2021-08-24 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 AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2021 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Approve the August 9, 2021 Special Meeting minutes
3. Public Hearings
a. CASE No. 2021-12: Conditional Use Permit Amending The Plaza of Mendota
Heights Planned Unit Development & Wetland Permit to allow a new 58-Unit apartment
development on Lot 1, Block 1 Mendota Plaza Expansion 2nd Addition (At Home
Apartments – Applicant / Mendota Mall Associates LLC - Owners)
b. CASE No. 2021-13: Conditional Use Permit Amending The Plaza of Mendota
Heights Planned Unit Development to allow a new 89-Unit apartment development on
Lot 7, Block 1 Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition (At Home Apartments – Applicant /
Mendota Mall Associates LLC - Owners)
c. CASE No. 2021-15: Variance to allow for an expansion of a legal, non-conforming
residential dwelling in the R-1 District for the property located at 684 – 3rd Avenue
(Zach Robinson – Owner / Applicant)
4. New / Unfinished Business
5. Adjourn Meeting
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 2021
The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, August
9, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett,
Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner
Brian Petschel.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of July 27, 2021 Minutes
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2021.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE FOUR,
FIFTH PARAGRAPH, REVISE “SIBLEY MEMORIAL” TO “…XCEL’S SIBLEY GAS
PLANT SITE OFF HIGHWAY 13…” AND ON PAGE SIX, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH,
SHOULD BE REVISED “…IF ANY MUD WERE DRUG TRACKED ONTO THE STREET…”
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2021-10
GERALD ZIEBOL, 650 BROOKSIDE LANE – VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
Chair Field stated that this is a continuation of the previous meeting. He asked if there is any
additional public comment.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the item would need to be formally reopened through motion
because it was tabled.
Chair Field stated that in the past he has handled it in a different manner but would be happy to
entertain a motion.
PACKET PG. # 1
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 10
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Gerald and Yelena Ziebol,
owners, and residents of 650 Brookside Lane, are requesting a variance to expand an existing legal,
nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a
covered porch in the FY setback area. This planning case is actually a partial continuation of an
original variance requested by the Ziebol’s in July 2018.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site and the
applicant provided a list of neighbors in support of his request; 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.
Chair Field invited the applicant to make any comments they may have.
Gerald Ziebol, applicant, stated that the staff recommendation looks straightforward. He
referenced the first condition and asked if the designer were to make subtle changes to the look of
the building.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the plans submitted should be followed
as close as possible. He stated that if there are changes, they can be submitted to staff but if there
are substantiative changes or changes to the footprint, that would come back to the Commission.
Chair Field welcomed any additional comments from the public.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Johnson stated that she has reviewed the information within the packet and watched
the last meeting as she was unable to attend. She commented that she was pleased to see the
PACKET PG. # 2
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 10
setbacks along the road were not reduced and the new addition should not impact any neighboring
properties.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS TO SUPPORT THE RANTING OF SAID VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GERALD ZIEBOL OF 650 BROOKSIDE LANE, WITH
THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN.
1. THE NEW ADDITION MUST MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND
DESIGNS PRESENTED IN THIS VARIANCE REQUEST ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
2. THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND ALL OTHER RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE CITY CODE AND STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE
STANDARDS.
3. THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO ANY
EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ADDITION AND/OR PORCH
IMPROVEMENT.
4. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES
WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
5. APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT UPON CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION AND CORRESPONDING SITE PLAN. IF THE
VARIANCE IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT SHALL
OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED
ADDITION WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM SAID APPROVAL DATE.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 17, 2021
meeting.
PACKET PG. # 3
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10
B) PLANNING CASE 2021-11
XCEL ENERGY/CATHOLIC CEMETERIES, 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE S –
INTERIM USE PERMIT
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim
Use Permit (IUP) to allow for a temporary outdoor staging and laydown yard, located at the
southeast corner of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. Xcel plans to use this
outdoor staging area for the outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and
employee/company vehicle parking.
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 Lorberbaum stated that the applicant must provide financial surety but that has not
been done as of yet and asked if the application would be considered incomplete.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the other IUP’s that were
approved by the City did not require payment of surety and provided additional details noting that
Xcel was not required to provide surety through its last IUP. He stated that staff has not negotiated
that, and the amount would be determined by the City Administrator if needed. He stated that is
an open-ended requirement, but he could not find any precedent value or time the City has set that.
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it is a requirement and therefore it should be included.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it is part of a condition, and the
Commission could choose to set an amount.
Commissioner Corbett asked if it is required through a condition or as part of the process.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it is required as part of the process,
but the amount is not stipulated, and the City has never charged it.
Commissioner Corbett noted that a value of zero could be set.
PACKET PG. # 4
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 10
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that perhaps the condition states that an amount shall be agreed
upon between now and the Council meeting.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the issue of screening and asked what the requirements would
be for standard outdoor storage.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that screening is required from residential
areas.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he would recommend that screening as this location is across
from a dense residential neighborhood.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that Xcel has agreed to that condition.
Commissioner Toth asked if this would be screened on all four sides or only the Lexington side.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he does not believe the public
works facility site would require screening but would suggest screening on Lexington and the north
side.
Chair Field invited the applicant to provide comments.
Jake Sedlacek, applicant, stated that these types of projects are not done very often. He stated that
the structures in place now are original to the metro area and the new structures would have an
even longer lifespan. He stated that this location is ideal for the Xcel project, and this will be a
temporary use. He stated that they are open to the screening discussed in addition to the vegetation
that exists. He noted that they typically do not use screening because visibility often brings about
questions about the project and reliability along with security to ensure no one is in the area. He
displayed some photographs of the site from adjacent sites showing the vegetative screening that
already exists. He stated that they are open to suggestions related to financial surety, noting that
typically that is done through staff after approval.
Chair Field referenced the work that was done at the gas plant on Highway 13, where the laydown
of materials was done along the road, noting that there was not a residential area adjacent to that
site.
Mr. Sedlacek confirmed that is a high traffic area.
Commissioner Toth stated that he walked the trail and noticed a series of mats laid down on the
trail up to the substation and asked if construction equipment would use that access.
Mr. Sedlacek confirmed that they would use that area to access the substation. He stated that the
matting will help to protect the trails and they will still ensure that the existing condition of trails
are restored if damage occurs. He stated that the towers would be accessed by trails as well as
they felt that using the transmission corridor would be more disruptive to vegetation.
PACKET PG. # 5
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10
Commissioner Toth commented that he appreciates the proactive measures to ensure residents will
be aware of the trail use.
Commissioner Johnson asked the type of pole that would be installed.
Mr. Sedlacek stated that they would be single monopoles and provided additional details.
Commissioner Johnson stated that MnDOT has priority prevention for preventing the spread of
invasive species through equipment and asked if Xcel has a similar protocol to reduce the spread
of invasive species.
Mr. Sedlacek stated that he is unsure of the answer. He noted that in Mendota Heights they are
working on pollinator friendly habitat and restoring natural habitat. He noted that he would follow
up on the protocols that Xcel follows.
Chair Field welcomed additional comments from the public.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST BASED ON
THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT THAT THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY STORAGE YARD FOR
XCEL ENERGY AND THEIR PROPOSED ELECTRICAL LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
COMPLIES WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. THE INTERIM USE PLAN (IUP) SHALL TERMINATE BY DECEMBER 31, 2021.
ANY EXTENSION OF THIS IUP MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE
AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
2. THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY A FINANCIAL SURETY IN AN AMOUNT
NEGOTIATED BETWEEN XCEL AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, TO COVER
THE COST OF REMOVING ALL TEMPORARY TRAILERS, VEHICLES,
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL USED UNDER THE IUP, AND TO ENSURE THE
SUBJECT SITE IS COMPLETELY RESTORED AND RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL
CONDITION.
3. NO HAZARDOUS, CAUSTIC, OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED
ON THE OUTDOOR AREA; WITH NO REFUSE, GARBAGE OR SCRAPPED (JUNK)
PACKET PG. # 6
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 10
MATERIALS STORED ON THE SITE. ALL ELECTRICAL POLES AND RELATED
MATERIAL SHALL BE STACKED OR STORED NEATLY AND STORED AS FAR
AWAY FROM LEXINGTON AVENUE AS POSSIBLE.
4. THE APPLICANT (XCEL ENERGY AND/OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES) WILL ENSURE
THE JOB TRAILER IS SECURED AND WELL MAINTAINED; AND THE STORAGE
SPACE AREA IS KEPT CLEAN OF TRASH AND DEBRIS, FREE OF WEEDS, AND
WELL MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PERMIT TERM.
5. ANY EXISTING OR ADDITIONAL LIGHTING (IF PROVIDED), SHALL BE
TEMPORARY ONLY, WITH DOWNCAST, SHIELDED LIGHT HEADS, AND ALL
LIGHTING DIRECTED AWAY FROM ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
6. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR MOVING EQUIPMENT IN AND OUT OF THE SITE
SHALL BE LIMITED BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 7:00 P.M., MONDAY THRU
FRIDAY, WITH ALLOWANCE OF 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON SATURDAY ONLY.
ANY EXPANDED HOURS, INCLUDING SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY HOURS MUST
BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
7. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS
ESTABLISHED UNDER 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES AND THE CONDITIONS
APPROVED HEREWITH AND SHALL BE PERIODICALLY REVIEWED TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES AND POLICIES AND, IF
NECESSARY, AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.
8. A SCREENING FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDES OF
THE STORAGE LAYDOWN AREA.
9. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK TOWARDS ESTABLISHING A COME CLEAN,
LEAVE CLEAN PROTOCOL RELATED TO INVASIVE SPECIES AND WILL
DECLARE AND RESPOND TO COUNCIL AND STAFF AS NEEDED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RYAN RUZEK PROVIDED
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION ON WHAT XCEL HAS PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT,
INCLUDING A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT AS MUCH AS COMMENTS MAY WANT TO BE PROVIDED
ON THE OVERALL PROJECT, THIS ACTION ONLY APPLIES TO THE LAYDOWN YARD
WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF EXPOSURE TO THE REST OF THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE. HE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE CONCERN BUT
THIS IS A LAYDOWN YARD AND NOT A CONSTRUCTION SITE.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT BASED ON THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE,
IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE AMENABLE TO THE CONDITION.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 17, 2021
meeting.
PACKET PG. # 7
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10
C) PLANNING CASE 2021-14
JAMIE L. ANDERSON, 1892 AND 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE – LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jamie Anderson, in cooperation
with Ms. Josephine Bahl, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between two
properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights 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 Johnson asked if landscape pins would be installed at the new boundaries.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that typically there would be a new pin up
at each point to decide where the boundary begins and ends as part of the survey.
Chair Field noted that would be the role of the surveyor and would not be a condition.
Commissioner Katz stated that recently the issue of structures on sites was reviewed based on the
overall amount of acreage. He asked if changing the lot size would impact what could be built.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the added size would not put the lot
over five acres.
Chair Field invited the applicant to provide input.
Josephine Bahl stated that she is fully supportive of this application as it would provide an easier
path for the Andersons to get to the back of their property for mowing and is a portion of her
property that she was not using.
Chair Field invited members of the public to provide input.
PACKET PG. # 8
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10
Tim Murphy, 1916 Hunter, stated that he was curious as to what the point of this split would be
but now understands it would provide access to the back portion of the property. He asked if this
would provide access for foot traffic or vehicle traffic.
Ms. Bahl replied that it would be for foot traffic and would provide access to the Anderson to plant
trees on the back portion of their lot.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON FINDINGS OF
FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. APPLICANT SHALL FILE LOT/PARCEL COMBINATION DOCUMENTS WITH
DAKOTA COUNTY INDICATING THE NEW PARCEL CREATED BY THIS LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE ADDED TO OR COMBINED WITH 1892
ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE, PARCEL ID NUMBER 27-7540-001-110.
2. ALL TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE PORTION OF
LANDS UNDER THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT PROCESS SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY.
3. DUE TO A MAJORITY OF THIS PARCEL SITUATED IN A DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT, NO PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS (INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, GRADING/FILLING WORK, LANDSCAPING, RETAINING WALLS,
FENCING STAIRWAYS OR WALKWAYS) ARE ALLOWED IN THE PARCEL
CREATED BY THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, UNLESS AUTHORIZED OR
PERMITTED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 17, 2021
meeting.
PACKET PG. # 9
August 9, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
• The Comprehensive Plan was officially adopted at the August 4th meeting. Copies will be
provided to members of the Commission.
Chair Field referenced the pending August 11th mill and overlay of Lexington Avenue. He noted
that Dodd Road is still closed, and construction is set to begin on Delaware on August 10th as well.
He asked for an update from staff.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the Dodd Road project was supposed to be
paved today and should be open prior to the 11th. He provided an update on the County work on
Lexington and Delaware, noting that both of those projects should be done under traffic and there
are not total closures proposed.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a brief review of items that will come
before the Commission at its regular August meeting.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for financial disclosure and traffic flow information related to
the PUD amendment request.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:47 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
PACKET PG. # 10
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:August 24, 2021
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-12 (ref. Phase II of The Reserve –Parcel 2/Lot 1)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT &
WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT:At Home Apartments / Mendota Mall Associates, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS:Highway 62 & South Plaza Way Mendota Plaza
ZONING/GUIDED:MU-PUD / MU-PUD
ACTION DEADLINE:October 26, 2021 (Extended Statutory Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking
approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its final
development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-
1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final
development plan by conditional use permit.
For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as
Phase II of The Reserve of Mendota Village, and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment
complex (720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item.
BACKGROUND
The Plaza mall site encompasses approximately 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009, Mendota Mall Associates
(Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original
Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, which included a new overall land use and zoning category of
Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an
integrated commercial and high-density residential development area, which would include the large retail
(strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf. high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant
pad sites, various sized offices, childcare center and a pharmacy(refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD
Master/Final Development Plan – 2009).
PACKET PG. # 11
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 2 of 20
Since 2009, the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments,
with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment
No. 6 in 2016, and the latest No. 7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. The Reserve
apartment development under Amendment No. 6 was approved as the 4-story, 139-unit apartment building
seen today, and redefined the area of the vacant, triangular shaped parcel to the west, with “Restaurant” and
“Retail/Restaurant” for future developments (see 2016 Plan image – below).
PUD Amendment Plan No. 6 (The Reserve, etal)
As noted in the applicant’s narrative, Paster Properties has made numerous attempts to sell and develop the
subject site with new restaurants or a retail center as shown on the 2016 plan; however, due to recent market
conditions and COVID-19 pandemic, these efforts have not panned out. Paster is now permitting At Home
Apts. to request this PUD Amendment in order to revise the final development plan and possibly allow the
site to be developed with a new apartment development.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The subject parcel is triangular in shape, and consists of 89,158 sq. ft. or 2.05 acres. The parcel is currently
vacant with anunpaved, graveled surface. The site containsanexisting stormwater pond near the northwest
corner, and some existing storm water improvements, such as catch basins, storm pipes and a large
underground rate control basin near the south corner. A large steel sheet pile wall is situated along the
south edge of the parcel along the creek edge.
The proposed development for Phase II (Parcel 2 on the plans) is a three story, 74,400-sq. ft. apartment
building, with 58-living units consisting of 19 one-bedroom units with an average unit size of 727-sf.; 9
one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of 822-sf.; and 30 two-bedroom units with an average
unit size of 1,428-sf. The apartment will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with The Reserve.
A “partial” fourth floor of 3,250-sq. ft. to contain an indoor pickle-ball and bocce ball courts; wine bar and
outdoor patio with fire pit, and will contain its own fitness area and common lounge space.
PACKET PG. # 12
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 3 of 20
The building provides one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall
parking ratio of approximately 2.03 stalls per unit.
The proposed apartment building is shown with setbacks of 15-feet along the north lot line (parallel with
Hwy 62); 15-ft. along the south line (along the creek); and approx. 22-ft. from the easterly line along the
main entrance driveway off Hwy 62. Because this development will take place within 100-feet of the
adjacent Interstate Valley Creek, a wetlands permit is also needed for this site approval.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the following applicable policies/standards for
façade design, building materials, and doors/windows:
x Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided.
x Undulating façade shall be encouraged.
x Exterior façade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian.
x Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into façade design.
x Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used.
Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials,
complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings.
x Materials shall be durable quality.
x Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco
and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable.
x All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed.
x A minimum of 25% of the façade shall be treated with finished masonry building material.
x Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be
encouraged.
x Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25% of decorative masonry variation in color, texture
or surface.
2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures
constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials
comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed
in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance.
The proposed buildings’ exterior are a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent
with The Reserves development, City Code and the original PUD Design Standards:
x Face brick
x Stone veneer
x Cement Board Lap Siding
x Metal panel siding
x Decorative masonry block
x Composite windows
x Prefinished metal flashing and trim
x Prefinished balconies and railings
Since this existing site is relatively flat and graded out, there does not appear to be much new or significant
grading work with his new development. There is an existing underground storm chamber system near the
south edge of the site, which is not planned to be impacted by any new construction. There are however,
some pre-constructed storm pipes, manholes and catch basins scattered throughout the site, that will have
to be removed/re-installed around the planned development/building location on this site. The plans also
note a very large “Private Water Main Agreement” easement and other miscellaneous drainage and utility
PACKET PG. # 13
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 4 of 20
easements that will also have to be vacated and rededicated to the city. All new stormwater, sanitary and
water systems will be reviewed by the city’s Public Works Director and St. Paul Regional Water Services.
The building’s architectural elevations and renderings, interior floor plans, civil plans for grading and utility
improvements, along with the new landscaping/plantings plans are all included with this report’s
attachments.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan (2030 vs. 2040)
The entire Mendota Plaza mall site and subject parcel were all guided Mixed-Use PUD under the previous
2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was noted with:
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses
into a coordinated, planned development project. Areas of the community with this land use designation are located
near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110 is the City’s
only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use
commercial/residential center known as “The Village at Mendota Heights”.
Located in the southeast corner of the Dodd and Highway 110 intersection is a related commercial area. This older
shopping center is being considered for redevelopment, including a mixed-use land use pattern reflecting the Village
development concept. It is an objective of the City to encourage redevelopment of this area reflecting a small-town
village layout, avoiding the suburban shopping center environment that dominates the current development pattern.
As noted previously, the entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned toMU-PUD in 2009. The existing
zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses that are seen today remain consistent with the
future land use designations established under the previous 2030 Plan. .
Under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the following is noted for MU-PUD areas:
MU – Mixed-Use (21.0 - 30.0 DU/Acre for Residential Uses)
Undeveloped land guided mixed-use is planned to develop approximately 75% of its acres with residential uses at
the densities identified, which is consistent with existing mixed-use projects in the city. The northeast quadrant of the
Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection has been developed into a mixed-use center known as The Village at
Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen
renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a
50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project developed by At Home Apartments. The
current residential development has developed at densities between 21 and 30 dwelling units per acre, and adjacent
undeveloped outlots are guided to develop at similar densities
Under the 2016 PUD Amendment report, city staff reported the following on population and housing
projections (part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan):
Forecast 2010
(actual)
2014
(est.)2020 2030 2040
Population 11,071 11,124 11,300 11,300 11,400
Households 4,378 4,450 4,600 4,710 4,800
Source: Metropolitan Council (dated 9/17/2015)
According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement, the City’s population and household
forecasts are as follows:
Forecast 2010 2018 2020 2030 2040
Population 11,071
11,340
(2.4%)
12,000
(0%)
12,000
(0%)
12,000
(0%)
Households 4,378
N/A 4,900
(12%)
5,000
(2%)
5,110
(2.2%)
Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census, City of Mendota Heights, SHC
PACKET PG. # 14
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 5 of 20
As noted, the Met Council agreed to accept the city’s increase of our projected populations from 11,400 to
a 12,000 – which we requested to hold steady from the 2020 through 2040 planning periods. Meanwhile,
the households are projected to increase slightly over these same periods, from 4,900 (2020) up to 5,110 in
2040. As per the 2040 Plan: “Most of the household growth is anticipated to occur in areas designated for
mixed-use, which is likely to be primarily multi-family development.” This site and the proposed apartment
development would meet this statement.
Construction of the proposed 58-unit residential development (coupled with the proposed 89-units in the
Phase III development) could account significantly or contribute greatly to the projected amount of
households planned for in the 2040 Plan. According to the applicant, the proposed project includes“market-
rate” units and plans do not include any “affordable units”, which could satisfy additional Metropolitan
Council requirements on affordable housing. Nevertheless, the Met Council typically supports efforts to
increase new housing opportunities wherever or whenever they present themselves in metro communities.
The 2040 Plan also provides the following goals and policy statements to consider in this PUD request:
LAND USE GOAL 1: The Future Land Use Plan will provide the foundation for all land use
decisions in Mendota Heights.
Policies
1. Development and redevelopment of housing, businesses, transportation systems, parks and
community facilities shall be done in accordance with this Plan.
5. The city will strive to create a balanced land use pattern that provides appropriate designations that
meet projected growth and market demand.
LAND USE GOAL 2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
Policies
2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics
throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings.
3. Development and planning of land will be encouraged to provide reasonable access to the
surrounding communities.
HOUSING GOAL 2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products.
Policies
1. Encourage life-cycle housing opportunities in Mendota Heights of various forms and tenures that
allow residents to remain in the community throughout their lives. This includes:
ii. Construction of move-up single-family development that supports life-cycle housing.
iii. Construction of various types of senior housing, including senior ownership units, senior rental
units, memory care and assisted living units.
iv. Support the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels, age
groups, and special housing needs.
2. Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices.
The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for rental units in the
community, which appears to be a continual and growing trend among many metropolitan and suburban
communities these days. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners
who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing
single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed or added residential project fits
many of the land use and housing goals and policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
PACKET PG. # 15
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 6 of 20
Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment
The original 2009 PUD Plan, which included a new plat, called for the development of the project area with
the following: a 14,820-sf. Walgreens store (Lot 1); a 47,200 sf. retail mall (Lot 2); two future 3,600-
sf./4,000-sf. restaurants (Lot 3); a 12,000-sf. multi-tenant/strip mall (Lot 4); a 10,800-sf. future office (Lot
5); a future 4-story, 100,000-sf. high density residential apartment (Lot 6); a 10,130-sf. future child care
center (Lot 7); and a three-story, 36,000-sf. future office building (Lot 8).
Soon after the 2009 approvals, the Walgreens and Mendota Plaza mall were completed. In 2012 the PUD
was amended to change the proposed 100,000 square-foot high-density residential building on Lot 6 to the
46-unit White Pines Senior Living facility. In 2016 the PUD was amended to change the future 12,000-sf.
Retail Center and 10,800-sf. Office building (Lots 4 & 5) over to the 139-unit Reserve Apartments, which
included changing the two future 3,600-sf./4,000-sf. restaurants on Lot 3 into two 3,500-sf. and 4,000-sf.
restaurant pad sites with drive through lanes. In 2017 the PUD was amended to revise the future office
building on Lot 8 to the 17,700-sf. Gemini Medical offices. For this particular site, the developer is
requesting to modify the original 2009 Final Plan’s “10,300-sf. Future Child Care Center” with the proposed
four story, 139,126-sf., 89-unit apartment building.
According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD:
The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural
and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development,
to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit
modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting
development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses.
One of the key provisions of this statement is “…to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land…” which is why many cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning
districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and
cohesive developments within a community. The PUD also can grant some discretionary allowances
(instead of or in place of a variance) with certain site design standards, such as reduced setbacks, increased
building heights, higher densities (units/acre), reduced parking and others.
Amending an existing PUD Final Development Plan is noted under Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code:
Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development
plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures
provided below:
1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by
the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan
was approved.
