy highway (understand that), but negatively impacts the existing
neighborhood homes, and fails to meet the standards created in the Comprehensive
Plan put forth by the City.
What we see when we look at this plan and the reason for denial:
1) It appears the surrounding neighbors will be unnecessarily dealing with the
hardship and costs that will occur because the drainage into their backyards was not
addressed adequately. The elevation change in the home to give them a walkout,
setting back the house further away from the designed sewer drainage infrastructure
already in place along Victoria Curve, seems to indicate there will be future problems
for the existing neighbors to deal with. The Contractor's water drainage map at the
Planning Commission meeting on July 28th, showed this very thing yet he had no
plan in place that we are aware of that would address this issue to the west except
possible landscaping remedies, and try to find a solution to the neighbors' valid issues
and concerns. As you are aware, the residents along the east side of Glenhill Road
have incurred great expense to mitigate the water issues surrounding their homes.
2) I am sure that the Comprehensive Plan that focuses on things like a good fit
for the neighborhood, character of the neighborhood, orderly development and
maintaining green space was well thought out and created to hold developers to a
standard that the City wants to maintain. The variance requests do not honor this plan
and its intentions.
We hope that the homeowner/contractor and the surrounding neighbors can come to
an agreement on a plan that pleases all.
We ask the council to deny this petition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mark and Julie Hunt
1224 Culligan Lane
PC Packet Page # 77
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: proposed home at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Sunday, August 16, 2020 3:58:03 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: kimberly prehatney <kprehatney@comcast.net>
Date: August 16, 2020 at 1:34:12 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>, Ultan Duggan
<duggan.ultan@gmail.com>, Jay Miller <jaym@mendota-heights.com>, Joel
Paper <joelp@mendota-heights.com>, Liz Petschel <lizpetschel@gmail.com>
Subject: proposed home at 1217 Victoria Curve
Am asking reconsideration in the positioning of the proposed home at
address 1217 Victoria Curve.
Thank you
Kim Prehatney
1181 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PC Packet Page # 78
From:Kae Lovaas
To:Neil Garlock
Cc:Tim Benetti;Ryan Ruzek
Subject:1217 Victoria Curve - Permit Hearing at 8/18/2020 City Council Meeting
Date:Friday, August 14, 2020 11:40:46 AM
Mayor Garlock,
My name is Kae Lovaas Jewell and I live at 1948 Glenhill Road. I have lived in this home for 20 years
and love Mendota Heights and our neighborhood. I would like to comment on the proposed critical
area and conditional use permits for the property at 1217 Victoria Curve. Approximately the back
1/3 of my southern lot line abuts the back (north) lot line of the proposed home that will front onto
Victoria Curve. It is exciting to have a new home and new family move into our neighborhood. We
have so few vacant lots that this is a rare opportunity to welcome new neighbors. I know they will
love the community as much as I do.
Even though I welcome the new home and family, I have three concerns about the proposed home
plan. I would like to share my concerns with you so that as you review the request for the critical
area and conditional use permits you bear in mind my concerns.
Drainage
•Pooling of water has been an ongoing issue on my lot. I currently have a large drain on the
south side of my lot. The city drainage plan has the two homes north of me draining through
my yard from north to south. I needed to put in this large drain to move as much of that
water off my land as quickly as possible. In a heavy rain, it looks like I have a river running
from north to south across my lot and behind my house. I have also had pooling issues on
the south side of my home, between my home and the Olstein/Karasov home at 1954
Glenhill Rd. Together we have had to regrade that area and remove a tree with the goal of
minimizing the pooling. That being said, it is still an issue in heavy rain and during winter
snow melt.
•The proposed new home at 1217 Victoria Curve is plotted to sit on the back 1/3 of the lot.
It is also planned as a flat roof structure. There is a plan for some water to drain off of the
back of the Victoria Curve lot and onto my lot. I know that I already have drainage from that
lot but I believe it will be exacerbated by the removal of trees that will be required for
building the new structure.
Sight Line
•Positioning the proposed house so far back on the lot is going to create very odd sight lines
for the neighborhood. The Bolin family live at 1215 Victoria, immediately to the east of the
property being discussed. With the proposed positioning of the new home, they will sit in
their backyard and look at the front of the new home. The Olstein/Karasov home, that faces
onto Glenhill Road, will now look out their backyard at the west side of the new home. One
of the things to remember is that this area is primarily covered with deciduous trees. During
the winter I can see all the way to the back of my lot and through my woods to Hunter Lane.