2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made
by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional
use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the
community.
The proposed amendment qualifies under No. 2 above, and is required to be approved by the City Council
by conditional use permit.
PACKET PG. # 16
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 7 of 20
The subject parcels are zoned and guidedMixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code:
MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District:The MU-PUD district is intended to provide
the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential
uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2
zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided
they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the
authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit.
Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD:
Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the
following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities
on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with
adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure
completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and
deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
Density / High-Density Residential Development
This proposed high-density residential development would provide 58-units on 2.05 acres. The
requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible, and can be reviewed against the standards forsimilarly-
zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed apartment plan can be
reviewed utilizing R-3 High Density Residential District standards as a guide, but not as an absolute, since
an R-3 use is a “…potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district.” A high-density residential
apartment building under this proposal would be considered an allowable use in this MU-PUD district.
However, the new use or development does not need to meet all (or any) of the R-3 District development
standards to be approved, as the City Council has considerable “flexibility” and discretion in this PUD
review process, and can provide appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions on new
developments as deemed necessary.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B: Number of Dwelling Units:
1. In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site
shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning
district(s) in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3 zoning
district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide. If the
residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of allowable
dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit development that is
in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable
in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may
be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to
determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development.
PACKET PG. # 17
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 8 of 20
Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the
discretion of the council.
3. The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed
within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required
lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the
planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the
land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public
parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city
wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density.
Since this site is located in an established MU-PUD zone, the density applied to a typical R-3 or high density
multi-family use such as this may be used [emphasis added], but is not required. Again, City Code grants
the planning commission the discretionary right or ability to determine [by its recommendation] the number
of dwelling units, thus setting or approving the allowable density of the site. City Council will have final
authority or decision-making on any density request.
The Reserve apartments consisted of 139 units on a 2.2 acre site, which equates to density of 63 units/acre
on its own parcel. However, what staff presented to the planning commission and council in 2016 was a
statement “…the Code provision above [12-1K-5-B] does allow the City Council discretion to determine
the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff
recommends a more appropriate analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota
Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD future land use designation, which has an allowable density range of 6-10
housing units/acre.” When staff calculated the density based on the entire PUD project site, and added both
White Pines 46-units plus The Reserves’ 139 units (185 total units), this worked out to an overall density
calculation of 10.2 units/acre, which was found to be acceptable and later approved by the city.
The density calculation on this individual parcel is calculated as follows: 58-units / 2.05 ac. = 28.3 units/ac.
As indicated in the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the city revised the MU-Mixed Use land category to
include a provision to allow up to 21.0 – 30.0 units/acre. As a stand-alone parcel, this new apartment on
the 2.05 acre site meets the density range allowed under the MU-PUD.
Utilizing this same rationale for determining density as the city allowed in the 2016 PUD Amendment (The
Reserve), the overall project area density can be calculated as follows:
Parcel
Description
Parcel Area
(Net Acres)
Residential
Units
Lot 1 – Walgreens 1.75 0
Lot 2 – Mendota Plaza 6.15 0
Lot 6 – White Pines 2.0 46
Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.)2.05 58
Lot 1, Block 2 (The Reserves)2.2 139
Lot 7 - Undeveloped 2.04 0
Lot 8 – Gemini Medical 2.31 0
Total Net Area 18.5 ac. @ 75% = 13.875 acres *
Total Units (existing & proposed)243 units
Total Density 17.5 units/acre
*Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75% of Total Net Developable Areas (per 2040 Comprehensive Plan)
PACKET PG. # 18
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 9 of 20
Factoring in the separate 89-unit apartment development (Lot 7), the density total on the entire Plaza PUD
site re-calculates as follows:
Parcel
Description
Parcel Area
(Net Acres)
Residential
Units
Lot 1 – Walgreens 1.75 0
Lot 2 – Mendota Plaza 6.15 0
Lot 6 – White Pines 2.0 46
Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.))2.05 58
Lot 1, Block 2 (The Reserves)2.2 139
Lot 7 – (proposed Phase III apts.)2.04 89
Lot 8 – Gemini Medical 2.31 0
Total Net Area 18.5 ac. @ 75% = 13.875 acres *
Total Units (existing & proposed)332 units
Total Density 23.9 units/acre
*Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75% of Total Net Developable Areas (per 2040 Comprehensive Plan)
The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments
provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the
allowed density for the proposed PUD amendment; and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this
site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Site and Structure Requirements
The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as per Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code:
Standard Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling
Unit1
3-story or more:
1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet
2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet
3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet
2.05 ac. (89,300-sq. ft.)
28 one-bedroom units
30 two-bedroom units
Minimum Floor Area
Efficiency units: Not permitted
1-bedroom units: 750 square feet
2-bedroom units: 800 square feet
3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet
1-bedroom: 663 – 822 sq. ft.
2-bedroom: 1210 – 1773 sq. ft.
Front Yard Setback 50 feet + 1 foot/each 1 foot of building height
over 60 feet
22-ft. (from South Plaza Way);
15-ft. (from Hwy 62-ROW)
Side/Rear Yard Setback
40 feet + 0.5 feet/1 foot of building height
over 75 feet
15-ft. (from Hwy 62 ROW)
15-ft. (from creek boundary)
Building Height No limit 45-ft. feet / 48-ft. (highest point)
Parking Lot Setback
40 feet (ROW)
10 feet (principal building)10-ft.
1may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground
x Land Area
Based on the proposed unit-mix and underground parking provided, the current lot area is significantly
less than what would be required under normal R-3 District standards. A standard R-3 Zoned parcel
would require almost 303,600-sf. or 6.97 acres of land to support the number of one/two bedroom units
proposed in this plan.
[CALC: (28 x 5100=142,800) + (30 x 6,050=181,500) – (69 stalls @ 300-sf.=20,700) = 303,600-sf.]
Once again however, the PUD Amendment allows for the city to accept this reduction of land space if
demonstrated by the developer that this site still works, even with the proposed number of units on the
smaller land site.
PACKET PG. # 19
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 10 of 20
x Unit Sizes
Most of the smaller one-bedroom units (16 of the 28 units proposed) are less than 750-sf. minimums
for the R-3 Zone; while most of the remaining and larger 1-Bed + Den units and 2-Bed units exceed
the 800-sf. standards. No three-bedroom units are proposed in the building.
x Building / Parking Lot Setbacks
Front Yard setbacks are normally 50-feet from lot/ROW lines. South Plaza Way is a private access
drive into this development, and serves as this Phase II development’s frontage. City Code defines any
front lot line as “the boundary of a lot which abuts a dedicated public street.” – which can be the case
with Highway 62 to the north and South Plaza Way to the east. Although not marked or shown on the
plans, it appears this front yard setback (closest point of building) along South Plaza measures out to
approximately 22-feet, while the setback from Hwy. 62 is only 15-feet from the ROW line. Both of
these setbacks are significantly reduced under this PUD Plan. Side/Rear Yard setbacks are normally
40-feet. The proposed building’s Side Yard (south) setback is shown with only 15-feet; and the rear
corner lot (measured) is approx. 175-feet.
The outdoor parking is shown with 10 to 15-ft. setbacks at some of their closest points off South Plaza
Way. The parking appears to meet the required 10-ft. spacing between parking lot and buildings, which
is intended to provide adequate separation, access and landscaping space up to and around the building.
Although these reduced setbacks are considerable, the planning commission and city council have the
discretion to accept or approve the proposed building and parking layouts, even with the reduced
setbacks as shown or noted herein, as part of this PUD Amendment review process. The commission
may make any recommendations accordingly.
x Building Coverage
The R-3 District does not include a floor area ratio standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design
Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed apartment development covers
27.7%of the lot (24,800-sf. / 89,300-sf. lot area), which can be considered compliant with these original
Mendota Plaza Design Standards.
x Landscaping
The landscape plans submitted for the site is somewhat limited, and only shows a generalized location
for new trees and shrubs, and areas to be replanted or vegetated. The plans are absent of important
details or plantings list; however the applicants did state in their narrative and plan notes:
“The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is
designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas
will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape
design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for
shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the
proposed landscape design meets the City’s pollinator and native planting requirements.”
The developer was requested (by city staff) to meet with our resident Master Gardeners to review and
comment on their proposed Landscape Plan. It appears the developer’s architect did speak to one of the
MG, and later reported back to city staff with the following message:
“The plan you [city staff] sent to me had no species listed, so he [developer’s architect] and I
just talked about what we are looking for in terms of pollinator friendly, resilient landscape.
He was going to incorporate the things we discussed into a plan and then send me the plan
PACKET PG. # 20
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 11 of 20
and discuss further.” – and – “One thing that jumped out to me is that the buildings are very
near the lot lines or MNDOT ROW in the case of the building facing Hwy 62, so there isn’t a lot
of space to design a meaningful pollinator friendly, resilient plan. But, it is hard to visualize
without seeing the plan.”
As of the preparation of this report, no updated/revised plan was available for this packet, other than the
original landscape plan submitted with the original CUP application materials. A new plan with
comments from the Master Gardener may be available or presented to the commission prior to or the
night of the hearing.
x Lighting
According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards:
Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall
create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or
industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared
property line with residentially zoned property.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting
policies/standards:
x Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area.
x Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape.
x Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings
and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site.
x Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided.
The PUD Site Plans are absent of any Lighting or Photometric Plans with this development, nor any
indications of lights on the buildings. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is
part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements may not apply between the
shared/mixed uses in the overall PUD project area. However, it will be important the developer can
show or demonstrate that any new lighting for parking and outside the buildings meet City Code and
Mendota Plaza standards. Proposed light fixtures should be downcast/cut-off types of lights and kept to
a minimum (number/amount). Staff has included a recommendation to have the developer provide and
submit a complete and detailed Lighting-Photometric Plan of the site for approvals.
x Parking Analysis
The proposed residential development includes 49 surface parking spaces and 69 underground spaces,
for a total of 118 spaces. This equates to a ratio of 2.03 spaces/unit. According to Title 12-1E-E of the
City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows:
Number And Design Of Parking Spaces: A minimum of two and one-half (21/2) parking spaces shall
be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with
all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards.
Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 58-units, strict application of the Code standard
would require a minimum of 145 off-street parking spaces. It is Staff’s opinion that this 2.5 space per
unit appears to be too high and extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer
multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and nation.
PACKET PG. # 21
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 12 of 20
When At Homes presented their apartment proposal in 2016, the issue of 2.5 spaces/unit was discussed
and analyzed, and the city planning consultants (Stantec) were authorized to conduct a parking analysis
and study for this site, which are excerpted and highlighted below:
Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched (except Apple
Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit, but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit.
Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking
requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own
published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high.
The average for nine projects (not in transit-friendly areas) is 1.59/unit.
Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since,
according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (see table on the following page), so even
without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today
than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going down and
that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi-family projects.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes a manual on parking demand, citing
studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual (2010) shows a range of 1.10-1.37 spaces per
unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cite d is not large, some studies in the
mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied, so
we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide.
Apartment Parking – Conclusion & Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in
Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1-
bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the
20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to
be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement.
Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by
the City in 2016 for The Reserves) the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows:
Parking at 1.6/Unit: 58-units x 1.6 = 92.8 or 93 spaces
or
Parking at 1.2/bedroom: (28 -1 bed units @ 1.2 = 34)+ (30 - 2-bed @ 2.4 =72) = 106 spaces
Due to the strong desire to preserve or encourage more open space on this site, it remains the
professional opinion of staff that the 118 spaces proposed under this single development plan should
be adequate to serve the residents of this site; and is based on the previous study/analysis performed on
The Reserves, The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years.
Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following:
Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet (9') wide and twenty feet (20') in
length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24') in width, and such space shall be served
adequately by access driveway.
The proposed parking plans shows the 49 outdoor/surface spaces as 9’ x 18’ dimensions with a “nose-
in” or curb overhanging design, and 24-ft. wide drive aisles. The underground spaces are also shown
or measure 9’ x 18’, with a 24-ft. wide drive aisle. Typically, these stalls may be reduced in length to
PACKET PG. # 22
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 13 of 20
compensate for the front bumper hanging over the curb and are similar to existing commercial
developments in the city and an accepted industry standard. The planning commission will need to
provide a recommendation on whether or not you support or recommend favorably this request to
reduce the number of spaces per the plan submittal; and if the reduced setbacks and stall sizes are
acceptable.
x Park Dedication
If the new apartment development is approved, the applicant is required to either contribute 10% of final
plat gross area to be dedicated for public use - or contribute a cash payment in-lieu-of land dedication in
an amount established by the city. Since no platting is taking place, and due to an expected number of
new residents coming in with the new high-density residential development, the cash/in-lieu of payment
of $4,000/unit will be requested ($4,000 x 58-units = $232,000). Payment of the required park dedication
fees is included as a condition of approval.
Traffic Impacts
With any new developments in and around this centralized commercial/retail/mixed-use hub on Highway
62 and Dodd Road (State Hwy. 149), traffic safety, vehicle movements, access (both in and out of the area)
and adequate parking seem to be a major concern to many residents and business owners for this area. This
development would retain the right-in only access off of Hwy 62 (to the north); and all other access via
North Plaza Drive or South Plaza Drive, which are the only two roadway connections directly on or back
out to Dodd Road.
In 2017 the city consulted with KLJ Engineering to provide a traffic study of this and other areas in the
city, which was referred to as the Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study and completed in February
2018. The study was commissioned to examine existing conditions, traffic and vehicle crash data; traffic
operations, and predict future traffic forecasts and operations, and provide alternatives. The study showed
that the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62, in its 2017 Existing Conditions, 2040 Base and Build
Scenarios that this intersection provides a Level of Service F, which is the lowest score given, and
essentially means there are issues that need to be corrected or addressed. Unfortunately, since both of these
roadway systems are MnDOT controlled, there is not much the city can require or recommend to fix some
of these issues without an expensive alternative or solution. The report did summarize or suggested an
alternative to providing a future right-in/right-out intersection at North Plaza Drive off Dodd Road; but
there are currently no plans by MnDOT (or the city) to installing or changing this intersection at this time.
During the planning and presentation of The Reserves in 2016, traffic was expressed as a concern, especially
by the anticipated amount of units and new residents to this area, and the fear these resident’s vehicles
entering/exiting the site every day, especially during peak AM/Noon/PM hours, would cause some serious
traffic issues. The PUD Amendment (#7) approving the Gemini Medical facility in 2017, was also
determined not to be a factor or serious contributor to increased traffic from the site, due in part to the
expected lower number of employees and smaller office/warehouse use (1-story/17,000-sf. vs. a 3-
story/36,000-sf. office building).
Casual observations of this site since The Reserve apartments and Gemini Medical opened, has shown there
appears to be no serious issues or problems of traffic or congestion attributed to this high-density residential
or office development in this PUD project area, and the concerns of serious congestion or crashes in and
around this development have not materialized.
As part of this new development, the developer has submitted an updated Technical Memorandum – Trip
Generation Analysis from Biko Associates (dated 08/09/2021). The memo provides five (5) separate
PACKET PG. # 23
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 14 of 20
scenarios and comparisons, based on current development and projected developments on the Phase II site
and the separate, but related Phase III site (Lot 7). A summary of findings are noted as follows:
1. The analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM
peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016
but never implemented.
2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments’ Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will generate fewer
AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was originally
proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009 but never implemented.
While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two
vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically
important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern than daily trips, are
significantly lower.
3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for
what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher
than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home Apartments.
The Reserve Apartment plus the Specialty Retail and Restaurant uses planned in 2016 was projected to
generated approx. 1,072 daily trips; while only 530 trips on the apartment complex only. The Biko report
indicates that with The Reserve and Phase II apartments, the projected trips is estimated at 844 d/t’s;
concluding that:
x All pass-by trips are gone;
x 21 percent of daily trips (228 daily tips) are gone;
x 10 percent of AM peak hour trips (7 AM peak hour trips) are gone; and
x 20 percent of PM peak hour trips (19 PM peak hour trips) are gone.
The traffic memo goes on to conclude with a comparison estimated trip generation with The Reserve, Phase
II (58 unit apts.) and child-care (Lot 7) estimated at 1,326 d/t’s, versus The Reserve/Phase II and Phase III
apartments slightly more at 1,328 d/t’s.
In the end, the report includes a comparison table that shows what The Reserves + Retail Center +
Restaurant + Child-Care uses would have produced approx. 1,554 daily trips; while the proposed Phase II
+ Phase III apartments, and The Reserve apartments is projected to produce 1,328 d/t’s, or a 17% reduction.
A copy of this Technical Memo report, which includes data tables and comparison analysis is appended to
this report.
In order to ensure a fair and impartial review of this Technical (Traffic) Memo from the developer, the city
forwarded this report to our engineering consultants to review and provide comments (Bolton & Menk
Traffic Review Memo dated 08/16/2021 – appended to this report). This memo makes the following
conclusions and statement:
x Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive.
This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of
TH 149/Dodd Road.
x Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail.
x Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east.
x Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows
and as approved by MnDOT.
x Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2.
PACKET PG. # 24
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 15 of 20
Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give
consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic
movements and improve safety.
The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation was also asked to review the proposed apartment plans with this
project, and submitted a review memo with information relating only to drainage, noise, pedestrian/bicycle,
and general permitting information. MnDOT apparently chose to either defer to the city [or neglected to
provide] any comments related to any potential traffic impacts on to the adjacent state highway roadway
systems. MnDOT Review Memo #S21-049 (dated 08/11/2021) is appended to this report.
Finally, as part of The Reserve development approvals, the city prepared and entered into an amended (No.
6) PUD Agreement in 2016. Under this agreement with Mendota Plaza Apartments, LLC (At Home Apts.),
Mendota Mall Associates-Outlots, LLC (Howard Paster) and the City of Mendota Heights, the following
Section No. 14 was noted:
14. Section 4. 11 Traffic Improvements, including South and North Plaza Drive/Dodd Road (TH 149)
Intersection. Section 4. 11 of the 2009 Development Agreement is hereby amended to delete any obligations
of the Developer to complete any improvements to TH 110 and Dodd Road included in the Traffic Study. The
Developer has provided the City with a Traffic Impact Study dated August 8, 2016, prepared by Spack Consulting
(" 2016 Traffic Study"). The Developer acknowledges that the City has expressed concerns over the impact of
the Second Addition Improvements on the intersection of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road as well as the
intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. If, as a direct result of the Commercial Improvements and
Apartment Improvements, the Level of Service falls to an overall below Level of Service F at either of these
intersections as set forth in the 2016 Traffic Study without the installation of infrastructure improvements or the
adoption of traffic mitigation procedures or improvements, as determined by a qualified traffic engineer
reasonably acceptable to the Developer and the City; the Developer and Mendota Plaza Apartments will together
be responsible for the City' s share of the cost to bring the intersections performances to a Level of Service D or
better.
The city does not have any alternatives or suggested improvements to offer at this time. Staff would
however, suggest the planning commission discuss with the staff and the developer at the hearing/meeting
to determine if more study or analysis is required. Should this CUP (PUD Amendment) be approved, this
same section/language will be added and made part of the future 8th Amendment to the Mendota Plaza
Planned Unit Development Agreement.
Fire Department Review
The Fire Department personnel was asked to review these plans and provided the following comments:
1. amount of traffic that is coming out of South Plaza Drive is making difficult for us to get out of
the station and get rolling, especially to the north. If this is going to increase that traffic I think
we need to look at some sort of traffic preemption system associated with the project.
2. FD is unable to determine where the building’s FDC’s (fire hose connections) are located in
relation to any proposed hydrant locations?
3. FD is unable to tell if there is a fire access road around the property?
In a follow-up discussion with the Fire Chief, he was simply relaying his “concerns” with increased traffic
along Dodd Road, and the continued issues they have with periodic vehicle back-ups and difficulty turning
fire trucks north onto Dodd Road. In his opinion, a pre-emption device, similar to an Opticon system
normally seen on overhead traffic signals, would be an option to have inside the fire station, so they could
trigger the light for northbound traffic at the Hwy 62 and Dodd Road intersection, which in theory would
allow vehicles to start moving along Dodd Road – just prior to the trucks leaving the station.
PACKET PG. # 25
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 16 of 20
Nevertheless, the Fire Chief admits this is not the sole responsibility of the developer to fix, but wanted to
make sure the commission is aware of his concerns, and is open to other ideas, suggestions or alternatives
to reduce or combat this fire truck exiting issues.
There are no dedicated fire access road around the Phase II property, but access from the adjacent highway
is possible, and South Plaza Drive along the front will be available. Phase III has roadway or internal
driveway systems all around this site. In both cases, the Fire Chief agreed that he (along with the Fire
Marshal) would like to work with developer’s architects and civil design team, should these plans be
approved, and recommend appropriate fire safety measures inside and outside the buildings, which may
include identifying (or requiring) the correct number and placement of FDC’s, stack pipes and hydrant
locations – similar to what they did with The Reserve apartments in 2016.
Wetlands Permit
According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to:
x Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas;
x Maintain the natural drainage system;
x Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife
and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive
sedimentation;
x Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
x Ensure safety from floods.
The proposed project includes new grading and construction activities within 100-feet of a wetland/water
resource-related area -Interstate Valley Creek. The northerly area or creek edge was stabilized and improved
with a very large and considerable steel sheet pile wall along this north embankment (see image – below).
The areas near the bottom of the wall and along the flattened or sloped creek banks are heavily vegetated,
and will remain so during and after construction. Developer has no plans to impact or affect this waterway
or wall during the construction of this project. Normally, the city requires all developments to maintain a
25-foot setback in order to provide a “no-disturbance” or no impact zone from said wetland edge; however,
in this case, the wall provides a suitable alternative and reduces or eliminates any negative impacts caused
by construction.
The stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) indicate extraordinary measures will be used to protect
and safeguard this area during and after constructionis completed, and all disturbed areas have been restored.
PACKET PG. # 26
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 17 of 20
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and
the wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the attached finding-of-fact, with conditions; or
2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development and the
wetlands permit as requested herein, based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such
a denial; or
3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if
necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN
STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to one of the alternatives noted
above, and make your recommendation on the reduced standards the Developer is seeking with this new
apartment development and accept or revise the attached conditions accordingly. Please note that any new
or modified conditions should be reasonable and in fair proportion to the requested development being
considered under this PUD Amendment and Wetland Permit review process. The following are the
suggested conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required
by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved
by the City Council.
2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in
conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council; and all approved building and site must
be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all
architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls”
and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements.
3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical
placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re-
established/dedicated as necessary, per the direction of the Public Works Director.
4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement.
5. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval.
6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical
utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the
materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning
Department and verified as part of the building permit review process.
7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city’s pollinator friendly and
native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective
screening element for building utility areas.
8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at
least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements,
to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
PACKET PG. # 27
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 18 of 20
9. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and
free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or
landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow.
10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot
lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and
Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process.
11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards.
12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s
Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any
construction.
14. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings
shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or
improvements as determined by the city’s Fire Marshal and/or Building Official.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Letter of Intent/Project Narrative
2. Technical Memorandum- Traffic Analysis by Biko Assoc. (dated 08/09/2021)
3. Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Memo by Bolton & Menk (dated 08/16/2021)
4. MnDOT Review Memorandum (dated 08/11/2021)
5. 2009 Mendota Heights Plaza Master Development Plan
6. Mendota Heights Apartments – Phase II Plans (2021)
PACKET PG. # 28
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 19 of 20
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit
For PHASE II – The Reserve of Mendota Village
The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment:
1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 58-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously
approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza, is consistent
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high
density residential developments.
2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by
encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city, through various forms and tenures that allow
residents to remain in the community; provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports
the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups.
3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21 – 30 units/acre
as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development) land uses.