So what you are looking at during the summer is not what we will see during the winter
months.
PC Packet Page # 79
•In addition to how the positioning of the house impacts the immediate neighbors, I am
equally concerned about the overall appearance of the neighborhood. I feel it is important
to maintain the character of the neighborhood. The proposed positioning is not in character
with this block or the surrounding blocks.
Electric Poles and Lines
•It is my understanding that the new home owner is requesting Xcel Energy reroute the
current overhead power line in what is called a wrap-around. This would require two to
three times the amount of power line for the lot and two new power poles. One
new power pole would be near the SE corner of my lot and the second would be near my lot
line where I connect with the NW corner of the lot under discussion.
•It appears that the new poles will require the removal of some trees and the trimming of
existing trees along the lot line. I leave my forest wild but I do work to maintain the trees. In
spite of that, I have had a tree fall on my cyclone fence that is along the lot line adjoining
1217 Victoria Curve. In the future, that could be a tree falling on the power line. I also know
from experience that once you start removing trees and exposing parts of the forest that
were previously protected by other trees, you are likely to have the new front line of trees at
risk of uprooting.
•Earlier I mentioned the fact that during the winter there is significantly more visibility in my
woods. I currently have underground power and do not have to look at power lines or
poles. It would be less than desirable to now have electric lines and poles at the back of my
lot.
In Conclusion
1. I’m pleased that the vacant lot will now be built on and I welcome our new neighbors.
2.It appears to me that the homeowner’s desire for a walkout home has required the
placement of the home in a difficult position on the lot and the need to increase the
elevation of the lot. If the home were moved forward and in alignment with the other
homes on the block the drainage concerns would be minimized, sight lines would not be an
issue and the power would not need to be changed. The home would now be conforming
to the neighborhood and would carry out the character of the neighborhood.
If you question the ponding issue on my property, I invite you to my backyard where you can see
the elevation of the neighboring property relative to the storm water drainage grate on my
property. I would love to show you my concerns. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I respectfully encourage you to require the homeowner to position the home in alignment with the
other homes on the block and in the neighborhood, to not add additional power lines and poles and
to manage the run-off from the property so as not to add to the current ponding problems.
Thank you,
Kae Lovaas Jewell
PC Packet Page # 80
From:Burow, Lynn
To:Ultan Duggan;Joel Paper;Liz Petschel;Jay Miller;Neil Garlock
Cc:Tim Benetti;Ryan Ruzek
Subject:1217 Victoria Curve home development
Date:Saturday, September 12, 2020 10:27:29 AM
Mayor Garlock and Council Members:
Thank you for the telephone chats regarding the above home addition. After talking with
most of you, the one thing I kept hearing from some of you is the open green space for my
neighbors. Edie and Greg Boilin have an acre of land which gives them three quarters of an
acre directly behind them (not including the neighbor's yard behind them too) and peripheral
green space on both sides. Alan and Phyllis have their lot and now the new neighbor's lot and
open greenery on both sides and I have my driveway and the new neighbor's proposed
house.
Just makes me wonder if any of you even took my lot into consideration on the open green
space concept.
I am requesting that the new house be situated as far back on the lot as my neighbors will
allow the city and the new property owner.
I would appreciate that I don't get all the headlight action either from the proposed new
driveway concept.
Thanks.
Lynn Burow
1219 Victoria Curve
PS: Keep me apprised of any new developments.
PC Packet Page # 81
From:Jane McKay
To:Neil Garlock;Ultan Duggan;Jay Miller;Joel Paper
Cc:Tim Benetti;Ryan Ruzek
Subject:1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Saturday, August 15, 2020 6:05:57 PM
Dear Mendota Heights Mayor and the City Council of Mendota Heights,
I am Jane McKay, a 32 year resident at 1949 Glenhill Road. I am anxious to have the lot at 1217 Victoria Curve
developed. I am hoping the new residents maintain the right away and in so doing, improve on the visibility as we
turn left off of Glenhill Road.