4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within
the established PUD.
5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with
certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure
completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the
overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area.
6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning
standardsto enhance the development of the property, without negatively impacting surrounding land
uses and natural resources.
7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes, reduced land area, and overall density
of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property.
8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more
open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires.
9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will
contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other
retail/commercial development(s) planned for in this PUD project area.
10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant
amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases.
11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this
mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for
this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and
commercial uses.
PACKET PG. # 29
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 20 of 20
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
CUP for PUD Amendment and Wetlands Permit
For PHASE II – The Reserve of Mendota Village
The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment:
1. The 58-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than
what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original
intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans.
2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards, including reduced building and parking lot
setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and
too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements
and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city.
3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development
within the PUD project area.
4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area, is not well-planned
or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any
existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses, natural
resources, vehicle traffic and nearby road systems.
6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this
mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area.
PACKET PG. # 30
Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD
Application: Narrative (UPDATED 08.09.2021)
This updated narrative is being provided to highlight recent changes in the total unit counts for the two
projects that At Home Apartments, L.L.C. (the “Applicant”) proposed with its submission of Planning
Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. This application outlines the Applicant's
plans for the development of the following parcels: 27-48401-01-070 (“Parcel 1”/Lot 7) and 27-48402-
01-010 (“Parcel 2”/Phase II of Reserve).
As stated in the initial application, these parcels are currently owned by Mendota Mall Associations-
Outlots, LLC. The Applicant is currently under contract to purchase Parcels 1 and 2 for the purpose of
redeveloping both parcels with multi-family rental communities. The Applicant’s initial plans called for
developing a 61-unit “sister” building to the neighboring complex known as The Reserve at Mendota
Village and a 113-unit market rate apartment building on Parcel 1/Lot 7 that will complement the nearby
apartment complexes but will provide a different product type not available in the nearby vicinity.
As is often the case, the Applicant continued to review and modify the interior floor plans for both
proposed projects. These modifications and adjustments resulted in larger, but fewer units for both
proposed buildings. The proposed unit total for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve is now 58 units and the
proposed unit total for Parcel 1/Lot 7 is 89 units.
This updated narrative is also being provided to correct a technical oversight in the traffic memorandum
that was submitted with the Applicant’s application. The original memo omitted a section that
highlighted the comparison between the Applicant’s proposed development for Parcel 1/Lot 7 and what
is the current approved use for that parcel. This oversight resulted in skewed data for the traffic impact
the proposed projects will have. An updated memorandum which corrects that oversight and takes into
consideration the revised unit totals has been provided for review and reference.
Parcel 2/Phase II of Reserve at Mendota Village - Project Description
In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the current PUD and corresponding development
agreement that allowed for the development of 139 market rate rental housing units and a commercial
area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses.
The 139 market rate apartment building, now known as The Reserve at Mendota Village, opened in the
summer of 2018 and reached occupancy stabilization within the first 6 months. It has continued to
maintain full occupancy to this day.
Due to many factors impacting the retail and restaurant real estate markets, followed by the
unprecedented obstacles of COVID-19, the goal to develop Parcel 1 consistent with the 2016 approved
plans became increasingly challenging. However, the strong and continuous demand for housing
opportunities at the Reserve at Mendota Village demonstrated there was a stronger need to expand and
develop a second phase for that particular community.
PACKET PG. # 31
The proposed development for Parcel 2 is a 58-unit apartment building consisting of 19 one-bedroom
units with an average unit size of 727 SQFT, 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of
822 SQFT, and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428 SQFT. The building provides
one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of
approximately 2.03 stalls per unit.
The units will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with the Reserve at Mendota Village. In
addition, the amenity package offered in this second phase will expand and complement the existing
amenities available at the Reserve. These amenity spaces will be located on the top – partial fourth floor
of the three story apartment building and will include indoor pickleball courts, wine bar, outdoor fire pit,
and indoor bocce ball court. The building will also have its own fitness area and common lounge spaces
similar to the Reserve. By developing this second phase and allowing the residents of both buildings to
enjoy the luxury amenity spaces found within the two buildings, the Applicant will create a resort style
housing complex completing the vision of making the Reserve at Mendota Village a destination housing
community.
Parcel 1/Lot 7 - Project Description
The Applicant also intends to develop Parcel 2 by building a four-story apartment building with one and
a half levels of underground parking with 110 stalls and 47 surface parking stalls resulting in an overall
parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. Given the unit matrix of this proposed project and the perceived
demographic, we believe this parking ratio is more than sufficient to serve the population. This project,
which would open in 2023 is designed to complement the Reserve at Mendota Village but provide an
alternative housing option that is not currently available within the city limits.
This proposed project is an upscale, modern design apartment building that will provide 89 market rate
apartment homes made up of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674 SQFT, 23 medium
one-bedroom units with an average size of 772 SQFT, 18 large one-bedroom units with an average size
of 864 SQFT, 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906 SQFT and 27 two-bedroom
units with an average size of 1,119 SQFT. This project is designed with the younger professional in
mind. Mendota Heights is a vibrant community that is centrally located making it very attractive to
younger professionals, especially to those that grew up in the area. However, one of the drawbacks is
that most of the current housing stock is not attractive to or affordable for this age group. These units
will be market rate units, but at a more affordable rental rate than that of the Reserve at Mendota
Village. The amenity spaces located at this property will include an on-site leasing office, mail and
package delivery room, state of the art fitness and yoga studio, and a separate clubhouse building with
exterior connections creating a unique outdoor living space. This proposed project will have an excellent
walkability score due to its proximity to local restaurants, shops, and other retail. This factor combined
with easy access to public parks and walking trail systems, and several major highway connections,
makes this project a desirable housing option for younger professionals or young adults starting out on
their own while helping the City stay competitive with the surrounding communities.
Community Impact
Though the Applicant is applying for this conditional use to amend the guided uses for the subject
parcels, the proposed use (multifamily housing) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare to the community, the proposed uses will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards as
summarized in the attached traffic memo, the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding
PACKET PG. # 32
property value and the proposed use is in harmony with general purpose and intent of the City Code and
its comprehensive plan. Overall, these two projects provide a benefit to the community because they
allow for the redevelopment of two sites in a manner that is consistent with the City’s housing and
density goals while balancing the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Traffic
Understanding that impact on traffic is a genuine and obvious concern when new projects are being
proposed, the Applicant contracted Biko Associates to prepare a technical memorandum to document a
trip generation analysis for the two proposed development projects. This analysis not only provided the
trip generation estimates of the proposed apartment projects but also compared these data against the trip
generation estimates for the current allowed uses, a restaurant and retail building on Parcel 2/Phase II of
Reserve and a 10,130 SQFT day care/child education center on Parcel 1/ Lot 7.
The traffic memorandum, which has been submitted with the Applicant’s application, documents the
analysis for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve and shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour,
and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but
never implemented. Similarly, the analysis for Parcel 1/Lot 7 development shows that it will generate
fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was
originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009. While the daily trip estimate to be
generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than
those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to note that the peak
hour trips, which are of greater concern, are significantly lower. The combined analysis also shows that
the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally
proposed in the 2016 PUD amendment plus the original 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than
the estimates for what is currently being proposed by Applicant.
Development Schedule
Assuming that the approval process follows the published schedule, the Applicant would like to
commence construction on the Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve in the fall of 2021. Due to the smaller
scale of the proposed building for this phase the anticipated construction timeline is approximately nine
(9) months. The Applicant would then plan on breaking ground on Parcel 1/Lot 7 in the spring of 2022
with the goal of a spring 2023 delivery.
Parcel 1/Lot 7 – Architectural Design
The Parcel 1/Lot 7 development consists of 89 units and 157 parking stalls. The site area is 2.04 acres
giving the development a density of approximately 44 units / acre.
The building is designed with a full level of underground parking and a partial level of above grade
parking. The site has significant grade changes up to ten feet with the north and east being lower than
the southwest corner. The grade change allows the lower level of parking to have direct access from the
north, and the upper level has direct access from the west. The front entry is located on the eastern end
of the building. We believe this is the best residential entry point as it connects with the residential use
to the east and provides the best pedestrian access to the commercial area, the trails, and the other
residential development of the Reserve. Due to the grade change, the entry is at the lower level of
parking. This entry will have a grand two-story space that connects residents and visitors to the main /
PACKET PG. # 33
first level. The main level has direct access to a south facing courtyard. The courtyard will contain a
clubhouse with residential amenity spaces, patio and seating areas, grilling stations, and an area for fire
pits and lounging. A decorative trellis at the south end of the courtyard will provide shade and some
privacy to the residents, and visual interest to the street. The community courtyard will have additional
common area amenities surrounding the courtyard and some individual residential units with patios and
balconies overlooking the space. Gardens will surround this courtyard area for resident enjoyment. The
southwest corner of the building being at higher grade allows for three ‘walk-up’ style units. Parking is
conveniently located under the building for nearly every unit, with additional parking for every second
bedroom, and visitors.
The building will be constructed of one and a half levels of concrete, and 3 and a half level of wood
frame construction. The first level with parking will be half concrete and half wood-frame. This site
will be predominantly one-bedroom apartments with a range of generous sizes. The units will have a
high level of finishes providing an upscale feel. The design is intended to attract a wide variety of
people but we believe it will be mostly young professionals, younger renters from the community not
quite ready to purchase homes, and community residents looking for housing and price options that
don’t exist in the area. The design is a mix of brick and siding. The siding picking up some wood tones
to give it a residential feel, and to blend with some of the details and design of the Reserve, while still
providing a distinct look and feel for this parcel. The design also features balconies for the vast majority
of the units and large window openings to provide strong connections to the outdoors.
Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve – Architectural Design
The Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve consists of 58 units and 118 parking stalls. The site area is
approximately 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 28 units / acre.
The building is designed to be similar to the Reserve with the same brick, with stone, and with the same
detailing as the first phase. The layout of the building also mirrors the first phase of the development
picking up on the forty-five-degree angle and matching the stone at the ends of the building to provide a
harmonious entry. This phase will be predominately three stories. There will be a partial fourth floor
providing amenities that are not seen in the first phase of the Reserve and are very unique to the market.
This fourth floor is envisioned to be a roof-top clubhouse with indoor bocce-ball, indoor pickle ball, and
community gathering spaces along with a roof-top deck. The amenities in this building are designed to
complement the first building with residents able to use either facility creating not just the look of a
community with the similar buildings, but also interaction between residents that will help create
community. The building design will be cohesive with the existing building with the brick and stone,
wood tone siding, some large overhangs and an entry that will be similar to phase one. The window
types, colors and patterns will also be the same as the phase one project providing for consistency.
Some of the elements have been scaled down as this is only a three story building whereas the first
Reserve building is four to five stories.
The lower level will be concrete construction and contains seventy-one underground parking stalls. The
grade change allows this to be easily accessed from the southern end of the site. The main level is
accessed from the south side as well, with easy access to visitor parking. Due to the grade change, there
is an upper and lower level parking area that works with the grade and will help the building fit into the
site providing some unique character as well. The central area contains an existing underground storm
water treatment system and will be developed with some green space and gardens at this central area.
The upper levels are wood frame apartments with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Approximately
half of these units also contain dens or secondary home office areas. This will have upscale amenities,
PACKET PG. # 34
finishes and features comparable to the Reserve. The sizing of the units is meant to compliment the
phase one building and by doing so has added some larger units from 1400-1650 SQFT. Being a second
phase, we believe the residential profile will be similar to the Reserve, but we have also identified a need
for larger units to meet the needs of existing community residents looking for apartment by choice style
living.
Parcel 2/Phase 2 of the Reserve – Civil Design
Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil
engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 58-unit apartment adjacent
to The Reserve at Mendota Village.
Stormwater Design
When The Reserve was constructed on the adjacent lot, the project included a two-cell underground
stormwater chamber system to treat stormwater both from the Reserve apartment development and from
the two retail buildings that were proposed on Parcel 2. The primary function of the first cell, southeast
of South Plaza Way, is to infiltrate stormwater. The primary purpose of the second cell is to control the
rate of discharge of stormwater into the existing wetland southwest of the site.
The system was designed to treat 137,410 SF of total impervious surface spanning both lots and a
portion of South Plaza Way that passes between them. This included 62,747 SF of impervious surface
on Parcel 2. This proposed project to construct an apartment building on Parcel 2 reduces the proposed
surface on Parcel 2 from 62,747 SF to 60,610 SF and the total from 137,410 SF to 135,273 SF.
The proposed project will construct a stormwater collection system that will capture and convey runoff
from the eastern developed portion of the site to the infiltration chamber southeast of South Plaza Way.
Since the proposed development has less impervious coverage than the original design, it can be
concluded that the existing system will support the proposed development.
Overflow from the infiltration chamber will continue to be routed through the second cell of the system
before ultimate discharge to the existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. Runoff from
the western portion of the site will continue to pass through the existing pond at the west end of the
property and be discharged into the same existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site.
This application includes a Stormwater Management Report for Parcel 1 that describes how the project
meets all stormwater requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, including infiltration, rate control,
water quality, and temporary best management practices to be implemented during construction.
Sanitary Sewer
Similar to the shared stormwater infrastructure, The Reserve at Mendota Village also included
construction of a sanitary sewer lift station that is intended to be shared between Parcel 2 and the
existing apartment building. This system is in place and actively serving the adjacent apartments with a
stub that was extended to serve future development on Parcel 2. The system was originally designed to
convey sanitary flows from two retail buildings on Parcel 2.
The applicant has reviewed calculations to verify that the existing lift station has adequate capacity to
serve the proposed change in land use from retail to residential. According to information received from
Electric Pump, Inc., the contractor who constructed the lift station, the system has a capacity of 145
gal/min. A typical flow rate for residential populations of less than 5,000 is 60 to 70 gallons per day.
PACKET PG. # 35
Therefore, the existing lift station has a capacity to serve 2,980 to 3,480 people. When applying a
conservative peaking factor of 4.0, which is appropriate for systems with pipe sizes less than 10-inches
diameter or for 250 people, the lift station can still serve a population of up to 745 to 870 people.
Water Main
The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion developments constructed a ductile iron pipe network within the
development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system. The pipe
network serving this development is constructed within public utility easements and provides both water
supply and fire protection. There is a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 2 to serve the proposed development
on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development.
This will be verified during the final design.
Landscape
The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and design
to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be
covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also
includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs.
The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed
landscape design meets the City’s pollinator and native planting requirements.
Maintenance
The Applicant is uncertain if an existing agreement maintenance agreement has been executed with the
City of Mendota Heights documenting their responsibility of the maintenance of the underground
stormwater chamber system or sanitary sewer lift station. If these agreements are not already in place,
the Applicant will work with the City to execute an agreement to maintain these systems.
Parcel 1/Lot 7 – Civil Design
Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil
engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 89-unit apartment on Lot 7,
Block 1 of the Mendota Plaza Expansion development.
Stormwater
When the Mendota Plaza Expansion development was originally constructed, the developer constructed
a stormwater pond in the north central portion of the site, along the south side of the existing wetland
that passes through the site. The developer also constructed a stormwater collection system to convey
water to the stormwater pond.
The stormwater infrastructure was originally permitted in 2009, based on the Stormwater Management
Plan prepared by RLK Inc. dated December 22, 2008. The infrastructure was designed to meet the
stormwater regulations that were in place at the time. However, stormwater regulations have changed
since the original approvals. The City of Mendota Heights now requires Atlas 14, MSE-3 24-hr rainfall
distributions to be used for stormwater design. The City also has implemented requirements for
stormwater infiltration and phosphorus removal.
PACKET PG. # 36
This application includes a stormwater management plan with calculations demonstrating the
compliance of the site with the new regulations. The existing infrastructure supports the updated rate
control requirements. However, the original system did not provide any infiltration, and did not fully
meet the updated phosphorus removal requirements.
This project proposes construction of an underground stormwater chamber beneath the proposed eastern
parking lot. This proposed chamber will be designed to meet the infiltration requirements. By doing so,
the volume reduction achieved by the proposed underground chamber will also exceed the phosphorus
removal requirements.
Sanitary Sewer
The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion development constructed PVC sanitary sewer main collection
system to serve the development. This collection system is routed to the City of Mendota Heights public
sanitary sewer system. The lateral main serving this development is an 8” PVC main with a 6” PVC stub
that is deep enough to provides gravity service to the proposed development.
Water Main
Similar to Parcel 2, the ductile iron pipe network constructed within the development that is connected
to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system also provides a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 1
to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be
sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design.
Landscape
The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is
designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will
be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also
includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs.
The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed
landscape design meets the City’s pollinator and native planting requirements.
Maintenance
The proposed project on Parcel 1 will connect to existing public storm water, sanitary, and water main
infrastructure. The Applicant will maintain the private stormwater infiltration chamber proposed under
the east parking lot, and the segments of private service connections that are within the proposed Parcel
1 boundary but not included within the public drainage and utility easements.
PACKET PG. # 37
dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůDĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵ
d ͗ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
dK͗>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ͕ WƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ
&ZKD͗tŝůůŝĂŵ^ŵŝƚŚ͕/W
ĂŶŝĞů>ƵďďĞŶ
Z ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƚŚŝƐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵƚŽĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌ
ƚǁŽƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐďĞŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďLJƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐ͕DŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͘dŚĞĨŝƌƐƚŝƐ
ĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽďĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚƉŚĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞ
ĂŶĚƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽŚĞƌĞŝŶĂƐDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŝƐĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚŽŶ
>ŽƚϳǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂWhĂŶĚƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽŚĞƌĞŝŶĂƐƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ͗
ϭ͘ dŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐΖDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚŝƚǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ
ĨĞǁĞƌĚĂŝůLJ͕DƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌ͕ĂŶĚWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞƵƐĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƐŝƚĞŝŶϮϬϭϲďƵƚŶĞǀĞƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘;^ĞĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐϭĂŶĚϯŝŶdĂďůĞϲŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϮ͘Ϳ
Ϯ͘ ^ŝŵŝůĂƌůLJ͕ƚŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͛DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚŝƚ
ǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĨĞǁĞƌDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌĂŶĚĨĞǁĞƌWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ
ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJƵƐĞƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂWhŝŶϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ
ďƵƚŶĞǀĞƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŽďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞĂŵĞƌĞƚǁŽǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞ;ĂĚĂLJĐĂƌĞͿ͕ŝƚŝƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůůLJŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŽĨŵƵĐŚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƚŚĂŶĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂƌĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJůŽǁĞƌ͘
;^ĞĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐϰĂŶĚϱŝŶdĂďůĞϲŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϮ͘Ϳ
ϯ͘ dŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂůƐŽƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ;ĚĂŝůLJ͕DƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌ͕ĂŶĚWD
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƉůƵƐƚŚĞ
ϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhĂƌĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐĨŽƌǁŚĂƚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďLJƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘;^ĞĞdĂďůĞϳŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϰ͘Ϳ
ƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƐŝƐĂŵĂũŽƌĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶƚŚĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚƚŚĞ
>ĞǀĞůƐŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ;>K^ͿƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǁŝůůĞdžŚŝďŝƚĂƚŬĞLJŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŝƚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞƚŽĂƐƐƵŵĞ͕ǁŚĞƌĞ
ŽƚŚĞƌĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƌĞŵĂŝŶĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚ͕ƚŚĂƚůŽǁĞƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶďĞƚƚĞƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ
ŚŝŐŚĞƌ>K^ĂƚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
PACKET PG. # 38
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϮ
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͗
&ŝǀĞLJĞĂƌƐĂŐŽŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕WĂƐƚĞƌWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂƉĂƌĐĞůůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ
ŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶǁĂƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚƌĞĞƵƐĞƐ͗ϭͿ
ĂŶĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͕ϮͿƌĞƚĂŝůƐƉĂĐĞĂƚϰ͕ϴϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͕ĂŶĚϯͿĂϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞ
ĨŽŽƚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͘^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐǁĂƐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚďLJWĂƐƚĞƌWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƚŽƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĂƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJƚŽ
ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŚŽǁƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƚ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ͕ŝŶƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌ͕ŚŽǁĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌŝŐŚƚͲŝŶͬƌŝŐŚƚͲŽƵƚĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJǁŽƵůĚĂĨĨĞĐƚ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŶd,ϲϮĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂĨĞƚLJ͘&ŝŐƵƌĞƐϭĂŶĚϮ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƚĂŬĞŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ
ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJ͕ĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽƐŚŽǁƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
KĨƚŚĞƚŚƌĞĞƵƐĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕ŽŶůLJƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚϭϯϵƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨϭϰϵƵŶŝƚƐ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐƐŝƚĞůLJŝŶŐǀĂĐĂŶƚ͕ƚ,ŽŵĞ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝƐŶŽǁƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŶĚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚ͕ƚŚƌĞĞ
ƐƚŽƌLJŵŝĚͲƌŝƐĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚďŽƚŚƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞůĞǀĞůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͘dŚĞϱϴͲƵŶŝƚ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŝƐƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞŐŝŶŝŶĨĂůůŽĨϮϬϮϭ͘
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭ͗
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂů>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͗DĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϴ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘
PACKET PG. # 39
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭWĂŐĞϯ Retail and restaurant uses, which were never built. 139-unit apartment (The Reserve at Mendota Village), which was built in 2016.** &ŝŐƵƌĞϮ͗ŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů^ŝƚĞWůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͗DĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϴ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘ ΎΎdŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĂůLJnjĞĚĂϭϰϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘KŶůLJϭϯϵƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘PACKET PG. # 40
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϰ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͗
/ŶĂWhĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ͕ĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĂƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ
ďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ͛Ɛ>Žƚϳ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶĞŶĚŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂĂŶĚŽŶ
ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚƐŝĚĞŽĨ^ŽƵƚŚWůĂnjĂƌŝǀĞ͘dŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĂƐŶĞǀĞƌďƵŝůƚ͕ĂŶĚƚ,ŽŵĞ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚ͕ĨŝǀĞͬƐŝdžƐƚŽƌLJŵŝĚͲƌŝƐĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ƚŝƐ
ŚŽƉĞĚƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞϴϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŐŝŶŝŶƚŚĞƐƉƌŝŶŐͬƐƵŵŵĞƌŽĨϮϬϮϮǁŝƚŚĂ
ϮϬϮϯĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJĚĂƚĞ͘
^ĐŚĞŵĂƚŝĐĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJ<< ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϮϬϬϵ͕
ĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶďĞůŽǁŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͘
dŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨďŽƚŚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϰŽŶ
ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƉĂŐĞ͘
&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͗^ĐŚĞŵĂƚŝĐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ
PACKET PG. # 41
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭWĂŐĞϱ &ŝŐƵƌĞϰ͗>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͛dǁŽWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDƵůƚŝͲ&ĂŵŝůLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞƐ^ŽƵƚŚWůĂnjĂƌŝǀĞd,ϲϮd,ϭϰϵϭϯϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿďƵŝůƚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͘dŚĞŽŶůLJϮϬϭϲƵƐĞƚŚĂƚǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐŝŶϮϬϭϲ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ>Žƚϳ͕ĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&ĐŚŝůĚŚŽŽĚͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJŝŶϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ͘PACKET PG. # 42
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϲ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
dŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚƌŝƉ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐŝŶƚĂďůĞƐƚŚĂƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŽŶƉĂŐĞϭĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϮ͘dƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐĂƌĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƐĂŶĞůĞŵĞŶƚ
ŽĨdƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐƚŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĂƚƚƌĂĐƚĞĚƚŽĂŶĚĚĞƉĂƌƚĨƌŽŵ
ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƵƐĞƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂƐŝƚĞ͘&ŝǀĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚŝŶ
ƚŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵ͘
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϭ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
ƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƵƐĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬ
ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽŶƉĂŐĞϴ͕ƚŚĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĂ
ůŽǁƚŽŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞǁĞĞŬĚĂLJ͘ƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚĞ
ƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞǀŽůƵŵĞƐŽĨDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌĂŶĚWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐǁĞƌĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞĂůŵŽƐƚ
͞ƵŶƌĞŵĂƌŬĂďůĞ͘͟
ƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƚƌŝƉƐĂƐƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƚƌŝƉƐ
ĂƌĞ͞ŝŶƚĞƌŵĞĚŝĂƚĞƐƚŽƉƐŽŶƚŚĞǁĂLJ͞ďĞƚǁĞĞŶĂƚƌŝƉŽƌŝŐŝŶĂŶĚĂŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚƌŝƉĚĞƐƚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘KŶĞ
ǁĂLJƚŽƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞŵĐĂŶďĞ͞ƐƉƵƌŽĨƚŚĞŵŽŵĞŶƚ͟ƚƌŝƉƐǁŚĞƌĞ͕
ĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ĂĚƌŝǀĞƌŝƐƉĂƐƐŝŶŐďLJĂDĐŽŶĂůĚƐƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͕ƐĞĞƐƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶƌĐŚĞƐ͕ƐƵĚĚĞŶůLJ
ĐƌĂǀĞƐĂŝŐDĂĐ͕ƚŚĞŶƚƵƌŶƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞDĐŽŶĂůĚƐ͛ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͕ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƐĂŝŐDĂĐ͕ĂŶĚĞdžŝƚƐƚŚĞ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚƌŝƉ͘
WĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐĚŽŶŽƚĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐŽŶƌŽĂĚǁĂLJůŝŶŬƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚƌŝƉĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶƐďƵƚƚŚĞLJĚŽ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐƚŚĂƚƐĞƌǀĞƚŚĞŵ͘EŽŶͲƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ďLJĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ͕ĂƌĞŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐͲͲͲƚƌŝƉƐ
ƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞŽŶĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƌŽĂĚǁĂLJůŝŶŬƐǁĞƌĞŝƚŶŽƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ͘
/ŶdĂďůĞϭ͕ĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ŝƚŝƐƐŚŽǁŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ
ϱϯϲĚĂŝůLJŝŶďŽƵŶĚƚƌŝƉƐĂŶĚϱϯϲĚĂŝůLJŽƵƚďŽƵŶĚƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂŶĚϯϱƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞ;ϯϴϭƚƌŝƉƐͿĂƌĞƉĂƐƐͲ
ďLJƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƚ^ŽƵƚŚWůĂnjĂƌŝǀĞ͕EŽƌƚŚWůĂnjĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ƌŝŐŚƚͲŝŶͬƌŝŐŚƚͲŽƵƚĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJŽŶd,ϲϮ͘dŚĞƐĞƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂŶŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞ
ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨd,ϲϮͬd,ϭϰϵďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞŶŽƚŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐďĞŝŶŐĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐLJƐƚĞŵ͘/Ŷ
ĞƐƐĞŶĐĞ͕ƚŚĞLJĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJŽŶƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͘ƐdĂďůĞϭ
ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůLJŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐ͕ƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;ĂƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵƐĞͿĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘
ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͕ŝĨƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJ
ƉůĂŶŶĞĚ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ͗
ϭ͕ϬϳϮĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϯϴϭǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϳϯDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϭϳǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϵϳWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϯϮǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ
PACKET PG. # 43
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϳ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϮ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚŝŶϮϬϭϲ
dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨŶŽƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞƚĂŝůƐŚŽƉƐĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚŝŶϮϬϭϲŝƐŽŶĞǁŚĞƌĞƚƌŝƉƐ
ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚŽƐĞƵƐĞƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ͘dŚƵƐ͕ƚŚĞLJƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƐƵďƚƌĂĐƚĞĚ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͘^ĞĞdĂďůĞϮŽŶƉĂŐĞϴ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǁŚĂƚ
ǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ͕ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘
ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϮ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚŽĚĂLJŝƐ͗
ϱϯϬĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϰϲDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ϱϮWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝŶŐdĂďůĞƐϭĂŶĚϮ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚƌŝƉƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƌĞĂůŝnjĞĚďLJŶŽƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐ͘
WĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ϱϭƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ;ϱϰϮĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐͿŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ϯϳƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϮϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ϰϲƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϰϱWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
PACKET PG. # 44
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭWĂŐĞϴ dĂďůĞϭ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ/d >ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂŝůLJDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌWDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůĂŝůLJWĂƐƐͲďLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐͲďLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůWDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐͲďLJ>ŽĐĂů ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͿΎΎϮϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ Ϭ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ Ϭ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ ϬϴϮϲ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJZĞƚĂŝů;ϰ͕ϴϮϲ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ĞĞƚͿϲϬ ϲϬ ϭϮϬ ϲϮ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϵ ϭϬ ϯ ϰ ϳ ϰ>ŽĐĂůZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ;ϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿϮϭϭ Ϯϭϭ ϰϮϮ ϯϭϵ ϱ ϯ ϴ ϳ Ϯϱ ϭϯ ϯϴ ϮϴdŽƚĂůϱϯϲ ϱϯϲ ϭϬϳϮ ϯϴϭ ϮϬ ϱϯ ϳϯ ϭϳ ϲϮ ϯϱ ϵϳ ϯϮ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐ͗͞dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϵƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕͟/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d ͿĂŶĚůŽĐĂůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ĂƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdƌĂĨĨŝĐ /ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͗DĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϴ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘ΎΎ ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘dĂďůĞϮ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚZĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚhƐĞƐ/d >ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂŝůLJDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌWDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůĂŝůLJWĂƐƐLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůWDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐLJ>ŽĐĂů ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͿΎΎϮϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ Ϭ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ Ϭ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ ϬϴϮϲ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJZĞƚĂŝů;ϰ͕ϴϮϲ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ĞĞƚͿϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ>ŽĐĂůZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ;ϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬdŽƚĂůϮϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ Ϭ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ Ϭ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ Ϭ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐ͗ ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘:ƵůLJϮϰ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘ΎΎ ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚPACKET PG. # 45
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϵ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϯ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚŝŶϮϬϭϲĂŶĚƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
ƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽďƵŝůĚĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮͿŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞ
ƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐǁĞƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͘WƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϯ͕ďĞůŽǁ͕ĂƌĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂ
ƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚƚŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ
ďLJƚŚĞϭϰϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕ĂŶĚ
ƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘
dĂďůĞϯ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞĂŶĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ŽŵďŝŶĞĚ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿнн
ϭϰϵĚƵƐΎΎ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϱϴĚƵƐ ϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
dŽƚĂůϮϬϳĚƵƐ ϰϮϮ ϰϮϮ ϴϰϰ ϭϭ ϱϱ ϲϲ ϱϬ Ϯϴ ϳϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ нн >ŽĐĂůĚĂƚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘
ннн dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϭϬƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d Ϳ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϵϳ͕ŶŽƚϮϬϳ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƚŽƚĂůƐŝŶdĂďůĞϯĨŽƌ
dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞLJĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĂƌĞ͘
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘
ŽŵƉĂƌŝŶŐdĂďůĞϭƚŽdĂďůĞϯ͕ŝƚŝƐƐŚŽǁŶƚŚĂƚďLJŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĨĞǁĞƌƚƌŝƉƐǁŝůůďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲ
ĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞϰ͕ϴϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞ
ĨŽŽƚƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐ͕ǁŝůůLJŝĞůĚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
ůůƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
ϮϭƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ;ϮϮϴĚĂŝůLJƚŝƉƐͿĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
ϭϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
ϮϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϭϵWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚĂ
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ƐŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚ͕ĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĚĂLJĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĂƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ
ŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ͛Ɛ>Žƚϳ͘/ƚǁĂƐŶĞǀĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂŶϴϵͲ
ƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘dĂďůĞϰƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚŝĨƚŚĞϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĞƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶ>Žƚϳ͕ĂůŽŶŐ
PACKET PG. # 46
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϬ
ǁŝƚŚdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ;ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚͿ͕ĂŶĚĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĨŽƌ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘
dĂďůĞϰ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ D WĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿнн
ϭϰϵĚƵƐΎΎ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϱϴĚƵƐ ϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ
>Žƚϳ
/d ŽĚĞϱϲϱннн
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^& Ϯϰϭ Ϯϰϭ ϰϴϮ ϱϵ ϱϮ ϭϭϭ ϲϬ ϱϯ ϭϭϯ
dŽƚĂůϮϬϳĚƵƐ
ĂŶĚ
ĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ϲϲϯ ϲϲϯ ϭϯϮϲ ϳϬ ϭϬϳ ϭϳϳ ϭϭϬ ϴϭ ϭϵϭ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ нн>ŽĐĂůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘
нннdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϭϬƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d Ϳ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϵϳ͕ŶŽƚϮϬϳ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƚŽƚĂůƐŝŶdĂďůĞϰĨŽƌdŚĞ
ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞLJĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĂƌĞ͘
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϰ͕ƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽŝƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶ͗
ϭ͕ϯϮϲĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϭϳϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ϭϵϭWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>Žƚϳ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
dŚŝƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚƌĞĞƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͖ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞ
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͘ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϱ͕ďĞůŽǁ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐ
ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐůŽǁ͘>ŝŬĞǁŝƐĞ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĂƚŽƚĂůǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚŝƐůŽǁŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂŶĞŶƚŝƌĞ
ĚĂLJĂŶĚ͕ŵŽƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚůLJ͕ŝƐĂůƐŽůŽǁƚŽůŽǁͬŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƐ͘
PACKET PG. # 47
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϭ
dĂďůĞϱ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿнн
ϭϰϵĚƵƐΎΎ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϱϴĚƵƐ ϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>Žƚϳ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϴϵĚƵƐ ϮϰϮ ϮϰϮ ϰϴϰ ϴ Ϯϯ ϯϭ ϭϰ ϭϲ ϰϬ
dŽƚĂůϮϵϲĚƵƐ ϲϲϰ ϲϲϰ ϭϯϮϴ ϭϵ ϳϴ ϵϳ ϲϰ ϰϰ ϭϭϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ нн >ŽĐĂůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘
нннdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϭϬƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d Ϳ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞϮϴϲ͕ŶŽƚϮϵϲ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƐŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ
ZĞƐĞƌǀĞŝŶdĂďůĞϱĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞLJĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĂƌĞ͘
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘
dĂďůĞϱƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚďLJŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞ
ĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐŝƐ
ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞ͗
ϭ͕ϯϮϴĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϵϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ϭϭϴWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐ͗
dĂďůĞϲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƐŝĚĞͲďLJͲƐŝĚĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐŽĨĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĞĂĐŚŽĨĨŝǀĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͘ƐƐŚŽǁŶ͕^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ŝƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůůLJŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌĂŶĚWD
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŚĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͘
PACKET PG. # 48
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϮ
dĂďůĞϲ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
ϭͿdŚĞ
ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲ
džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ
WƌŽŐƌĂŵ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϰ͕ϴϮϲ^&ZĞƚĂŝů
• ϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&
ZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ
ϱϯϲ ϱϯϲ ϭϬϳϮ ϮϬ ϱϯ ϳϯ ϲϮ ϯϱ ϵϳ
ϮͿϮϬϭϲ
tŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ
ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
ϯͿWŽƐƚϮϬϭϲ
tŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ
ĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚ
ǁŝƚŚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϱϴĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ϰϮϮ ϰϮϮ ϴϰϰ ϭϭ ϱϱ ϲϲ ϱϬ Ϯϴ ϳϴ
ϰͿtŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ͕
ƉůƵƐ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕
ƉůƵƐĂ
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
• ϭϰϵĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϱϴĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
• ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ϲϲϯ ϲϲϯ ϭϯϮϲ ϳϬ ϭϬϳ ϭϳϳ ϭϭϬ ϴϭ ϭϵϭ
ϱͿtŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ͕
ƉůƵƐ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕
ƉůƵƐ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>Žƚ
ϳ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϱϴͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
• ϴϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ϲϲϰ ϲϲϰ ϭϯϮϴ ϭϵ ϳϴ ϵϳ ϲϰ ϰϰ ϭϭϴ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘
PACKET PG. # 49
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϯ
ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ͗
&ŽƵƌŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘
ϭ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϭĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϯ͘dŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͛ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ϱϴͲ
ƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚͿǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶůŽǁĞƌƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂŶ
ǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝĨƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘
Ϯ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͘dŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐƐŚŽǁĞĚƚŚĂƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚͿǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŶĞĂƌůLJĞƋƵĂůǀŽůƵŵĞƐŽĨĚĂŝůLJ
ƚƌŝƉƐĂƐƚŚŽƐĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͖ϭ͕ϯϮϲĚĂŝůLJ
ƚƌŝƉƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽϭ͕ϯϮϴĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƚĂƌŬĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨ
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ͘^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂů
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ǁŽƵůĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂŶ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞϴϵͲ
ƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͖ϭϳϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽϵϳ͘>ŝŬĞǁŝƐĞ͕^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰǁŝůů
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞϭϵϭWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞϭϭϴ͘
ϯ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲĂŶĚϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵĂŐĂŝŶƐƚǁŚĂƚŝƐ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚdŽĚĂLJ͘ƐdĂďůĞϳƐŚŽǁƐ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚƵƐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉĂƌĐĞůƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞLJŝĞůĚϭ͕ϱϱϰĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘
dŚŝƐŝƐƚŽďĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ;ϭ͕ϯϮϴͿƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ
ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐ;ϱϴƵŶŝƚƐŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚϴϵƵŶŝƚƐŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂϳͿ͘
dĂďůĞϳĂůƐŽƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůůLJŵŽƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ
ƚŚĂŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŝůůďĞůŽǁĞƌǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶĞǁůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐ͕ĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ
ƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWh͘Ɛ
ƐŚŽǁŶ͕ƚŚĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐĂƌĞƐƚĂƌŬ͗
ŽŵƉĂƌĞϭϴϰDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŽϵϳ͕ĂĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϴϳǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌ
ŽŵƉĂƌĞϮϭϬWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŽϭϭϴ͕ĂĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϵϮǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌ͘
WĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐĂƌĞŵŽƌĞĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞƚŚĂƚŽĐĐƵƌŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂϮϰͲŚŽƵƌ
ĚĂLJ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƐĂƌĞƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚƐǁŚĞƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐĂƌĞĂƚƚŚĞŝƌŚŝŐŚĞƐƚǁŝƚŚŝŶ
ĂƐŚŽƌƚƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨƚŝŵĞ͘
PACKET PG. # 50
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϰ
dĂďůĞϳ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞƐ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ&ƵůůLJ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWh
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿ
ϭϰϵĚƵƐ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJZĞƚĂŝůϰ͕ϴϮϲ^&ϲϬϲϬ ϭϮϬ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϵ ϯ ϰ ϳ
ZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&ϮϭϭϮϭϭ ϰϮϮ ϱ ϯ ϴ Ϯϱ ϭϯ ϯϴ
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^& ϮϰϭϮϰϭ ϰϴϮ ϱϵ ϱϮ ϭϭϭ ϲϬ ϱϯ ϭϭϯ
dŽƚĂůϳϳϳ ϳϳϳ ϭϱϱϰ ϳϵ ϭϬϱ ϭϴϰ ϭϮϮ ϴϴ ϮϭϬ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞƐ
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿ
ϭϰϵĚƵƐ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶ'ĞŶĞƌĂů
hƌďĂŶͬ^ƵďƵƌďĂŶ
^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ
ϱϴĚƵƐϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶ'ĞŶĞƌĂů
hƌďĂŶͬ^ƵďƵƌďĂŶ
^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ
ϴϵĚƵƐϮϰϮϮϰϮ ϰϴϰ ϴ Ϯϯ ϯϭ ϭϰ ϭϲ ϰϬ
dŽƚĂůϲϲϰ ϲϲϰ ϭϯϮϴ ϭϵ ϳϴ ϵϳ ϲϰ ϰϰ ϭϭϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ϰ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϮĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͘dŚĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƐĞƚǁŽƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ
ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƚŚĂƚĐĂŶďĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂĨƵƚƵƌĞ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶǁŚĞƌĞďŽƚŚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďŽƚŚ
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘dŚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚďLJŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ
ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚ͘
ĂŝůLJ нϳϵϴƚƌŝƉƐ
DWĞĂŬ нϱϭƚƌŝƉƐ
WDWĞĂŬ нϲϲƚƌŝƉƐ
dŚĞƐĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂĨƵƚƵƌĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ;ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďŽƚŚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚͿĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚĂƌĞƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƚŽďĞƚŽŽůŽǁƚŽŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽĨŽƵŶĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚĞŝƌƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞŝŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞďĞĐŽŵĞƐŽďǀŝŽƵƐǁŚĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŝŶƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝĨƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ;ƚŚĞϭϰϵͲ
PACKET PG. # 51
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϱ
ƵŶŝƚZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕ƚŚĞϰ͕ϴϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚƌĞƚĂŝůƐƉĂĐĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚͿĂŶĚ
ƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĂƐƉůĂŶŶĞĚ͘
ĂŝůLJ нϭ͕ϬϮϰƚƌŝƉƐ
DWĞĂŬ нϭϯϴƚƌŝƉƐ
WDWĞĂŬ нϭϱϴƚƌŝƉƐ
LJĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƐĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂƌĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĂƌĞŵŽƌĞůŝŬĞůLJƚŽ
ŚĂǀĞĂŶŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͕ǁŚĞƌĞďŽƚŚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘
PACKET PG. # 52
ǣ̳
̳ͲͳͳʹͷʹͲͳ̳ʹ̴̴̳̳ʹͲʹͳǦͲͺǦͳ̴ Ǥ
D DKZEhD
Date: August 16, 2021
To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E.
Public Works Director, City of Mendota Heights
From: Bryan Nemeth, P.E.
Subject: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
City of Mendota Heights
Project No.: 0R1.125201
This memorandum provides a review of the proposed development and the associated traffic analysis
dated August 9, 2021 (Trip Generation Analysis). The August 9, 2021 study references a previous traffic
impact study completed for the project area that included the some of the area under consideration for
development. As this is the basis for the traffic analysis, the study results were reviewed.
2016 Analysis Study Review
The 2016 study proposed maintaining two full access points on the west to TH 149/Dodd Road and
proposed adding one right-in/right-out or just a right-in access on the north to TH 62 (previously TH
110). Ultimately, the access to TH 62 was constructed with right-in access only. The 2016 study indicates
that there will be resulting poor levels of service for all of the intersections by 2040 with the development
but also indicates that improvements are beyond the scope of the study.
Review of the queues resulting from the 2016 study indicates that the AM northbound queues at TH
62/TH 149 increase by 100 to 150 feet with the development in 2040 compared to the existing scenario in
2016. The AM queue can be accommodated with the existing access spacing on TH 149 and does not
appear to be a concern. The PM queue in 2016 already extended past the North Plaza Access and would
be longer by around 75 feet in 2018 and 1,200 feet in 2040 with the right-in access. Additionally, any
queuing on the Plaza accesses to TH 149/Dodd Road are shown to be acceptable but would operate at
LOS F in the 2040 scenarios. Overall, the study indicated that an access to TH 62 would provide some, if
minimal, improvement to operations. The biggest improvement is likely a safety improvement to TH
149/Dodd Road, south of TH 62, by not having as much traffic make the southbound left turn movement
into the accesses off TH 149/Dodd Road.
Trip Generation
The traffic study Technical Memorandum documented the trip generation analysis for two projects being
proposed by At Home Apartments. This includes:
• Mendota 2: 58-unit apartment
• Lot 7: 89-unit apartment
It is proposed that the increase in trips from the new development for Mendota 2 would be less than what
was previously proposed in 2016, so no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, Lot 7
was previously proposed as a daycare/childhood center in a 2008/2009 PUD application but it is unknown
whether a traffic analysis was completed with it. Review of historical aerial images indicates that Lots 6
PACKET PG. # 53
Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
Date: August 16, 2021
Page: 2
and 7 of the area were not developed by the time of the 2016 study. Consequently, the 2016 traffic impact
study does not appear to take the Lot 6 or Lot 7 development into account.
The ITE Trip Generation analysis uses the correct rates resulting in the following for Mendota Plaza. This
also displays the previous trip projections for the two sites.
Site Mendota Plaza Trip Projections 2009/2016 Trip Projections (new trips)
Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Mendota 2 314 20 26 542 27 45
Lot 7 484 31 40 482 111 113
Total 798 51 66 1,024 138 158
This results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily for “Mendota 2” than the
previous development proposed in those areas for the 2016 study. This also results in fewer trips during
the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and essentially the same for daily trips for Lot 7 than the previous
development proposed in the area from the 2008/2009 PUD Application. This indicates that the new
development would likely result in fewer trips than previously proposed, especially during the critical
AM and PM peak hours.
By itself, this does not indicate that the operations are acceptable or that the proposed development does
not need to provide transportation network improvements. This new additional traffic will be added to the
traffic that is there today. The most noticeable change is likely to be on South Plaza Drive, since much of
the Lot 7 traffic would likely use South Plaza Drive to access TH 149/Dodd Road, due to proximity and
due to queues on TH 149.
Traffic Operations
The 2016 study indicated substantial operational concerns with or without any new development in the
area. This is a result of existing traffic volumes on the roadway, increased background traffic growth due
to new development locally and region-wide, and the new proposed development. The poor operations are
likely a concern for MnDOT (jurisdiction over TH 149 and TH 110) and the city of Mendota Heights,
especially when it impacts the safety of the traveling public. As indicated previously, the new
development by itself does not appear to be the biggest driver for the operational concerns, as the 2018
operations appear to be minimally different than the 2016 operations prior to the expanded development.
But the new development will add trips to the network, resulting in slightly longer queue lengths.
Additional review of options for improved operations and safety, such as different access configurations
at both North Plaza and South Plaza Drive may need to be considered.
Traffic Safety Review
A review of the recent crashes in the area was completed to understand how the most recent development
since 2016 impacted traffic safety and if improvements are needed in the area, especially as traffic
increases due to additional development.
Location 2014-2016 Crashes 2018-2020 Crashes Notes
Angle Rear-end Other Angle Rear-end Other
Dodd/South Plaza - 1* - 1* - -
Dodd/North Plaza 2* 1* - 1** 2* 1
TH 62/Right-in - - - - - - ***
*Crash involved a northbound queue backup through the intersection
**Crash involved a motorized scooter using the pedestrian crossing
***No crashes appear to involve the right turn off of TH 62
PACKET PG. # 54
Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
Date: August 16, 2021
Page: 3
Overall, it appears that the development increase did not result in an increase in crashes or a reduction in
safety. The crash data does indicate that there is a consistent crash type occurring on TH 149, especially
when there is a long queue evident that extends south from TH 62. The number of crashes are low though,
and would not appear to be a substantial concern.