However, I am concerned about the elevation of what appears to be their flat roof home and the drainage of home
and lot to an already problem area. The home at 1948 Glenhill has a large drainage grate in their yard to accept the
flow of water from the homes to the North. Grading and retaining walls have been added to the property to help the
flow of water. The flow from 1217 Victoria can easily be rerouted to Victoria Curve with better planning and
grading by the developer. Please take a closer look.
Thank you for the work you do to protect the distinct characteristics of our neighborhood.
Regards,
Jane McKay
Sent from my iPad
PC Packet Page # 82
From:Neil Garlock
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Fwd: House at 1217 Victoria Curve
Date:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:08:01 AM
Attachments:overhead block view.pdf
ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joel Whitcomb <whitcombathome@comcast.net>
Date: August 16, 2020 at 11:20:02 PM CDT
To: Neil Garlock <neilg@mendota-heights.com>, Ultan Duggan
<duggan.ultan@gmail.com>, Jay Miller <jaym@mendota-heights.com>, Joel
Paper <joelp@mendota-heights.com>, Liz Petschel <lizpetschel@gmail.com>
Subject: House at 1217 Victoria Curve
We are writing to voice our concerns with the currently
submitted building plans at 1217 Victoria Curve. We live at
1200 Culligan Lane, behind the proposed building site and one
lot to the east.
Our concern stems from the proposed building site for the
house. The location is much further back than the other
houses in the neighborhood and on this block. All of the
houses on the block currently have very similar setbacks from
the street leading to a uniform and more appealing appearance
both from the street and from the backyards and more privacy
in the backyards. The proposed building site will place this
house significantly out of line with the other houses on the
street and thus push it further back leading to a much shorter
back yard. This will make the house much more visible and
cut down on privacy for the neighbors.
Currently the houses have deep back yards leading to a nice
open area with some level of privacy and a more natural
feeling setting.
These deep back yards are also a natural wildlife pathway for
several different animals that would be adversely affected by
the deeper setback. Wildlife currently travel through the back
yards as they travel between the swampy wooded area next to
city hall and the wooded area along the bluff over the city of
Mendota and down to the river bottoms.
We want to make it clear we are not against anyone building
PC Packet Page # 83
on the lot or the house itself. Our opposition is the placement
of the house on the lot.
Thank you
Joel and Martha Whitcomb
PC Packet Page # 84
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 11
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 28, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 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 Patrick
Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners John
Mazzitello and Brian Petschel.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 23, 2020 Minutes
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2020
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-14
TEMPO HOMES AND VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE – CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran with Tempo Homes,
as the applicant acting on behalf of Vinh Truong, is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a
new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. City Code
Section 12-305 requires a critical area permit (CAP) for all major development activities requiring
a building permit or special zoning approval in this overlay district. The applicants also seek a
conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an oversized attached garage up to 1,475 square feet in
size.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; comments
received were included in the packet.
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).
PC Packet Page # 85
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 11
Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions.
Commissioner Corbett asked for details on ordinances dictating the position of the home on the
lot. He asked if the string method of determining setbacks was used, or whether it should be used.
He also asked if the adjacent homes are in compliance with the right-of-way setbacks.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff and legal counsel came to the
conclusion that the string yard rule applies to the minimum front yard setback rule and provided
background information on that rule.
Commissioner Corbett stated that it would then appear there is no intent in the string method to
align home placement and is strictly a minimum front yard setback.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that only establishes a minimum front
yard setback. He explained that a home could be placed further back on the lot, as long as the
other required setbacks are met.
Calvin Tran, Tempo Homes, representing the applicant, provided information on the owner of the
property, who works at the VA and chose this home selection because it was close to his work.
He also provided background information on himself and his past ten years of experience. He
stated that they have taken the issues of erosion and drainage, which he believes are addressed by
their plan. He stated that the design of the home is more modern, as he builds modern custom
homes. He stated that all the concerns of the neighbors have been taken into consideration. He
stated that they revised the drainage plan to address the issues of the neighbor, directing the water
away from adjacent lots and instead to Victoria Curve.
Commissioner Katz asked for details on the choice to place the home so far back on the lot.
Mr. Tran stated that they chose the back placement in order to minimize the impact of tree removal.