With the increased traffic at South Plaza Drive, constructing a southbound left turn lane at South Plaza
Drive would be anticipated to provide a safety improvement by allowing southbound traffic to bypass
southbound left turning vehicles, especially since the access appears to be blocked by vehicles on a
frequent basis. The proposed development on Lot 7 would likely increase the number of southbound left
turning vehicles in the PM peak hour, when the queues appear to be the most prevalent.
Mendota 2 development does have some safety concerns that should be rectified prior to development.
The current north access occurs right after the right turn off of TH 62 and is directly after the entrance
sign structure. These are significant safety concerns for sight lines. The north access should be moved
south to provide more distance from TH 62 and the sign structure. Additionally, the signing and striping
of the internal roadway that connects to the right-in off of TH 62 should be revised to make it easier for
motorists to understand the traffic movements allowed in the area as the Mendota 2 site is developed.
Pedestrian Considerations
The network for pedestrians appears to provide access to all of the currently developed parcels except for
Lot 6. With the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 the pedestrian network should be expanded to serve
those parcels. Of special consideration, the transit stop on South Plaza Drive is not connected to the
overall pedestrian network, nor is the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road and
South Plaza Drive. A sidewalk or trail should be extended from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive.
Additionally, the sidewalk/trail should extend from the access points for the building on Lot 7 to this
sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive. This would provide access to the overall transportation network
and the transit stop from Lot 7.
Pedestrian network access to and from Mendota 2 can expand on what has already been completed in the
area during Phase 1. Mendota 2 should connect to this network of sidewalk and trail to the east.
In conjunction with the above improvements, the current pedestrian activated RRFB located on the
southeast corner of TH 149/S Plaza Dr should be considered for relocation to the north side of the
intersection since that is where the pedestrian crossing is located, to get it in compliance with the
MnMUTCD.
Conclusions
The following improvements are recommended to be made to the surrounding transportation network to
improve pedestrian connections and improve potential safety concerns with the development of Mendota
2 and Lot 7 into apartments:
• Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza
Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast
corner of TH 149/Dodd Road.
• Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive
sidewalk/trail.
• Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east.
• Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows
and as approved by MnDOT.
• Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2.
PACKET PG. # 55
Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
Date: August 16, 2021
Page: 4
Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give
consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic
movements and improve safety.
PACKET PG. # 56
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B-2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
August 11, 2021
Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
SUBJECT: At Home Apartments - MH
MnDOT Review #S21-049
SE quadrant of MN 149 and MN 62
Control Section: 1917
Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Dear Tim Benetti,
Thank you for submitting the plans for At Home Apartments – MH. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, received 7/19/21, and has the following
comments:
Drainage
A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate
that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The
drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to:
https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/.
The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application:
1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to
MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced.
2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the
submitted calculations.
3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events.
Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed, and additional
information may be requested. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234-
7539 or jason.swenson@state.mn.us with any questions.
Noise
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and
highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise.
Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority
to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities,
PACKET PG. # 57
Page 2 of 3
listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use
would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards.
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of
highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required
to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the
proposed development from any highway noise.
If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries, Metro District
Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us.
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Consider including indoor bicycle parking and making sidewalk connections to South Plaza Way ADA
accessible so all road users can easily access the Parcel 2 building.
Please contact Jesse Thornsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or
jesse.thornsen@state.mn.us with any questions.
Permits
Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are
available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/.
For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro
District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.craig@state.mn.us.
Review Submittal Options
MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. In order of preference, review materials
may be submitted as:
1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments
may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are
necessary, number each message.
2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s web transfer client site at:
https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file
name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded.
3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review
staff via the above email if this submittal method is used.
MnDOT
Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Please do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link.
PACKET PG. # 58
Page 3 of 3
You are welcome to contact me at (651) 234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions.
Sincerely,
David Kratz
Senior Planner
Copy sent via email:
Jason Swenson, Water Resources
Buck Craig, Permits
Ben Klismith, Right of Way
Almin Ramic, Traffic
Jason Junge, Transit
Natalie Ries, Noise
Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support
Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer
Ryan Wilson, Area Manager
Mackenzie Turner Barger, Ped/Bike
Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike
Lance Schowalter, Design
Cameron Muhic, Planning
Tod Sherman, Planning
Casey Crisp, Surveying
Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council
PACKET PG. # 59
PACKET PG. # 60
REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 10:27:58 AM$5(1'(5,1*63+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description12" = 1'-0"MAIN ENTRY RENDERING12" = 1'-0"NORTHEAST RENDERINGPACKET PG. # 61
REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 10:27:58 AM$5(1'(5,1*63+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description12" = 1'-0"NORTHWEST RENDERING12" = 1'-0"SOUTHWEST RENDERINGPACKET PG. # 62
REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 10:27:58 AM$5(1'(5,1*63+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description12" = 1'-0"SOUTH RENDERING12" = 1'-0"AERIAL RENDERINGPACKET PG. # 63
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
522)
%($5,1*
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
522)
%($5,1*
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 12:55:34 PM$%8,/',1*(/(9$7,2163+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description3/32" = 1'-0"CENTER WING - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"EAST WING - SOUTHWEST BUILDING ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"EAST WING - SOUTHEAST BUILDING ELEVATION %5,&. 6721(9(1((5 &(0(17%2$5'/$36,',1* :22'721(&(0(17%2$5'/$36,',1* 0(7$/3$1(/6,',1* 35(),1,6+('0(7$/)/$6+,1* 6721(9(1((5/,17(/6,///('*(&2856( &20326,7(:,1'2:6 %/$&. 35(),1,6+('*$5$*('225 %$/&21,(6$1'5$,/,1*6 &(0(17%2$5'75,0 3$&.$*('+9$&81,7PACKET PG. # 64
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
522)
%($5,1*
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
522)
%($5,1*
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
522)
%($5,1*
REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 12:55:36 PM$%8,/',1*(/(9$7,2163+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description3/32" = 1'-0"EAST WING - NORTHEAST BUILDING ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"CENTER WING - EAST BUILDING ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"CENTER WING - NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION %5,&. 6721(9(1((5 &(0(17%2$5'/$36,',1* :22'721(&(0(17%2$5'/$36,',1* 0(7$/3$1(/6,',1* 35(),1,6+('0(7$/)/$6+,1* 6721(9(1((5/,17(/6,///('*(&2856( &20326,7(:,1'2:6 %/$&. 35(),1,6+('*$5$*('225 %$/&21,(6$1'5$,/,1*6 &(0(17%2$5'75,0 3$&.$*('+9$&81,7PACKET PG. # 65
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
522)
%($5,1*
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
67)/225
727233,1*
3$5.,1*/(9(/
726/$%1')/225
7268%)/2255')/225
726+($7+,1*7+)/225
726+($7+,1*723$5$3(7
REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 12:55:39 PM$%8,/',1*(/(9$7,2163+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description3/32" = 1'-0"WEST WING - NORTHWEST BUILDING ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"WEST WING - SOUTHWEST BUILDING ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"WEST WING - SOUTHEAST BUILDING ELEVATION %5,&. 6721(9(1((5 &(0(17%2$5'/$36,',1* :22'721(&(0(17%2$5'/$36,',1* 0(7$/3$1(/6,',1* 35(),1,6+('0(7$/)/$6+,1* 6721(9(1((5/,17(/6,///('*(&2856( &20326,7(:,1'2:6 %/$&. 35(),1,6+('*$5$*('225 %$/&21,(6$1'5$,/,1*6 &(0(17%2$5'75,0 3$&.$*('+9$&81,7PACKET PG. # 66
6)3$5.,1*
&,5&8/$7,213$5.,1*75$6+ 6)&,5&8/$7,216)&,5&8/$7,216)&,5&8/$7,216)75$6+REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 1:33:17 PM$3$5.,1*/(9(/3/$13+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1/16" = 1'-0"0_PARKING LEVEL AREA PLANPACKET PG. # 67
6)&,5&8/$7,21
6)&20021$5($6)87,/,7<&,5&8/$7,21&20021$5($5(6,'(17,$/87,/,7<6)87,/,7<6)5(6,'(17,$/6)5(6,'(17,$/6)5(6,'(17,$/REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 1:33:21 PM$),567)/2253/$13+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1/16" = 1'-0"1_FIRST FLOOR AREA PLANPACKET PG. # 68
6)&,5&8/$7,21
6)5(6,'(17,$/6)5(6,'(17,$/6)87,/,7<&,5&8/$7,215(6,'(17,$/87,/,7<REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 1:33:25 PM$6(&21')/2253/$13+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1/16" = 1'-0"2_SECOND FLOOR AREA PLANPACKET PG. # 69
6)&,5&8/$7,21
6)5(6,'(17,$/ 6)5(6,'(17,$/6)87,/,7<&,5&8/$7,215(6,'(17,$/87,/,7<REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 1:33:29 PM$7+,5')/2253/$13+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1/16" = 1'-0"3_THIRD FLOOR AREA PLANPACKET PG. # 70
5() 6)$0(1,7<6)3$7,2
$0(1,7<&,5&8/$7,213$7,2 6)&,5&8/$7,216)&,5&8/$7,21REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 554138/6/2021 1:33:30 PM$)2857+)/2253/$13+$6(,,, 7KH5HVHUYHAUGUST 6, 20210219.01LOT 1, BLOCK 1/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1/16" = 1'-0"4_FOURTH FLOOR AREA PLANPACKET PG. # 71
8-Aug-21UNIT AREA LL FIRST SECOND THIRDTOTAL TOTAL BY TYPE AREA Unit SQFT AVGGROSSONE BEDROOM19UNIT A16631 1 131989UNIT A27102 2 264260UNIT A37182 2 042872UNIT A47481 1 132244UNIT A58181 1 13245413819 727ONE BEDROOM+9UNIT B18223 3 3973987398 822TWO BEDROOM30UNIT D112102 2 267260UNIT D212521 2 256260UNIT D31309111309UNIT D413721 1 134116 UNIT D514011 1 134203 UNIT D615261 1 134578UNIT D715731 1 134719UNIT D816931 1 135079UNIT D917731 1 13531919 20 19585842843 1428TOTAL20561 21813 21686640601104 Blended AvgPARKING24,858 0 0 024,85824,858RESID. AMENITY2450 0 0 8925 11,37511,375RESIDENTIAL UNITS20561 21813 2168664,06064,060RESID. CIRCULATION & SERVICE1152 2350 24775,9795,979GROSS FLOOR AREA24,858 24163 24163 24163 892597,34788%Parkinglower level enclosed69upper lot28lower lot 21Total 118 2.03 stalls per unit106,272PACKET PG. # 72
/27/27/27/27/27287/27%/27%/2&.6(&21'$'',7,21287/
27
'287/27(287/27$%/2&.287/27$/276287+3/$=$'5,9(6287+3/$=$:$<6287+3/$=$:$<67$7(+,*+:$<3$5&(/(;,67,1*$3$570(17%8,/',1*3$5&(/ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1
/(*(1'/(*(1'3523(57</,0,766(&7,21/,1($'-$&(173523(57<352326('&21&5(7(& *3$5&(/ 3$5&(/ 29(5$//6,7(3/$1&5HYLVHG PACKET PG. # 73
ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1
;3$5&(/(;,67,1*&21',7,216PACKET PG. # 74
6287+3/$=$:$<67$7(+,*+:$<(;,67,1*$3$570(17%8,/',1*
352326('6725<$3$570(17%8,/',1*6)81,7655
/27%/2&.(;,67,1*321'/27%/2&.287/27$ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1
/(*(1'/(*(1'3523(57</,0,76$'-$&(173523(57<352326('%8,/',1*%8,/',1*6(7%$&.63$5.,1*6(7%$&.352326('&21&5(7(& *352326('%,780,12863$9(0(17352326('&21&5(7(3$9(0(17123$5.,1*=21(+$1',&$367$//'(6,*1$7,21180%(52)3$5.,1*67$//,16(&7,21*$5$*((175$1&(5(7$,1,1*:$//:*8$5'5$,/3$5.,1*6800$5<6(7%$&.63$5.,1* )((7%8,/',1* )((7=21,1*(;,67,1* 0838'0,;('86(727$/5(6,'(17,$/':(//,1*81,76 352326('3$5.,1* 67$1'$5' $'$727$/,17(5,25/2:(5 (;7(5,25 727$/3$5.,1* 3$5.,1*5$7,267$//81,7
3$5.,1*6(7%$&. 7<3
%8,/',1*6(7%$&. 7<3 (;,67,1*6+((73,/(5(7$,1,1*:$//:*8$5'5$,/(;,67,1*02180(176,*1&3$5&(/6,7(3/$1PACKET PG. # 75
6287+3/$=$:$<67$7(+,*+:$<(;,67,1*$3$570(17%8,/',1*352326('6725<$3$570(17%8,/',1*))( 67)/225 ))( /2:(5/(9(/ )/ )/)/)/)/)/)/)/ )/)/)/)/)/)/ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description352326('5(7$,1,1*:$//(;,67,1*81'(5*5281'67250:$7(5,1),/75$7,21&+$0%(53,3(6,19 (;,67,1*81'(5*5281'67250:$7(55$7(&21752/&+$0%(5 3,3(6,19 7: %: 7: %: 7: %: 522)'5$,1522)'5$,1352326('670+(;670+&3$5&(/*5$',1*3/$11
/(*(1'/(*(1'/(*(1'3523(57</,0,76(;,67,1*&217285352326('&217285(;,67,1*6327(/(9$7,21'5$,1$*($552:6,/7)(1&(6(',0(17,1/(73527(&7,2152&.&216758&7,21(175$1&(6327(/(9$7,21)/2:/,1(2)&85%(;,67,1*672506(:(5352326('672506(:(5 )/ 352326('&%0+352326('&%352326('&%0+ (;&%0+(;670+(;&%0+127( 6((87,/,7<3/$1)25672506(:(56,=(6$1'(/(9$7,216(;&%0+PACKET PG. # 76
6287+3/$=$:$<67$7(+,*+:$<352326('6725<$3$570(17%8,/',1*))( ),567)/225 ))( /2:(5/(9(/ (;,67,1*321'(;,67,1*$3$570(17%8,/',1*ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1
/(*(1'/(*(1'/(*(1'/(*(1'3523(57</,0,76(;,67,1*:$7(50$,1(;,67,1*6$1,7$5<6(:(5(;,67,1*672506(:(5352326(':$7(50$,1352326('6$1,7$5<6(:(5352326('672506(:(5352326(':$7(50$,1),77,1*352326('6$1,7$5<0$1+2/(352326('67250,1/(76352326('5(7$,1,1*:$//(;,67,1*81'(5*5281'67250:$7(5,1),/75$7,21&+$0%(53,3(6,19 (;,67,1*81'(5*5281'67250:$7(55$7(&21752/&+$0%(5 3,3(6,19 352326('670+5,0 ,19 1:6( (;670+(;5,0 1(:5,0 1(:,19 1( 1(:,19 6: (;,19 6( &3$5&(/87,/,7<3/$1/)+'3(#352326(' /)+'3(#(;/)+'3(#(;670+5,0 ,19 1: ,19 6: (;/)+'3(#(;&%0+5,0 ,19 1: ,19 1( ,19 6( (;/)+'3(#(;670+(;5,0 1(:5,0 ,19 6( ,19 : (;&%0+5,0 (;,19 6: (;,19 : (;,19 6( 1(:,19 1: 352326('/)+'3(#(;)(6,19 352326('&%0+5,0 ,19 1 ,19 6( 352326(' /)+'3(#352326('/)+'3(#352326('&%0+ 5,0 ,19 :1( /)+'3(#352326('&%0+5,0 ,19 /)39񖁆('6$10+5,0 ,19 352326('6$1678%,19 (;6$1,7$5<6(:(5/,)767$7,215,0 (;,19 1: 1(:,19 522)'5$,1,19 522)'5$,1,19 5(029(',33/8* &211(&772(;',3:$7(50$,13267,1',&$7259$/9(6,$0(6(&211(&7,21PACKET PG. # 77
SOUTH PLAZA WAYEXISTINGAPARTMENTBUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDINGAPPROX. 24,800 SFEXISTINGAPARTMENTBUILDING13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCJEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA51899PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionLEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSADJACENT PROPERTYCONSTRUCTION LIMITSPROPOSED BUILDINGBUILDING SETBACKSPARKING SETBACK3" DEEP, SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCHLANDSCAPE POLY-EDGERGARAGEENTRANCEPROPOSEDRETAINING WALLW/ GUARD RAILN0 30' 60'SCALE:1PARCEL 2 PLANTING PLAN 1" = 30' (22" x 34" PAPER SIZE)121. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE IRRIGATION(SEE L3 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES)2. REFER TO PLAN SHEET L3 FOR SODDING, SEEDING, FERTILIZERAND TOPSOIL NOTES3. ALL LANDSCAPING DISTURBED BEYOND THE NEW PLANTINGSSHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND.4. FINAL PLANTING PLAN WILL BE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITHCITY"S POLLINATORS AND NATIVE PLANTINGS REQUIREMENTSNOTESCITY CODE: REQUIRED PLANTINGZONE: HR-PUDHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.§12-1E-8: R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:xSCREENING:xxSCREENING OF MECHANICAL UTILITIESxxSCREENING OF VEHICLE LIGHTSxMINIMUM AREA AND PLANT MATERIAL REQUIRED:xxAT LEAST TWENTY FIVE PERCENT (25%) OF THE LAND AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPEDWITH GRASS, APPROVED GROUND COVER, SHRUBBERY AND TREES.xxAT LEAST FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN A PARKING AREA SHALL BELANDSCAPEDxx ALL SITE AREAS NOT COVERED BY BUILDINGS, SIDEWALKS, PARKING LOTS,DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS OR SIMILAR HARD SURFACE MATERIALS SHALL BE SODDED,EXCEPT THOSE AREAS TO BE PRESERVED IN A NATURAL STATE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,THAT AREAS RESERVED FOR FUTURE BUILDING EXPANSIONS MAY BE SEEDED.xxNOT MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES SHALLBE COMPOSED OF ONE SPECIESxIRRIGATION:xxAN UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF EACH NEWDEVELOPMENT EXCEPT ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES WHICH DO NOT ATLEAST EQUAL THE FLOOR AREA OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. A SPRINKLER SYSTEMSHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS EXCEPT AREAS TO BE PRESERVEDIN THE NATURAL STATE.EXISTINGPONDEXISTINGMONUMENTSIGNEXISTING SHEET PILERETAINING WALLW/ GUARD RAILPARCEL 2PLANTING PLANL1PACKET PG. # 78
TREESCODEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONT.SIZEREMARKSAg 4 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE APPLE SERVICEBERRY B&B 2" CAL.AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'Bn 2 RIVER BIRCH MULTI-TRUNK B&B 6` HT. 3-5 STEMSBETULA NIGRACe 7 EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNK B&B 1 - 1/2" CAL.CERCIS CANADENSISGc 3 TRUE NORTH KENTUCKY COFFEETREE B&B 2 - 1/2" CAL.GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA 'UMNSYNERGY' TMJs 32 SKYROCKET JUNIPER B&B 4` HT.JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM 'SKYROCKET'Ms 3 SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE B&B 2" CAL.MALUS X 'SPRING SNOW'Pa 3 NORWAY SPRUCE B&B 6` HT.PICEA ABIESQb 6 SWAMP WHITE OAK B&B 2 - 1/2" CAL.QUERCUS BICOLORSHRUBSCODEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTSIZEREMARKSCb 9 FIREDANCE RED TWIG DOGWOOD CONT. 5 GAL.CORNUS SERICEA 'BAILADELINE' TMDl 55 DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE CONT. 5 GAL.DIERVILLA LONICERAHl 11 LITTLE QUICK FIRE PANICLE HYDRANGEA CONT. 5 GAL.HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'LITTLE QUICK FIRE'Iv 5 JIM DANDY WINTERBERRY CONT. 5 GAL.ILEX VERTICILLATA 'JIM DANDY'Ir 6 RED SPRITE WINTERBERRY CONT. 5 GAL.ILEX VERTICILLATA 'RED SPRITE'Pl 7 LITTLE SPIRE RUSSIAN SAGE CONT. 1 GAL.PEROVSKIA ATRIPLICIFOLIA 'LITTLE SPIRE'Sm 40 DWARF KOREAN LILAC CONT. 5 GAL.SYRINGA MEYERI 'PALIBIN'Th 6 HOLMSTRUP ARBORVITAE B&B 4` HT.THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 'HOLMSTRUP'Tt 23 TECHNY ARBORVITAE B&B 4` HT.THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 'TECHNY'Vm 19 BLUE MUFFIN ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM CONT. 5 GAL.VIBURNUM DENTATUM 'BLUE MUFFIN'Vs 14 CHICAGO LUSTRE ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM CONT. 5 GAL.VIBURNUM DENTATUM 'SYNNESTVEDT' TMPERENNIALSCODEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTSIZEREMARKSAf 25 BLUE FORTUNE ANISE HYSSOP CONT. 1 GAL.AGASTACHE X 'BLUE FORTUNE'Ag2 33 GAY BUTTERFLIES BUTTERFLY MILKWEED CONT. 1 GAL.ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA 'GAY BUTTERFLIES'Ck 70 KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS CONT. 1 GAL.CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA 'KARL FOERSTER'Ep 97 CONEFLOWER CONT. 1 GAL.ECHINACEA PURPUREAHg 25 GUACAMOLE HOSTA CONT. 1 GAL.HOSTA X 'GUACAMOLE'Ps 27 SHENANDOAH SWITCH GRASS CONT. 1 GAL.PANICUM VIRGATUM 'SHENANDOAH'Sb 47 BLUE HEAVEN LITTLE BLUESTEM CONT. 1 GAL.SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM 'BLUE HEAVEN'Sa 23 AUTUMN FIRE SEDUM CONT. 1 GAL.SEDUM X 'AUTUMN FIRE'Sh 131 PRAIRIE DROPSEED CONT. 1 GAL.SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPISVx 54 BLUE SKYWALKER SPIKE SPEEDWELL CONT. 1 GAL.VERONICA SPICATA 'BLUE SKYWALKER'GROUND COVERSCODEQTYCOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMECONTSPACINGPc 8,818 SF CENTRAL MINNESOTA MIXED HEIGHT DRY WILDFLOWER HYDROMULCH WITH SEED12 PLS OZS. / 10,000 SQ. FTPRI CENTRAL MINNESOTA DRY WILDFLOWERBROADCAST COVERCROP AT 3.5 PLS LBS. / 10,000 SQ.FT.Tb 16,485 SF KENTUCKY BLUEGRASSSODTURF SOD BLUEGRASSPLANT SCHEDULE13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCJEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA51899PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413AUGUST 19, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionPLANTING SCHEDULEPARCEL 2L1.1PACKET PG. # 79
ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description6(&7,213/$16((&672506&+('8/(&$67,1*35(&$67,19(570867%(',$0(7(52)3,3($1'%(1&+(66+28/'%(6/23('72:$5',19(570$7&+7+632,172)0$,1/,1(6(:(5$1'/$7(5,$/%5$1&+0$1+2/(67(366+$//%(3/$&('627+$72))6(79(57,&$/3257,212)&21(,6)$&,1*'2:1675($01((1$+)5$0($1'&29(525(48$//(77(5('6$1,7$5<6(:(525672506(:(5:,7+&21&($/('3,&.+2/(6&21&5(7($'-8670(175,1*6:,7+)8//%('2)0257$5%(7:((1($&+727$/$'-8670(170,10$;35(&$67(&&(175,&&21(6(&7,210$1+2/(67(361((1$+5 125(48$/21&(17(5&232/<(532/<3523</(1(3/$67,& 36,3) $1'$/80,18067(36$33529('$//-2,176,135(&$670$1+2/(6(&7,21672+$9(25,1*58%%(5*$6.(7635(&$670$1+2/(6(&7,2163,3(6+$//%(&87287)/86+:,7+,16,'()$&(2):$//127( .2516($/0$1+2/(25(48$/&216,'(5('$&&(37$%/($/7(51$7($//'2*+286(66+$//%(*5287('21%27+,16,'($1'2876,'(0,1,0807+,&.1(662)35(&$67%$6(,6)25
'((325/(66$1',1&5($6(6,17+,&.1(66)25(9(5<
2)'(37+*5($7(57+$1
9$5,(69$5,(6%$127( '(3(1',1*8321&21),*85$7,21$77$&+)$%5,&72:,5(0(6+:,7++2*5,1*667((/32676:,7+7,(:,5(625:22'32676:,7+67$3/(6',5(&7,212)5812)))/2:
0,1(1*,1((5,1*)$%5,&)$%5,&$1&+25$*(75(1&+%$&.),//:,7+7$03('1$785$/62,/0(7$/25:22'32672567$.(:,5(0(6+5(,1)25&(0(17 237,21$/ 7<3,&$/,167$//$7,211$785$/62,/0,10,1127( '(3(1',1*8321&21),*85$7,21$77$&+)$%5,&72:,5(0(6+:,7++2*5,1*667((/32676:,7+7,(:,5(625:22'32676:,7+67$3/(63/$19,(:&%,1/(77<3,&$/,167$//$7,2167250,1/(75,1*6,/7)(1&(*(27(;7,/()$%5,& 6,/7)(1&( )$%5,&$1&+25$*(75(1&+%$&.),//:,7+7$03('1$785$/62,/:,5(0(6+5(,1)25&(0(170(7$/25:22'32672567$.(
0,1,080,1&+0,1,080,1&+0,1,080
0,1
0,1,080$65(48,5('0,1,080:$6+('52&.',$0,1',$%87127/(667+$1',$'(127(62876,'(',$0(7(52)3,3(+$1'6+$3(')520$1*8/$5%('',1*0$7(5,$/&203$&7('%$&.),//&2$56(),/7(5$**5(*$7(0Q'2763(& +02'/2$')$&725 &/$66%',$&203$&7('%$&.),//',$'(127(62876,'(',$0(7(52)3,3(',$',$0,1',$+$1'6+$3(')520),5081',6785%('62,//2$')$&725&/$66&',$'(127(62876,'(',$0(7(52)3,3(&203$&7('%$&.),//',$',$0,1/2$')$&725&/$66&&2$56(),/7(5$**5(*$7(0Q'2763(& +02'+$1'6+$3(')520$1*8/$5%('',1*0$7(5,$/',$%87127/(667+$1',$',$*5$18/$5%2552:0Q'2763(& $02'&203$&7('%$&.),//',$0,1&203$&7('%$&.),//&2$56(),/7(5$**50Q'2763(& +02'',$0,1,03529('3,3()281'$7,213,3()281'$7,21,03529(0(170$7(5,$/ +02' &216,'(5(',1&,'(17$/:,7+&2672)3,3($1'*5$18/$5%2552:0$7(5,$/ $02' ,17+,6$5($3$5&(/ 3$5&(/ 6,7('(7$,/6&PACKET PG. # 80
ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description5 5 5 6/23(3(5)768502817$%/(%%$7$//75(1&+(65(,1)25&,1*52'66+$//%(3/$&(',17+(/2:(53257,212)7+(&85%)((7,1/(1*7+5(,1)25&,1*52'6$7&$7&+%$6,1612/(667+(1)((7,1/(1*7+127( &21752/-2,1766+$//&21)250:,7+01'2763(&&127( %&85%72%(86('$75$',866/23(3(5)76/23(3(5)75$'5$'5$'5$'5$'5$'
5(6
&209$5,$%/(
5(6
&20%(;3$16,21-2,17 %27+6,'(6 ZZZZ&21752/-2,17(;3$16,21-2,173529,'((;3$16,21-2,176$7%8,/',1*$1'&21&5(7(67223,17(5)$&($6:(//$6(9(5<)((72)&217,182866,'(:$/.$1'$76,'(:$/.,17(56(&7,2163529,'(&21752/-2,1763(50$18)$&785(55(&200(1'$7,2165 7<3 '-2,176($/(5&21)250,1*72$670'35(028/'('(;3$16,21-2,17),//(5&21)250,1*72$670'25'127( -2,176&$1%(6$:&87'2:(/),;('21(6,'(6/,327+(5$33529('68%*5$'(6$:&873$9(0(17)8//'(37+$**5(*$7(68%%$6(:29(1*(27(;7,/()$%5,&)2568%*5$'(67$%,/,=$7,21)/86+:$'-$&(173$9(0(17127(6 (;7(1'$**5(*$7(%$6(
0,1,0803$67&21&5(7(('*(,)&21&5(7(,6127$%877,1*(;,67,1*3$9(0(17256758&785(6 &21&5(7(-2,1763(50$18)$&785(55(&200(1'$7,216 9(5,)<&21&5(7($1'%$6(&2856(:,7+*(27(&+1,&$/5(3257$1'5(&200(1'$7,216(;,67,1*68%*5$'((;3$9(0(17$33529('68%*5$'(6$:&873$9(0(17)8//'(37+$**5(*$7(68%%$6($63+$/7%,1'(5$63+$/77$&.&2$7)/86+:$'-$&(173$9(0(17%,780,1286:($5&2856(%,780,1286%$6(&2856((;3$9(0(17(;,67,1*68%*5$'(127(6 9(5,)<$63+$/7$1'%$6(&2856(:,7+*(27(&+1,&$/5(3257$1'5(&200(1'$7,2167,3287*877(5:+(5(3$9(0(176/23(6$:$<3$9(0(176(&7,21127726&$/(127( 9(5,)<3$9(0(176(&7,21'(6,*1$1'68%*5$'(5(48,5(0(176:,7+*(27(&+1,&$/5(3257$1'5(&200(1'$7,21635,2572&216758&7,21%&21&5(7(&85% *877(50,10,1%,780,1286:($57$&.&2$7%,780,1286%$6(&2856(&/$66$**5(*$7(%$6(6(/(&7*5$18/$5%2552:$33529('68%*5$'(&21&5(7(3$9(0(17127(6
&85%+(,*+7 )8//&85%+(,*+7
)25+,*+&85%$7121:$/.$%/(685)$&(6$'-$&(17725$03
;
0,1,080
)25+,*+&85%$7:$/.$%/(685)$&(6$'-$&(17725$030$;3$5&(/ 3$5&(/ 6,7('(7$,/6& PACKET PG. # 81
ϭϯϲϬϱϭƐƚǀĞŶƵĞE͘ηϭϬϬWůLJŵŽƵƚŚ͕DEϱϱϰϰϭͮĂĞͲŵŶ͘ĐŽŵWϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϬϬͮ&ϳϲϯ͘ϰϭϮ͘ϰϬϵϬŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐŽĨDŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͕>>JEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA51899PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:ZZZFROODJHDUFKFRPDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460/$1'86($33/,&$7,21Mendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description /$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//9,6,76,7(35,257268%0,77,1*%,'72%(&20(&203/(7(/<)$0,/,$5:,7+6,7(&21',7,216 123/$17,1*:,//%(,167$//('817,/$//*5$',1*$1'&216758&7,21+$6%((1&203/(7(',1,00(',$7($5($ ,7,67+(5(63216,%,/,7<2)7+(2:1(5 &2175$&72572,'(17,)<$//81'(5*5281'&$%/(6&21'8,76:,5(6(7&217+(3523(57< 7+(&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()25&203/(7(0$,17(1$1&(2)7+(3/$170$7(5,$/ :$7(5,1*635$<,1*)(57,/,=,1*02:,1*(7& 817,/7+(:25.+$6%((1$&&(37('%<7+(2:1(5 ,)7+(5(,6$',6&5(3$1&<%(7:((17+(180%(52)3/$1766+2:1217+(3/$1$1'7+(180%(52)3/$1766+2:1,17+(3/$176&+('8/(7+(180%(52)3/$1766+2:1217+(3/$1:,//7$.(35(&('(1&( $//&217$,1(50$7(5,$/72%(*52:1,1&217$,1(5$0,1,0802)0217+6 $//0$7(5,$/6+$//&203/<:,7+7+(/$7(67(',7,212)7+($0(5,&$167$1'$5')251856(5<672&.$0(5,&$1$662&,$7,212)1856(5<0(1 5(3$,5$//'$0$*(723523(57<)5203/$17,1*23(5$7,216$712&267727+(2:1(5 *8$5$17((1(:3/$170$7(5,$/7+528*+21(&$/(1'$5<($5'(&,'828675((6:,//%(*8$5$17((')257:2&$/(1'$5<($56)5207,0(2)3529,6,21$/$&&(37$1&( $//352326('3/$1766+$//%(/2&$7('&$5()8//<$66+2:1217+(3/$16$1'6+$//%($33529('%<2:1(565(35(6(17$7,9(%()25(7+(<$5(,167$//(' &2175$&725&$168%67,787(0$&+,1(029('0$7(5,$/86,1*$335235,$7(6,=(75((63$'()25% %:,7+2:1(565(35(6(17$7,9($33529$/ /$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//(1685(7+$71(:75((6029('21727+(6,7($5('8*)5206,0,/$56,7(6:,7+6,0,/$562,/6727+(62,/62)7+,6352-(&7 +($9<72+($9</,*+772/,*+7+($9<72/,*+762,/6 /$1'6&$3(&2175$&725,65(48,5('723529,'(2:1(5:,7+0$,17(1$1&(,1)250$7,21'85,1**8$5$17((3(5,2'5(/$7,1*72:$7(5,1*)((',1*3581,1*3(67&21752/$1'5(/$7(',7(067+,6:,//%(35(3$5('$1''(/,9(5('722:1(5$)7(53529,6,21$/,163(&7,21$33529$/+$6%((1*,9(1%<2:1(565(35(6(17$7,9( %5($7+$%/(6<17+(7,&)$%5,&75((:5$3 :+,7(,1&2/25,1,1&+:,'(52//60$7(5,$/6+$//%(63(&,),&$//<0$18)$&785(')2575((:5$33,1*75((:5$36+$//%(6(&85('727+(7581.86,1*%,2'(*5$'$%/(7$3(68,7$%/()251856(5<86($1':+,&+,6(;3(&7('72'(*5$'(,1681/,*+7,1/(667+$1<($56$)7(5,167$//$7,21:5$3$//75((6(;&(37+$&.%(55<75((6+$//%(3527(&7('35,2572 32/<('*(581/(6663(&,),('27+(5:,6(6+$//%(%/$&.9,1</67</(('*(5 /$1'6&$3()$%5,& ),/7(50$7 72+$9($&20%,1(':(,*+72)2=3(56<)$%5,&6+28/'%(8967$%,/,=('$1'+$9($),9(<($50,1,080:($7+(5$%,/,7<)$&725,1)8//681/,*+7)$%5,&72%(3+,//,36'821525(48,9$/(176$03/(5(48,5(')25$33529$/ /$1'6&$3(%('08/&+6+$//%(6+5(''('+$5':22'08/&+08/&+6+$//%(,167$//('$7$'(37+2):,7+12:(('%$55,(5/$1'6&$3()$%5,& $//75((63/$17(',1'(3(1'(17/<2)63(&,),('%('66+$//5(&(,9('((36+5(''('+$5':22'08/&+:,7+287)$%5,& $//3/$17,1*66+$//5(&(,9()(57,/,=(5$1'$33/,('$77+(5$7(,1',&$7('%<7+(0$18)$&785(5)(57,/,=(56+$//%(*(1(5$/385326( '(&,'82866+58%66+$//+$9(0,1,0802)),9( &$1(6$763(&,),('+(,*+7127(',13/$176&+('8/( ,)7+(&2175$&725)((/6$1(5525+$6%((10$'(5(*$5',1*63$&,1*25+$5',1(662)$63(&,(62)3/$170$7(5,$/,1',&$7('217+(3/$1127,)<7+(/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&735,25727+(,167$//$7,212)3/$170$7(5,$/ $//1(:/<,167$//('3/$170$7(5,$/6+$//%(3/$17(',1:(//'5$,1('$5($6&2175$&7256+$//$92,',167$//,1*$1<3/$170$7(5,$/,1'5$,1$*(6:$/(625:(7 3225/<'5$,1('$5($6 7+(&2175$&725:,//%(5(63216,%/()257+(5(029$/2)$//75((67$.(6*8<6675$36$1'7581.3527(&7,210($685(6)2//2:,1*7+(&203/(7,212)7+(:$55$17((3(5,2'25$6',5(&7('%<7+(2:1(5 7+(35$&7,&(2)67$.,1*6+28/'127$//2:1$,/66&5(:6:,5(6(7&723(1(75$7(7+(287(5685)$&(2)7+(75((6 7+(&2175$&7256+$//0((7:,7+7+(2:1(5216,7(:+(17+(<)((/7+(352-(&7,6&203/(7($&&25',1*727+(&2175$&7'2&80(176,)$//:25.,66$7,6)$&725<$1'&203/(7($&&25',1*727+(&21',7,2162)7+(&2175$&7'2&80(1767+(17+(2:1(50867'(&/$5(7+(352-(&7&203/(7(7+,6'(&/$5$7,21:,//&2167,787($67+(%(*,11,1*2)7+(:$55$17((3(5,2')25$//3/$170$7(5,$/7+(2:1(56+$//3529,'($/(77(5:,7+6,*1$785(67$7,1*7+('$7(2)$&&(37$1&(35,2572&216758&7,219(5,)<:,7+7+(*(1(5$/&2175$&725$1'$///2&$/87,/,7<&203$1,(672/2&$7((;$&7/2&$7,2162)81'(5*5281'87,/,7,(67+(,55,*$7,216+$//%('(6,*1%8,/'6<67(0%<7+(&2175$&7257+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//%(5(63216,%/()253529,',1*$1,55,*$7,21/$<2873/$1$1'63(&,),&$7,216$63$572)7+(6&23(2):25.:+(1%,'',1*7+(6(6+$//%($33529('%<7+(2:1(535,257225'(5$1'25,167$//$7,219$/9($1'&,5&8,766+$//%(6(3$5$7('%$6('21:$7(586(627+$7785)$5($6$5(:$7(5('6(3$5$7(/<)5206+58%$1'*5281'&29(5$5($6,55,*$7,21+($'6,1785)$5($66+$//%(9$/9('63($5$7(/<)5206+58%$0'*5281'&29(5$5($6,7,65(&200(1'('7+$7)8//681$1'6+$'<$5($672%(9$/9('6(3$5$7(/<$6:(//$6+,*+5812))$1'/2:5812))$5($672%(9$/9('6(3$5$7(/<&21),50/,0,762),55,*$7,21(;,67,1*$1')8785(+$5'6&$3($1'%8,/',1*/2&$7,21635,25727+('(6,*12)7+(,55,*$7,216<67(0 &2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<:$7(56285&(/2&$7,21$1'35(6685($1'6833/<$6<67(07+$73529,'(6)8//$1'&203/(7(&29(5$*(72$//$5($672%(,55,*$7(' 6<67(06+28/'%('(6,*1('72&203/(7(:$7(56&+('8/(6:,7+,1+28560$;,080 5$,16(16256$1'27+(5:$7(56$9,1*7(&+12/2*,(66+$//%(,1&/8'(':,7+,17+(,55,*$7,21'(6,*1 3529,'(7+(2:1(5:,7+$123(5$7,1*6&+('8/(7+$7:25.6:,7+7+($33529('/$<2873/$1$1','(17,)<$1<),(/'$'-8670(17635,2572352-(&7&203/(7,21 /2&$7(9$/9(%2;(6$:$<)52052$'&85%627+(<$5(/(669,68$/:+(5($33/,&$%/( '212775(1&+7+528*+7+(5227%$//62)1(:3/$17,1*6 $92,'29(5635$<217252$'66,'(:$/.66,*16$1'3$5.,1*$5($6635,1./(5$5&66+$//%('(7(50,1('216,7(%<7+(,55,*$7,21,167$//(5723529,'(7+(0$;,080&29(5$*(3266,%/(&$5()8//<$'-8677+($5&6$1'5$',862)($&+635,1./(5723529,'(+($'72+($'&29(5$*( :,7+,1(;75(0(6/23('$5($6 ,167$//67$7,2166(3$5$7(/<)25723$1'%277202)6/23('$5($6 ,167$///$7(5$/3,3(63$5$//(/726/23( ,)6/23(,6722(;75(0()250$&+,1(5<,167$///$7(5$/3,3(66$)(/<$1'7(()((',1',9,'8$/635,1./(569,$'2:1+,//3,3,1*3(53(1',&8/$572)(('/,1( 0$,1/,1(3,3,1*%(1($7+75$)),&$5($66+$//%(,167$//(':,7+$0,1,080($57+&29(52),1&+(6)520%277202)52$'68%*5$'($1'&217$,16/((9(6127/(667+$17:2120,1$/',0(16,216*5($7(57+$77+(3,3(3$66,1*7+528*+ ,55,*$7,21,167$//(56+$//)851,6+$1',167$//6/((9(0$7(5,$/81'(5$//52$':$<6:$/.6$1''5,9(:$<6:+(5(1(&(66$5< 7232)0$,1/,1(66+$//%($7/($67,1&+(6%(/2:*5$'(,1785)$5($6 7232)/$7(5$//,1(66+$//%($7/($67,1&+(6%(/2:*5$'( 0$,1/,1(35(6685(3,3(),77,1*6,1&+(6$1'/$5*(56+$//%(386+21*$6.(7-2,1('$1'6+$//+$9(0(&+$1,&$/-2,175(675$,1760$,1/,1(35(6685(3,3(),77,1*6,1&+(6$1'60$//(56+$//%(*/8('$1'6+$//+$9(&21&5(7(7+5867%/2&.6$7),77,1*67+$7&2035,6(&+$1*(,1',5(&7,21 27+(566+$//)851,6+,167$//$1'%5,1*,1&+(6$%29(*5$'($081,&,3$/327$%/(678%)25,55,*$7,21&225',1$7(:,7+*(1(5$/&2175$&725 ,167$//(5,65(63216,%/()25)851,6+,1*$1',167$//,1*7+(%$&.)/2:35(9(1725:$7(50(7(5$1'%2267(53803,)$33/,&$%/( ,55,*$7,21&21752/:,5(6+$//%(',*,7$/7:2:,5(8//,67(')25',5(&7%85,$/ &211(&7$//(/(&75,&$/:,5,1*,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(1$7,21$/(/(&75,&$/&2'($1'$//$33/,&$%/(/2&$/(/(&75,&87,/,7<&2'(6,1&/8',1* $///2:92/7$*(,55,*$7,21&21752/:,5(6+$//%(,167$//(':,7+7+(0$,1/,1(3,3(:+(5(3266,%/('2127/2237+(/2:92/7$*(,55,*$7,21&21752/:,5(3$7+61$.(:,5($7%277202)75(1&+%(1($7+0$,1/,1(3529,'(,1&+2)6/$&.&21752/:,5($7$//&+$1*(6,1',5(&7,21 3529,'(,1&+2)6/$&.&21752/:,5($7($&+5(027(&21752/9$/9(&2,/(',16,'(9$/9(%2; $//:,5(63/,&(66+$//%(:$7(57,*+7&211(&7256$1'&217$,1(',19$/9(%2; $//:,5,1*%(1($7++$5'6&$3(66+$//%(&217$,1(',16/((9,1*6(3$5$7()5203,3,1*(/(&75,&$/6/((9(6$5(72%(6,=('$335235,$7(/<)25($6(2):,5(,167$//$7,21$1'5(3$,5 $//:,5,1*6+$//%(,1'(17,),('$7($&+(1'723529,'(,1',&$7,21$672:+,&+/2&$7,217+(:,5(,6&211(&7(' *5281',1*3(50$18)$&785(5
65(&200(1'$7,2125/2&$/(/(&75,&$/&2'( 6&+('8/($1'352*5$0&21752//(5$1'9$/9(6)25$335235,$7(/$1'6&$3(:$7(55(48,5(0(176*(1(5$//$1'6&$3(127(6,55,*$7,21127(6 62'6+$//%(+,*+/$1'62';
52//635()(55(':+(5($33/,&$%/(72%(/$,'3$5$//(/727+(&2172856$1'+$9(67$**(5('-2,176216/23(667((3(57+$1 25'5$,1$*(6:$/(67+(62'6+$//%(67$.(',1727+(*5281'6&$5,)<7+((;,67,1**5$'(6:,7+),(/'&8/7,9$72572$0,1'(37+2)35,25723/$&,1*2)72362,/$1'),1,6+*5$',1*)2562',00(',$7(/<35,25723/$&,1*62'&2175$&7256+$//$33/<)(57,/,=(5$77+(5$7(2)3281'63(564)7 3/$17,1*62,/5(48,5(' 0,;785(72,1&/8'(72362,/3($7250$185($1'6$1'$//75((6+58%$1'3(5(11,$/3/$17,1*66+$//5(&(,9(´'(37+2)3/$17,1*62,/0,;785($//62''('$5($6725(&(,9(´'(37+2)3/$17,1*62,/0,;785($//6(('('$5($6725(&(,9(´'(37+2)3/$17,1*62,/0,;785(62'',1*6((',1* 72362,/127(6127( .((308/&+$33;2))3/$177581.2567(0 6((3/$176&+('8/()25($&+3/$17
6$335235,$7(2&63$&,1*('*(2)*5281'&29(5$5($:$/.('*(',67$1&()520('*(,67+(63(&,),('2&63$&,1*75,$1*8/$563$&($763(&,),('2&',67$1&((48,',67$173/$17&(17(508/&+5227%$//3/$17,1*62,/1$7,9(62,//$:1685)$&(81',6785%('&203$&7('62,/3/$17,1*62,//,1(2)3/$17,1*3,7:+(13/$17(',1',9,'8$//<81',6785%('25&203$&7('62,/'(37+08/&+3$9('685)$&(,)$33/,&$%/(0,10,1
0,1723$9('685)$&(63/$17,1*62,/'(37+08/&+3$9('685)$&(25/$:181',6785%('25&203$&7('62,/127( '36+5(''('+$5':22'08/&+6+$//%(86(',1$///$1'6&$3(3/$17,1*6$5($6$1'81'(575((6,62/$7(')5203/$17,1*$5($681/(66,'(17,),('27+(5:,6([5227%$//&(17(575((,1+2/(835,*+76,1*/(675$,*+7/($'(575((7,(6(&85('7267$.(6(&85(7275((:,7+$17,&+$)),1*0$7(5,$/$//2:)25029(0(172)75((:5$375((:,7+75((:5$33,1*0$7(5,$/$663(&,),('7267%5$1&+/$:1253/$17,1*%('('*( 63$'(('*(,1$///$:1$5($6 0,1',$($57+6$8&(5 75((67$.(6'5,9(1$0,1
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
0,1',$($57+6$8&(5$)7(5(;326,1*75((5227)/$,53/$17625227)/$,5,6$%29($'-$&(17),1,6+*5$'(3$5&(/ 3$5&(/ 3/$17,1*'(7$,/6/PACKET PG. # 82
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 24, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-13 (ref. Lot 7)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for PUD AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: At Home Apartments / Mendota Mall Associates, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS: South Plaza Drive & South Plaza Way - Mendota Plaza
ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD / MU-PUD
ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2021 (Extended Statutory Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking
approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its final
development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-
1K-6:G requires city council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final
development plan by conditional use permit.
For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III
(Lot 7), and is generally located to the south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building, or the vacant parcel
located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is
an 89-unit apartment building.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item.
BACKGROUND
The Plaza mall site encompasses approximately 21.11 acres in total area. In 2009, Mendota Mall Associates
(Paster Properties) received approval to rezone, re-plat and redevelop the entire mall site into the original
Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, which included a new overall land use and zoning category of
Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development (MU-PUD). The Mendota Plaza was originally planned to be an
integrated commercial and high-density residential development area, which would include the large retail
(strip) mall, a 4-story/100,000 sf. high-density residential facility, a smaller retail/strip center, restaurant
pad sites, various sized offices, childcare center and a pharmacy (refer to the attached Mendota Plaza PUD
Master/Final Development Plan – 2009).
PACKET PG. # 83
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 2 of 19
Under the original 2009 Plan, the mall owners identified this Lot 7 as “Future Child Care – 10,300-sf.” (see
highlighted image – below).
Mendota Plaza PUD Master Plan - 2009
Since 2009, the mall or some of its individual parcels have gone through seven separate PUD Amendments,
with The Reserve apartment development (by At Home Apartments) approved under PUD Amendment
No. 6 in 2016, and the latest No. 7 approved the new Gemini Medical office building in 2017. This proposed
development would become part of the eighth amendment (along with the Phase II – 58-unit development
on the north) if approved.
As noted in the applicant’s narrative, Paster Properties has made numerous attempts to sell and develop the
subject site as a child care center or other allowable use, but have not been able to secure any new
development on this back and somewhat secluded site. Paster is now permitting At Home Apts. to officially
request this PUD Amendment in order to revise the final development plan and possibly allow the site to
be developed with a new 89-unit apartment development.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT / SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The subject parcel is mostly triangular in shape, and consists of 88,676-sq. ft. or 2.04 acres. The parcel is
currently vacant; and has a multi-tenant monument sign located at the southwest corner (see image – below).
The proposed development for Phase III – Lot 7 is a four story, 89-unit apartment building, with 139,126
gross square feet of parking and living area. The new apartment will consist of 18 small one-bedroom units
with an average size of 674-sf.; 23 medium one-bedroom units with an average size of 772-sf.; 18 large
PACKET PG. # 84
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 3 of 19
one-bedroom units with an average size of 864-sf.; 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of
906-sf.; and 27 two-bedroom units with an average size of 1,119-sf. These market rate units range in size
from a low of 625 to 676 sf. and a high of 775 – 960 sf. for the one-bedroom units, and a low of 1,193-sf.
and up to 1,225-sf. for the 2-bed units.
The building will consist of one and one-half levels of underground parking, with 110 stalls and 47 surface
(outdoor) parking stalls, resulting in an overall parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit.
The developers are requesting to have the proposed apartment building with setbacks of 25-feet along the
west and south property lines; and 10-ft. setbacks for the outdoor parking lot along South Plaza Drive.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the following applicable policies/standards for
façade design, building materials, and doors/windows:
• Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided.
• Undulating façade shall be encouraged.
• Exterior façade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian.
• Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into façade design.
• Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used.
Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials,
complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings.
• Materials shall be durable quality.
• Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco
and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable.
• All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed.
• A minimum of 25% of the façade shall be treated with finished masonry building material.
• Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be
encouraged.
• Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25% of decorative masonry variation in color, texture
or surface.
2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures
constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials
comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed
in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance.
The proposed buildings’ exterior are a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent
with The Reserves development, City Code and the original PUD Design Standards:
• Face brick
• Stone veneer
• Cement Board Lap Siding
• Metal panel siding
• Decorative masonry block
• Composite windows
• Prefinished metal flashing and trim
• Prefinished balconies and railings
The building’s architectural elevations and renderings, interior floor plans, civil plans for grading and utility
improvements, along with the landscaping/plantings plans are all included with this report’s attachments.
PACKET PG. # 85
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 4 of 19
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan (2030 vs. 2040)
The entire Mendota Plaza mall site and subject parcel were all guided Mixed-Use PUD under the previous
2030 Comprehensive Plan, and was noted with:
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses
into a coordinated, planned development project. Areas of the community with this land use designation are located
near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110 is the City’s
only significant retail area. The northeast quadrant of this intersection has been developed into a mixed use
commercial/residential center known as “The Village at Mendota Heights”.
Located in the southeast corner of the Dodd and Highway 110 intersection is a related commercial area. This older
shopping center is being considered for redevelopment, including a mixed-use land use pattern reflecting the Village
development concept. It is an objective of the City to encourage redevelopment of this area reflecting a small-town
village layout, avoiding the suburban shopping center environment that dominates the current development pattern.
As noted previously, the entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD in 2009. The existing
zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses that are seen today remain consistent with the
future land use designations established under the previous 2030 Plan. .
Under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the following is noted for MU-PUD areas:
MU – Mixed-Use (21.0 - 30.0 DU/Acre for Residential Uses)
Undeveloped land guided mixed-use is planned to develop approximately 75% of its acres with residential uses at
the densities identified, which is consistent with existing mixed-use projects in the city. The northeast quadrant of
the Highway 62 and Dodd Road intersection has been developed into a mixed-use center known as The Village at
Mendota Heights. The southeast corner of this includes the Mendota Plaza shopping center which has seen
renovation and redevelopment in recent years, including a new Walgreen’s pharmacy; White Pine Senior Living, a
50-unit assisted living complex, and a 4-story 139-unit apartment project developed by At Home Apartments. The
current residential development has developed at densities between 21 and 30 dwelling units per acre, and adjacent
undeveloped outlots are guided to develop at similar densities
Under the 2016 PUD Amendment report, city staff reported the following on population and housing
projections (part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan):
Forecast 2010
(actual)
2014
(est.) 2020 2030 2040
Population 11,071 11,124 11,300 11,300 11,400
Households 4,378 4,450 4,600 4,710 4,800
Source: Metropolitan Council (dated 9/17/2015)
According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement, the City’s population and household
forecasts are as follows:
Forecast 2010 2018 2020 2030 2040
Population 11,071 11,340
(2.4%)
12,000
(0%)
12,000
(0%)
12,000
(0%)
Households 4,378 N/A 4,900
(12%)
5,000
(2%)
5,110
(2.2%)
Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census, City of Mendota Heights, SHC
As noted, the Met Council agreed to accept the city’s increase of our projected populations from 11,400 to
a 12,000 – which we requested to hold steady from the 2020 through 2040 planning periods. Meanwhile,
the households are projected to increase slightly over these same periods, from 4,900 (2020) up to 5,110 in
2040. As per the 2040 Plan: “Most of the household growth is anticipated to occur in areas designated for
mixed-use, which is likely to be primarily multi-family development.” This site and the proposed apartment
development would meet this statement.
PACKET PG. # 86
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 5 of 19
Construction of the proposed 89-unit residential development (coupled with the proposed 58-units in the
Phase II development) could account significantly or contribute greatly to the projected amount of
households planned for in the 2040 Plan. According to the applicant, the proposed project includes “market-
rate” units and plans do not include any “affordable units”, which could satisfy additional Metropolitan
Council requirements on affordable housing. Nevertheless, the Met Council typically supports efforts to
increase new housing opportunities wherever or whenever they present themselves in metro communities.
The 2040 Plan also provides the following goals and policy statements to consider in this PUD request:
LAND USE GOAL 1: The Future Land Use Plan will provide the foundation for all land use
decisions in Mendota Heights.
Policies
1. Development and redevelopment of housing, businesses, transportation systems, parks and
community facilities shall be done in accordance with this Plan.
5. The city will strive to create a balanced land use pattern that provides appropriate designations that
meet projected growth and market demand.
LAND USE GOAL 2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
Policies
2. The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and general focus on aesthetics
throughout the community, including within existing developments and buildings.
3. Development and planning of land will be encouraged to provide reasonable access to the
surrounding communities.
HOUSING GOAL 2: Meet future needs with a variety of housing products.
Policies
1. Encourage life-cycle housing opportunities in Mendota Heights of various forms and tenures that
allow residents to remain in the community throughout their lives. This includes:
ii. Construction of move-up single-family development that supports life-cycle housing.
iii. Construction of various types of senior housing, including senior ownership units, senior rental
units, memory care and assisted living units.
iv. Support the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels, age
groups, and special housing needs.
2. Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices.
The proposed high-density residential development may satisfy a potential demand for rental units in the
community, which appears to be a continual and growing trend among many metropolitan and suburban
communities these days. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners
who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, which may stimulate turnover of the existing
single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed or added residential project may
fit many of the land use and housing goals and policies in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and the planning
commission should discuss these and provide a recommendation with findings that either support or advise
against this new high-density development in the community.
PACKET PG. # 87
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 6 of 19
Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment
The original 2009 PUD Plan, which included a new plat, called for the development of the project area with
the following: a 14,820-sf. Walgreens store (Lot 1); a 47,200 sf. retail mall (Lot 2); two future 3,600-
sf./4,000-sf. restaurants (Lot 3); a 12,000-sf. multi-tenant/strip mall (Lot 4); a 10,800-sf. future office (Lot
5); a future 4-story, 100,000-sf. high density residential apartment (Lot 6); a 10,130-sf. future child care
center (Lot 7); and a three-story, 36,000-sf. future office building (Lot 8).
Soon after the 2009 approvals, the Walgreens and Mendota Plaza mall were completed. In 2012 the PUD
was amended to change the proposed 100,000 square-foot high-density residential building on Lot 6 to the
46-unit White Pines Senior Living facility. In 2016 the PUD was amended to change the future 12,000-sf.
Retail Center and 10,800-sf. Office building (Lots 4 & 5) over to the 139-unit Reserve Apartments, which
included changing the two future 3,600-sf./4,000-sf. restaurants on Lot 3 into two 3,500-sf. and 4,000-sf.
restaurant pad sites with drive through lanes. In 2017 the PUD was amended to revise the future office
building on Lot 8 to the 17,700-sf. Gemini Medical offices. For this particular site, the developer is
requesting to modify the original 2009 Final Plan’s “10,300-sf. Future Child Care Center” with the proposed
four story, 139,126-sf., 89-unit apartment building.
According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD:
The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to preserve the natural
and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development,
to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit
modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting
development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses.
One of the key provisions of this statement is “…to encourage a flexibility in the design and development
of land…” which is why many cities allow or adopt similar PUD Ordinances, as these specific zoning
districts provide greater assistance and allowances to a developer, and help promote well-planned and
cohesive developments within a community. The PUD also can grant some discretionary allowances
(instead of or in place of a variance) with certain site design standards, such as reduced setbacks, increased
building heights, higher densities (units/acre), reduced parking and others.
Amending an existing PUD Final Development Plan is noted under Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code:
Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development
plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures
provided below:
1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by
the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan
was approved.
2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by
the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use
permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have
occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the community.
The proposed amendment qualifies under No. 2 above, and is required to be approved by the City Council
by conditional use permit.
PACKET PG. # 88
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 7 of 19
The subject parcel is zoned and guided MU-PUD (Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development). According to
Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code:
MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide
the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential uses.
All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-3, B-1, and B-2 zoning
districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided they would
be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall have the authority to
approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit.
Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD:
Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the
following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities
on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique
natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with
adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure
completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and
deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or
proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
Density / High-Density Residential Development
This proposed high-density residential development would provide 89-units on 2.04 acres. The
requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible, and can be reviewed against the standards for similarly-
zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed apartment plan can be
reviewed utilizing R-3 High Density Residential District standards as a guide, but not as an absolute, since
an R-3 use is a “…potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district.” A high-density residential
apartment building under this proposal would be considered an allowable use in this MU-PUD district.
However, the new use or development does not need to meet all (or any) of the R-3 District development
standards to be approved, as the City Council has considerable “flexibility” and discretion in this PUD
review process, and can provide appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions on new
developments as deemed necessary.
According to Title 12-1K-5-B: Number of Dwelling Units:
1. In a residential planned unit development the number of dwelling units proposed for the entire site
shall not exceed the total number permitted under the density control provisions of the zoning
district(s) in which the land is located. The HR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-3 zoning
district as a guide; the MR-PUD district will use the standards of the R-2 district as a guide. If the
residential planned unit development is in more than one zoning district, the number of allowable
dwelling units must be calculated separately for each portion of the planned unit development that is
in a separate zone, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable
in the entire planned unit development. The density of individual uses in the MU-PUD district may
be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to
determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development.
PACKET PG. # 89
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 8 of 19
Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the
discretion of the council.
3. The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed
within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required
lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalent zoning district for the area in which the
planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the
land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public
parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city
wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density.
Since this site is located in an established MU-PUD zone, the density applied to a typical R-3 or high density
multi-family use such as this may be used [emphasis added], but is not required. Again, City Code grants
the planning commission the discretionary right or ability to determine [by its recommendation] the number
of dwelling units, thus setting or approving the allowable density of the site. City Council will have final
authority or decision-making on any density request.
The Reserve apartments consisted of 139 units on a 2.2 acre site, which calculated out to a density of 63
units/acre - on its own parcel. However, in the 2016 PUD Amendment review, city staff presented to the
planning commission and council the following statement on density calculation: “…the Code provision
above [12-1K-5-B] does allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be
lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends a more appropriate
analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD
future land use designation, which has an allowable density range of 6-10 housing units/acre.” When staff
calculated the density based on the entire PUD project site at that time, and added both White Pines 46-
units plus The Reserves’ 139 units (185 total units), this worked out to an overall density calculation of
10.2 units/acre, which was found to be acceptable and approved by the city.
The density calculation on this individual parcel is calculated as: 89-units / 2.04 acres = 43.6 units/acre.
However, as noted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the city revised the MU-Mixed Use land category to
include a provision to allow up to 21.0 – 30.0 units/acre. Utilizing this same rationale for determining
density as the city allowed in the 2016 PUD Amendment, the density is calculated as follows:
Parcel
Description
Parcel Area
(Net Acres)
Residential
Units
Lot 1 – Walgreens 1.75 0
Lot 2 – Mendota Plaza 6.15 0
Lot 6 – White Pines 2.0 46
Lot 1, Block 1 2.05
Lot 1, Block 2 (The Reserves) 2.2 139
Lot 7 – Proposed Phase III 2.04 89
Lot 8 – Gemini Medical 2.31 0
Total Net Area 18.5 ac. @ 75% = 13.875 acres *
Total Units (existing & proposed) 274 units
Total Density 19.75 units/acre
*Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75% of Total Net Developable Areas (per 2040 Comprehensive Plan)
PACKET PG. # 90
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 9 of 19
Factoring in the other 58-unit apartment development (Phase II), the density total on the entire Plaza PUD
site re-calculates as follows:
Parcel
Description
Parcel Area
(Net Acres)
Residential
Units
Lot 1 – Walgreens 1.75 0
Lot 2 – Mendota Plaza 6.15 0
Lot 6 – White Pines 2.0 46
Lot 1, Block 1 (proposed Phase II apts.) 2.05 58
Lot 1, Block 2 (The Reserves) 2.2 139
Lot 7 – (proposed Phase III apts.) 2.04 89
Lot 8 – Gemini Medical 2.31 0
Total Net Area 18.5 ac. @ 75% = 13.875 acres *
Total Units (existing & proposed) 332 units
Total Density 23.9 or approx. 24 units/acre
* Mixed Use Residential Acres calculated as 75% of Total Net Developable Areas (per 2040 Comprehensive Plan)
The proposed residential density on the overall site would meet the current allowable density allotments
provided under the new 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has the authority to determine the
allowed density for the proposed PUD amendment; and staff feels the proposed density as presented on this
site is consistent with and meets the density allowances under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Site and Structure Requirements
The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as per Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code:
Standard Requirement Proposed
Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling
Unit1
3-story or more:
1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet
2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet
3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet
2.04 ac. (88,863-sq. ft.)
62 one-bedroom units
27 two-bedroom units
Minimum Floor Area
Efficiency units: Not permitted
1-bedroom units: 750 square feet
2-bedroom units: 800 square feet
3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet
1-bedroom: 640 – 775 sf.
2-bedroom: 920 – 1210 sf.
Front Yard Setback 50 feet + 1 foot/each 1 foot of building height
over 60 feet
25 feet (from South Plaza Way) and the
main access drive
Side/Rear Yard Setback 40 feet + 0.5 feet/1 foot of building height
over 75 feet
15-ft. from Hwy 62 ROW;
15-ft. from creek boundary
Building Height No limit 55-ft. feet (59-ft. at highest point)
Parking Lot Setback 40 feet (ROW)
10 feet (principal building) 10-ft.
1may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground
• Land Area
Based on the proposed unit-mix and underground parking provided, the current lot area is significantly
less than what would be required under normal R-3 District standards. A standard R-3 Zoned parcel
would require almost 446,560-sf. or 10.25 acres of land to support the number of one/two bedroom
units proposed in this plan.
[CALC: (62 x 5,100=316,200) + (27 x 6,050=163,350) – (110 stalls @ 300-sf.=33,000) = 446,550-sf.]
Once again however, the PUD Amendment allows for the city to accept this reduction of land space if
demonstrated by the developer that this site still works, even with the number of units proposed on the
smaller land site.
PACKET PG. # 91
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 10 of 19
• Unit Sizes
For this new apartment proposal, 15 of the 62 one-bed units are planned to be less than the minimum
750-sf. size for a standard R-3 High Density Residential use; while all 27 of the 2-bed units plan to be
over the 800-sf. minimum. No three-bedroom units are proposed in the building.
• Building / Parking Lot Setbacks
The proposed building setbacks are significantly less than required under the R-3 District standards.
Instead of a 50-foot setback the developer is requesting a reduction of at least one-half down to 25-feet
from the adjacent roadways, and a slight reduction of the back/rear yard from 40-ft. down to 30-ft. at
its closest point.
The outdoor parking lot is requested with a reduced 10-ft. setback from South Plaza ROW, where
normally 40-feet is expected. Parking lot setbacks of 10-ft. from the building is to allow for adequate
access and landscaping, and this plan meets that standard.
Although these reduced setbacks are considerable, the planning commission and city council have the
discretion to accept or approve the proposed building and parking layouts, even with the reduced
setbacks as shown or noted herein, as part of this PUD Amendment review process. The commission
may make any recommendations accordingly.
• Building Coverage
The R-3 District does not include a floor area ratio standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design
Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed apartment development covers
32.4% of the lot (28,800-sf. / 88,863-sf. lot area), which can be considered compliant with the original
Mendota Plaza Design Standards.
• Landscaping
The landscape plans submitted for the site is somewhat limited, and only shows a generalized location
for new trees and shrubs, and areas to be replanted or vegetated. The plans are absent of important
details or plantings list; however the applicants did state in their narrative and plan notes:
“The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is
designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas
will be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape
design also includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for
shrubs. The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the
proposed landscape design meets the City’s pollinator and native planting requirements.”
The developer was requested (by city staff) to meet with our resident Master Gardeners to review and
comment on their proposed Landscape Plan. It appears the developer’s architect did speak to one of the
MG, and later reported back to city staff with the following message:
“The plan you [city staff] sent to me had no species listed, so he [developer’s architect] and I
just talked about what we are looking for in terms of pollinator friendly, resilient landscape.
He was going to incorporate the things we discussed into a plan and then send me the plan
and discuss further.” – and – “One thing that jumped out to me is that the buildings are very
near the lot lines or MNDOT ROW in the case of the building facing Hwy 62, so there isn’t a lot
of space to design a meaningful pollinator friendly, resilient plan. But, it is hard to visualize
without seeing the plan.”
PACKET PG. # 92
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 11 of 19
As of the preparation of this report, no updated/revised plan was available for this packet, other than the
original landscape plan submitted with the original CUP application materials. A new plan with
comments from the Master Gardener may be available or presented to the commission prior to or the
night of the hearing.
• Lighting
According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards:
Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall
create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or
industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared
property line with residentially zoned property.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting
policies/standards:
• Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area.
• Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape.
• Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings
and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site.
• Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided.
The PUD Site Plans are absent of any Lighting or Photometric Plans with this development, nor any
indications of lights on the buildings. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is
part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements may not apply between the
shared/mixed uses in the overall PUD project area. However, it will be important the developer can
show or demonstrate that any new lighting for parking and outside the buildings meet City Code and
Mendota Plaza standards. Proposed light fixtures should be downcast/cut-off types of lights and kept to
a minimum (number/amount). Staff has included a recommendation to have the developer provide and
submit a complete and detailed Lighting-Photometric Plan of the site for approvals.
• Parking
The proposed high-density residential development includes 47 surface parking spaces and 110 indoor
spaces, for a total of 157 spaces. This equates to a ratio of 1.76 spaces/unit. According to Title 12-1E-
E of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows:
Number And Design Of Parking Spaces: A minimum of two and one-half (21/2) parking spaces shall
be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with
all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards.
Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standard and the proposed 89-units, strict application of the Code standard
would require a minimum of 223 parking spaces. It is Planning Staff’s professional opinion that this
2.5 space per unit is too high and extreme; and is not a reasonable calculation when considering newer
multi-family residential development needs throughout the metro area and nation.
When At Homes presented their apartment proposal in 2016, the issue of 2.5 spaces/unit was discussed
and analyzed, and the city planning consultants (Stantec) were authorized to conduct a parking analysis
and study for this site, which are excerpted and highlighted below:
• Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched (except Apple
Valley, which is same 2.5/unit). Most are at 2.0/unit, but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit.
PACKET PG. # 93
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 12 of 19
• Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking
requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own
published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high.
• The average for nine projects (not in transit-friendly areas) is 1.59/unit.
• Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since,
according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (see table on the following page), so even
without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today
than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers have been going down and
that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi-family projects.
• The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes a manual on parking demand, citing
studies of built projects. Their 4th Edition manual (2010) shows a range of 1.10-1.37 spaces per
unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large, some studies in the
mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied, so
we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide.
Apartment Parking – Conclusion & Recommendation
Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in
Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1-
bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the
20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to
be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement.
Holding the proposed development to these same conclusions and standards (which were adopted by
the City in 2016 for The Reserves) the parking needs could be re-calculated as follows:
Parking at 1.6/Unit: 89-units x 1.6 = 142.4 or 143 spaces
or
Parking at 1.2/bedroom: 62 one bedroom units @ 1.2 = 74.4, or 75 spaces
27 two bedroom units @ 2.4 = 64.8, or 65 spaces
TOTAL: 140 spaces
Due to the strong desire to preserve or encourage more open space on this site, it remains the
professional opinion of staff that the 157 spaces (1.76 space/unit ratio) proposed under this single
development plan should be adequate to serve the residents of this site; and is based on the previous
study/analysis performed on The Reserves, The Heights and The Linden developments in recent years.
Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following:
Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet (9') wide and twenty feet (20') in
length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24') in width, and such space shall be served
adequately by access driveway.
The proposed parking plans shows the outdoor/surface spaces as 9’ x 18’ dimensions with a “nose-in”
or curb overhanging design, and 24-ft. wide drive aisles. The underground spaces are also shown or
measure 9’ x 18’, with a 24-ft. wide drive aisle.
PACKET PG. # 94
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 13 of 19
Again the planning commission will need to provide a recommendation on whether or not you support
or recommend favorably this request to reduce the number of spaces per the plan submittal; and if the
reduced setbacks and stall sizes are acceptable.
• Park Dedication
If the new apartment development is approved, the applicant is required to either contribute 10% of final
plat gross area to be dedicated for public use - or contribute a cash payment in-lieu-of land dedication in
an amount established by the city. Since no platting is taking place, and due to an expected number of
new residents coming in with the new high-density residential development, the cash/in-lieu of payment
of $4,000/unit will be requested ($4,000 x 89-units = $356,000). Payment of the required park dedication
fees is included as a condition of approval.