He noted that the driveway was also a concern, noting that the closer to Victoria Curve, the harder
it would be to meet the slope requirements because of the topography of the hill.
Commissioner Katz stated that it would appear that they are placing the home further back and at
the highest spot, therefore his concern would be for two of the neighbors who would have a house
sitting in an area that was their backyard or side yard. He stated that he would want to see a plan
in place to create a natural border to minimize that impacts to neighbors. He asked if any of the
grading would have to be changed on the property.
Mr. Tran stated that if they choose another location for the home, they will have to remove more
trees. He stated that he has a background in landscaping, and they have revised their erosion and
grading plan to drain the water out towards the street rather than to the adjacent neighbors.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, stated that he andhis neighbors have concerns with the drainage
from this site. He stated that the applicant has stated that his plan has been modified to address
PC Packet Page # 86
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 11
some of the drainage concerns brought forward in previous conversations. He stated that if you
follow the arrows where water is going to flow, it goes into three of the adjacent neighboring lots.
He stated that they would like to know about the measures being contemplated to resolve this
drainage problem. He stated that a number of the neighbors have questions the choice of home
placement for the lot, considering the added distance between the roof and Victoria Curve, which
is where the water is supposed to go. He explained that additional front setback would only
increase the distance the water needs to travel.
Chair Magnuson asked if Mr. Olstein has had an opportunity to speak with the builder.
Mr. Olstein replied that they have not met with the builder and the first they heard of this request
was the notice from the City the previous week.
Greg Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that he sent an email with photographs to staff last Friday.
He noted that his first concern is with the drainage for the site. He stated that the arrows on the
plan show water going right to his home/basement. He noted that he has been told that a swale is
included and wanted to ensure that would be provided to protect his home. He stated that in
reviewing the grading contours, many of the lines come close to mature trees on his property and
into some of his landscaping. He wanted to ensure that grading would be staked in order to prevent
damage to mature trees and landscaping. He stated that his final concern is with the home
placement. He noted that all of the homes were placed in a manner that each looks out into the
backyards of other, whereas the placement of this home would be in the middle of everyone’s line
of sight.
Chair Magnuson asked for details related to the elevation of the subject property compared to the
Bolin property.
Mr. Bolin replied that the subject property is about two feet higher than his property.
Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, and property owner to the west, stated that her concern is with
the drainage. She stated that she does not want the water to go into her garage. She stated that she
does not mind the placement of the home as it is less impactful to her home and the trees would
remain.
Commissioner Katz asked if the resident has a problem with drainage currently.
Ms. Burow commented that sometimes the garage is wet after a large amount of snow melts. She
stated that she would not be concerned with the addition of the homes, as long as there is not
disturbance within 20 feet of her garage as she did not believe that would impact her home at that
point. She stated that if most of the drainage goes to the street, she believed there would not be an
additional issue.
Commissioner Katz asked if the resident has spoken with Tempo Homes.
Ms. Burow commented that she has not.
PC Packet Page # 87
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 11
Commissioner Katz asked if the retaining wall between the resident garage and the property line
is existing.
Ms. Burow stated that she has a hand-built boulder wall that is not technically a retaining wall.
Commissioner Toth asked the type of soil on the subject site.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that a soil survey has not been submitted. He
commented that staff would not be concerned about a wetland type soil, it would be a more stable
soil.
Commissioner Toth commented that if the type of soil were known, that would help to determine
the impact. He stated that it would also be helpful to know the elevation of the footings of the
homes to the east and west compared to what is being built. He reviewed some of those elevations
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided details on the elevations of the proposed home.
Mr. Tran commented that the elevation of the proposed home on its east side is very similar to the
elevation of the home to the east.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WITH WOULD ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED
ATTACHED GARAGE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE
WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENT MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO
AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
3. 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.
4. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO
THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING
PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE
PC Packet Page # 88
July 28, 2020 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 11
(MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FOR EVERGREENS)
FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME
PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW
TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST.
5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.
WEEKENDS.
6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
Further discussion:
Commissioner Field noted that many of the concerns expressed will be addressed throughout the
City review process.
Chair Magnuson encouraged the builder to make themselves available to the neighbors to hear
their concerns related to drainage.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2020
meeting.
PC Packet Page # 89