Traffic Impacts
With any new developments in and around this centralized commercial/retail/mixed-use hub on Highway
62 and Dodd Road (State Hwy. 149), traffic safety, vehicle movements, access (both in and out of the area)
and adequate parking seem to be a major concern to many residents and business owners for this area. This
development would retain the right-in only access off of Hwy 62 (to the north); and all other access via
North Plaza Drive or South Plaza Drive, which are the only two roadway connections directly on or back
out to Dodd Road.
In 2017 the city consulted with KLJ Engineering to provide a traffic study of this and other areas in the
city, which was referred to as the Mendota Heights North-South Mobility Study and completed in February
2018. The study was commissioned to examine existing conditions, traffic and vehicle crash data; traffic
operations, and predict future traffic forecasts and operations, and provide alternatives. The study showed
that the intersection of Dodd Road and Hwy 62, in its 2017 Existing Conditions, 2040 Base and Build
Scenarios that this intersection provides a Level of Service F, which is the lowest score given, and
essentially means there are issues that need to be corrected or addressed. Unfortunately, since both of these
roadway systems are MnDOT controlled, there is not much the city can require or recommend to fix some
of these issues without an expensive alternative or solution. The report did summarize or suggested an
alternative to providing a future right-in/right-out intersection at North Plaza Drive off Dodd Road; but
there are currently no plans by MnDOT (or the city) to installing or changing this intersection at this time.
During the planning and presentation of The Reserves in 2016, traffic was expressed as a concern, especially
by the anticipated amount of units and new residents to this area, and the fear these resident’s vehicles
entering/exiting the site every day, especially during peak AM/Noon/PM hours, would cause some serious
traffic issues. Casual observations of this site (since the development opened) has shown there appears to
be no serious issues or problems of traffic or congestion attributed to this high-density residential
development, and the fear of serious congestion or crashes s in and around this development have not
materialized.
As part of this new development, the developer has submitted an updated Technical Memorandum – Trip
Generation Analysis from Biko Associates (dated 08/09/2021). The memo provides five (5) separate
scenarios and comparisons, based on current development and projected developments on the Phase II site
and the separate, but related Phase III site (Lot 7). A summary of findings are noted as follows:
1. The analysis for At Home Apartments' Mendota 2 development shows that it will generate fewer
daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the
expansion site in 2016 but never implemented.
PACKET PG. # 95
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 14 of 19
2. Similarly, the analysis for At Home Apartments’ Mendota Lot 7 development shows that it will
generate fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility
use that was originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009 but never implemented.
While the daily trip estimate to be generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a
mere two vehicles per day higher than those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care),
it is critically important to highlight that the peak hour trips, which are of much greater concern
than daily trips, are significantly lower.
3. The analysis also shows that the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak
hour trips) for what was originally proposed in the 2016 expansion program plus the 2008/2009
PUD are substantially higher than the estimates for what is currently being proposed by At Home
Apartments.
In this traffic review report, a Scenario 4 / Table 4 was used to identify the estimated traffic or daily trips
when considering The 149 (139) units of The Reserves, the 58 units of Phase II; and a proposed Child Care
center on Lot 7 (proposed Phase III site). This report concluded the following:
• 1,326 daily trips; 177 AM peak hour trips; 191 PM peak hour trips
Scenario 5 / Table 5 was thereafter use to identify the estimated traffic or daily trips when considering The
149 (139) units of The Reserves, the 58 units of Phase II; and a proposed 89-units on Lot 7 (Phase III),
which concluded the following:
• 1,328 daily trips; 97 AM peak hour trips; 118 PM peak hour trips
The report goes on to state:
“…that under Scenario 4, which included the 2008/2009 childcare/education facility, is estimated to
generate the highest volume of critically important AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips, when
compared to the other scenarios.”;
and
“The analysis showed that developing an 89-unit apartment (the Mendota Lot 7 development) will result
in nearly equal volumes of daily trips as those estimated for a 10,130 square foot childcare/education
facility; 1,326 daily trips compared to 1,328 daily trips. There is a stark difference, however, in the volume
of peak hour trips that would be generated. Scenario 4, with the childcare/educational facility, would
generate significantly greater peak hour trips than Scenario 5, with the 89-unit apartment; 177 AM peak
hour trips compared to 97. Likewise, Scenario 4 will generate 191 PM peak hour trips, and Scenario 5
will generate 118.
In order to ensure a fair and impartial review of this Technical (Traffic) Memo from the developer, the city
forwarded this report to our engineering consultants to review and provide comments (Bolton & Menk
Traffic Review Memo dated 08/16/2021 – appended to this report). This memo makes the following
conclusions and statement:
• Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive.
This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast corner of
TH 149/Dodd Road.
• Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive sidewalk/trail.
• Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east.
PACKET PG. # 96
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 15 of 19
• Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows
and as approved by MnDOT.
• Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2.
Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give
consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic
movements and improve safety.
The Minnesota Dept. of Transportation was also asked to review the proposed apartment plans with this
project, and submitted a review memo with information relating only to drainage, noise, pedestrian/bicycle,
and general permitting information. MnDOT apparently chose to either defer to the city [or neglected to
provide] any comments related to any potential traffic impacts on to the adjacent state highway roadway
systems. MnDOT Review Memo #S21-049 (dated 08/11/2021) is appended to this report.
Finally, as part of The Reserve development approvals, the city prepared and entered into an amended (No.
6) PUD Agreement in 2016. Under this agreement with Mendota Plaza Apartments, LLC (At Home Apts.),
Mendota Mall Associates-Outlots, LLC (Howard Paster) and the City of Mendota Heights, the following
Section No. 14 was noted:
14. Section 4. 11 Traffic Improvements, including South and North Plaza Drive/Dodd Road (TH 149)
Intersection. Section 4. 11 of the 2009 Development Agreement is hereby amended to delete any obligations
of the Developer to complete any improvements to TH 110 and Dodd Road included in the Traffic Study. The
Developer has provided the City with a Traffic Impact Study dated August 8, 2016, prepared by Spack Consulting
(" 2016 Traffic Study"). The Developer acknowledges that the City has expressed concerns over the impact of
the Second Addition Improvements on the intersection of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road as well as the
intersection of North Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. If, as a direct result of the Commercial Improvements and
Apartment Improvements, the Level of Service falls to an overall below Level of Service F at either of these
intersections as set forth in the 2016 Traffic Study without the installation of infrastructure improvements or the
adoption of traffic mitigation procedures or improvements, as determined by a qualified traffic engineer
reasonably acceptable to the Developer and the City; the Developer and Mendota Plaza Apartments will together
be responsible for the City' s share of the cost to bring the intersections performances to a Level of Service D or
better.
The city does not have any alternatives or suggested improvements to offer at this time. Staff would
however, suggest the planning commission discuss with the staff and the developer at the hearing/meeting
to determine if more study or analysis is required. Should this CUP (PUD Amendment) be approved, this
same section/language will be added and made part of the future 8th Amendment to the Mendota Plaza
Planned Unit Development Agreement.
Fire Department Review
The Fire Department personnel was asked to review these plans and provided the following comments:
1. amount of traffic that is coming out of South Plaza Drive is making difficult for us to get out of
the station and get rolling, especially to the north. If this is going to increase that traffic I think
we need to look at some sort of traffic preemption system associated with the project.
2. FD is unable to determine where the building’s FDC’s (fire hose connections) are located in
relation to any proposed hydrant locations?
3. FD is unable to tell if there is a fire access road around the property?
In a follow-up discussion with the Fire Chief, he was simply relaying his “concerns” with increased traffic
along Dodd Road, and the continued issues they have with periodic vehicle back-ups and difficulty turning
fire trucks north onto Dodd Road. In his opinion, a pre-emption device, similar to an Opticon system
normally seen on overhead traffic signals, would be an option to have inside the fire station, so they could
PACKET PG. # 97
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 16 of 19
trigger the light for northbound traffic at the Hwy 62 and Dodd Road intersection, which in theory would
allow vehicles to start moving along Dodd Road – just prior to the trucks leaving the station.
Nevertheless, the Fire Chief admits this is not the sole responsibility of the developer to fix, but wanted to
make sure the commission is aware of his concerns, and is open to other ideas, suggestions or alternatives
to reduce or combat this fire truck exiting issues.
There are no dedicated fire access road around the Phase II property, but access from the adjacent highway
is possible, and South Plaza Drive along the front will be available. Phase III has roadway or internal
driveway systems all around this site. In both cases, the Fire Chief agreed that he (along with the Fire
Marshal) would like to work with developer’s architects and civil design team, should these plans be
approved, and recommend appropriate fire safety measures inside and outside the buildings, which may
include identifying (or requiring) the correct number and placement of FDC’s, stack pipes and hydrant
locations – similar to what they did with The Reserve apartments in 2016.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development as
requested herein, based on the attached finding-of-fact, with conditions; or
2. Recommend DENIAL of the conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development as
requested herein, based on the related alternative finding-of-fact that support such a denial; or
3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if
necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN
STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to one of the alternatives noted
above, and make your recommendation on the reduced standards the Developer is seeking with this new
high -density apartment development and accept or revise the attached conditions accordingly. Please note
that any new or modified conditions should be reasonable and in fair proportion to the requested
development being considered under this PUD Amendment review process. The following are the
suggested conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required
by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and approved
by the City Council.
2. Any new final building plan approved under this PUD Amendment shall be constructed only in
conformance to the PUD Plans approved by the city council; and all approved building and site must
be certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all
architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls”
and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements.
3. Any drainage and utility easement or any other easements that may be impacted by the physical
placement of the new apartment structure or other improvements must be vacated and re-
established/dedicated as necessary, per the direction of the Public Works Director.
4. All new signage must comply with the sign standards in the Mendota Heights Plaza PUD Agreement.
PACKET PG. # 98
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 17 of 19
5. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approval.
6. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical
utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the
materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning
Department and verified as part of the building permit review process.
7. All new trees and plant material shall be designed to comply with the city’s pollinator friendly and
native plantings policy; all landscaped areas shall be irrigated; and plants used to provide an effective
screening element for building utility areas.
8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at
least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements,
to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
9. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and
free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or
landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow.
10. A Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed outdoor parking lot
lighting, building lighting and any additional lighting, which must be reviewed by the Planning and
Public Works Departments and included as part of any new building permit review process.
11. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service
(SPRWS) standards.
12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
13. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any
construction.
14. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings
shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system and other fire safety measures or
improvements as determined by the city’s Fire Marshal and/or Building Official.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Letter of Intent/Project Narrative
2. Technical Memorandum- Traffic Analysis by Biko Assoc. (dated 08/09/2021)
3. Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review Memo by Bolton & Menk (dated 08/16/2021)
4. MnDOT Review Memorandum (dated 08/11/2021)
5. 2009 Mendota Heights Plaza Master Development Plan
6. Mendota Heights Apartments – Phase III – Lot 7 Plans (2021)
PACKET PG. # 99
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 18 of 19
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
CUP for PUD Amendment
For PHASE III - LOT 7 of The Mendota Plaza
The following findings-of-fact are made in support of approval of the PUD Amendment:
1. The proposed amendment to allow a new 89-unit high-density residential apartment to the previously
approved 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan for Mendota Plaza, is consistent
with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and other applicable City Code requirements for similar high
density residential developments.
2. The proposed development meets the goals of the Housing chapter in the 2040 Comp Plan by
encouraging life-cycle housing opportunities in the city, through various forms and tenures that allow
residents to remain in the community; provides for senior rental housing opportunities; and supports
the development of a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and age groups.
3. The proposed apartment development complies with the allowable density range of 21 – 30 units/acre
as permitted for new MU-PUD (Mixed-Use-Planned Unit Development) land uses.
4. The proposed apartment will be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development within
the established PUD.
5. Financing for this proposed development is available and will be provided to the developer with
certain conditions between the developer and their lender, and in an amount sufficient to assure
completion of the proposed apartment development, which will contribute to the completion of the
overall planned unit development in this MU-PUD area.
6. The proposed development utilizes the flexibility of the planned unit development and other zoning
standards to enhance the development of the property, without negatively impacting surrounding land
uses and natural resources.
7. The reduced building and parking setbacks, smaller unit sizes, reduced land area, and overall density
of this development does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property.
8. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more
open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking requires.
9. Based upon the traffic analysis prepared for this application, the proposed development will
contribute less amount of vehicle trips or daily traffic entering/leaving this area than the other
retail/commercial development(s) planned for in this PUD project area.
10. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant
amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases.
11. The proposed apartment development use would be in character with other surrounding uses in this
mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area, and the new residents projected for
this site will help support and contribute to the economic sustainability of the surrounding retail and
commercial uses.
PACKET PG. # 100
Planning Report: Case #2021-12 (At Home Apts.-Phase II) Page 19 of 19
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR DENIAL
CUP for PUD Amendment
For PHASE III - LOT 7 of The Mendota Plaza
Lot 7, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion Addition
The following findings-of-facts are made in support of denial of the PUD Amendment:
1. The 89-unit apartment development proposed for the subject site is determined to be excessive than
what was originally planned or scheduled for this site, and is therefore inconsistent with the original
intent and purpose of the 2009 Planned Unit Development Final Development Plans.
2. The amount and number of reduced site design standards, including reduced building and parking lot
setbacks, and reduced parking numbers requested under this PUD Amendment seem excessive and
too numerous for this site, and are all considered inconsistent with typical City Code requirements
and standards for similar high-density residential developments in the city.
3. The proposed development will not be an effective and unified treatment of the existing development
within the PUD project area.
4. The proposed development is determined not to be a good fit for this site or area, is not well-planned
or designed as an ideal development for this lot or area, and would not be in harmony with any
existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
5. The proposed apartment development poses a negative impact to the surrounding land uses, natural
resources, vehicle traffic and nearby road systems.
6. The new high-density residential use would not be in character with other surrounding uses in this
mixed-use commercial and high density residential project area.
PACKET PG. # 101
Planning Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD
Application: Narrative (UPDATED 08.09.2021)
This updated narrative is being provided to highlight recent changes in the total unit counts for the two
projects that At Home Apartments, L.L.C. (the “Applicant”) proposed with its submission of Planning
Application and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Application. This application outlines the Applicant's
plans for the development of the following parcels: 27-48401-01-070 (“Parcel 1”/Lot 7) and 27-48402-
01-010 (“Parcel 2”/Phase II of Reserve).
As stated in the initial application, these parcels are currently owned by Mendota Mall Associations-
Outlots, LLC. The Applicant is currently under contract to purchase Parcels 1 and 2 for the purpose of
redeveloping both parcels with multi-family rental communities. The Applicant’s initial plans called for
developing a 61-unit “sister” building to the neighboring complex known as The Reserve at Mendota
Village and a 113-unit market rate apartment building on Parcel 1/Lot 7 that will complement the nearby
apartment complexes but will provide a different product type not available in the nearby vicinity.
As is often the case, the Applicant continued to review and modify the interior floor plans for both
proposed projects. These modifications and adjustments resulted in larger, but fewer units for both
proposed buildings. The proposed unit total for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve is now 58 units and the
proposed unit total for Parcel 1/Lot 7 is 89 units.
This updated narrative is also being provided to correct a technical oversight in the traffic memorandum
that was submitted with the Applicant’s application. The original memo omitted a section that
highlighted the comparison between the Applicant’s proposed development for Parcel 1/Lot 7 and what
is the current approved use for that parcel. This oversight resulted in skewed data for the traffic impact
the proposed projects will have. An updated memorandum which corrects that oversight and takes into
consideration the revised unit totals has been provided for review and reference.
Parcel 2/Phase II of Reserve at Mendota Village - Project Description
In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the current PUD and corresponding development
agreement that allowed for the development of 139 market rate rental housing units and a commercial
area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses.
The 139 market rate apartment building, now known as The Reserve at Mendota Village, opened in the
summer of 2018 and reached occupancy stabilization within the first 6 months. It has continued to
maintain full occupancy to this day.
Due to many factors impacting the retail and restaurant real estate markets, followed by the
unprecedented obstacles of COVID-19, the goal to develop Parcel 1 consistent with the 2016 approved
plans became increasingly challenging. However, the strong and continuous demand for housing
opportunities at the Reserve at Mendota Village demonstrated there was a stronger need to expand and
develop a second phase for that particular community.
PACKET PG. # 102
The proposed development for Parcel 2 is a 58-unit apartment building consisting of 19 one-bedroom
units with an average unit size of 727 SQFT, 9 one bedroom plus den units with an average unit size of
822 SQFT, and 30 two-bedroom units with an average unit size of 1,428 SQFT. The building provides
one level of underground parking with 69 stalls and 49 surface stalls for an overall parking ratio of
approximately 2.03 stalls per unit.
The units will have luxury, high-end finishes harmonious with the Reserve at Mendota Village. In
addition, the amenity package offered in this second phase will expand and complement the existing
amenities available at the Reserve. These amenity spaces will be located on the top – partial fourth floor
of the three story apartment building and will include indoor pickleball courts, wine bar, outdoor fire pit,
and indoor bocce ball court. The building will also have its own fitness area and common lounge spaces
similar to the Reserve. By developing this second phase and allowing the residents of both buildings to
enjoy the luxury amenity spaces found within the two buildings, the Applicant will create a resort style
housing complex completing the vision of making the Reserve at Mendota Village a destination housing
community.
Parcel 1/Lot 7 - Project Description
The Applicant also intends to develop Parcel 2 by building a four-story apartment building with one and
a half levels of underground parking with 110 stalls and 47 surface parking stalls resulting in an overall
parking ratio of 1.76 stalls per unit. Given the unit matrix of this proposed project and the perceived
demographic, we believe this parking ratio is more than sufficient to serve the population. This project,
which would open in 2023 is designed to complement the Reserve at Mendota Village but provide an
alternative housing option that is not currently available within the city limits.
This proposed project is an upscale, modern design apartment building that will provide 89 market rate
apartment homes made up of 18 small one-bedroom units with an average size of 674 SQFT, 23 medium
one-bedroom units with an average size of 772 SQFT, 18 large one-bedroom units with an average size
of 864 SQFT, 3 one-bedroom plus den units with an average size of 906 SQFT and 27 two-bedroom
units with an average size of 1,119 SQFT. This project is designed with the younger professional in
mind. Mendota Heights is a vibrant community that is centrally located making it very attractive to
younger professionals, especially to those that grew up in the area. However, one of the drawbacks is
that most of the current housing stock is not attractive to or affordable for this age group. These units
will be market rate units, but at a more affordable rental rate than that of the Reserve at Mendota
Village. The amenity spaces located at this property will include an on-site leasing office, mail and
package delivery room, state of the art fitness and yoga studio, and a separate clubhouse building with
exterior connections creating a unique outdoor living space. This proposed project will have an excellent
walkability score due to its proximity to local restaurants, shops, and other retail. This factor combined
with easy access to public parks and walking trail systems, and several major highway connections,
makes this project a desirable housing option for younger professionals or young adults starting out on
their own while helping the City stay competitive with the surrounding communities.
Community Impact
Though the Applicant is applying for this conditional use to amend the guided uses for the subject
parcels, the proposed use (multifamily housing) will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare to the community, the proposed uses will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards as
summarized in the attached traffic memo, the proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding
PACKET PG. # 103
property value and the proposed use is in harmony with general purpose and intent of the City Code and
its comprehensive plan. Overall, these two projects provide a benefit to the community because they
allow for the redevelopment of two sites in a manner that is consistent with the City’s housing and
density goals while balancing the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Traffic
Understanding that impact on traffic is a genuine and obvious concern when new projects are being
proposed, the Applicant contracted Biko Associates to prepare a technical memorandum to document a
trip generation analysis for the two proposed development projects. This analysis not only provided the
trip generation estimates of the proposed apartment projects but also compared these data against the trip
generation estimates for the current allowed uses, a restaurant and retail building on Parcel 2/Phase II of
Reserve and a 10,130 SQFT day care/child education center on Parcel 1/ Lot 7.
The traffic memorandum, which has been submitted with the Applicant’s application, documents the
analysis for Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve and shows that it will generate fewer daily, AM peak hour,
and PM peak hour trips than the uses that were previously proposed for the expansion site in 2016 but
never implemented. Similarly, the analysis for Parcel 1/Lot 7 development shows that it will generate
fewer AM peak hour and fewer PM peak hour trips than the childcare/ education facility use that was
originally proposed for the Mendota Plaza PUD in 2008/2009. While the daily trip estimate to be
generated by the proposed Mendota 7 development will be a mere two vehicles per day higher than
those estimated for the originally proposed use (a day care), it is critically important to note that the peak
hour trips, which are of greater concern, are significantly lower. The combined analysis also shows that
the trip generation estimates (daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips) for what was originally
proposed in the 2016 PUD amendment plus the original 2008/2009 PUD are substantially higher than
the estimates for what is currently being proposed by Applicant.
Development Schedule
Assuming that the approval process follows the published schedule, the Applicant would like to
commence construction on the Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve in the fall of 2021. Due to the smaller
scale of the proposed building for this phase the anticipated construction timeline is approximately nine
(9) months. The Applicant would then plan on breaking ground on Parcel 1/Lot 7 in the spring of 2022
with the goal of a spring 2023 delivery.
Parcel 1/Lot 7 – Architectural Design
The Parcel 1/Lot 7 development consists of 89 units and 157 parking stalls. The site area is 2.04 acres
giving the development a density of approximately 44 units / acre.
The building is designed with a full level of underground parking and a partial level of above grade
parking. The site has significant grade changes up to ten feet with the north and east being lower than
the southwest corner. The grade change allows the lower level of parking to have direct access from the
north, and the upper level has direct access from the west. The front entry is located on the eastern end
of the building. We believe this is the best residential entry point as it connects with the residential use
to the east and provides the best pedestrian access to the commercial area, the trails, and the other
residential development of the Reserve. Due to the grade change, the entry is at the lower level of
parking. This entry will have a grand two-story space that connects residents and visitors to the main /
PACKET PG. # 104
first level. The main level has direct access to a south facing courtyard. The courtyard will contain a
clubhouse with residential amenity spaces, patio and seating areas, grilling stations, and an area for fire
pits and lounging. A decorative trellis at the south end of the courtyard will provide shade and some
privacy to the residents, and visual interest to the street. The community courtyard will have additional
common area amenities surrounding the courtyard and some individual residential units with patios and
balconies overlooking the space. Gardens will surround this courtyard area for resident enjoyment. The
southwest corner of the building being at higher grade allows for three ‘walk-up’ style units. Parking is
conveniently located under the building for nearly every unit, with additional parking for every second
bedroom, and visitors.
The building will be constructed of one and a half levels of concrete, and 3 and a half level of wood
frame construction. The first level with parking will be half concrete and half wood-frame. This site
will be predominantly one-bedroom apartments with a range of generous sizes. The units will have a
high level of finishes providing an upscale feel. The design is intended to attract a wide variety of
people but we believe it will be mostly young professionals, younger renters from the community not
quite ready to purchase homes, and community residents looking for housing and price options that
don’t exist in the area. The design is a mix of brick and siding. The siding picking up some wood tones
to give it a residential feel, and to blend with some of the details and design of the Reserve, while still
providing a distinct look and feel for this parcel. The design also features balconies for the vast majority
of the units and large window openings to provide strong connections to the outdoors.
Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve – Architectural Design
The Parcel 2/Phase II of the Reserve consists of 58 units and 118 parking stalls. The site area is
approximately 2.04 acres giving the development a density of approximately 28 units / acre.
The building is designed to be similar to the Reserve with the same brick, with stone, and with the same
detailing as the first phase. The layout of the building also mirrors the first phase of the development
picking up on the forty-five-degree angle and matching the stone at the ends of the building to provide a
harmonious entry. This phase will be predominately three stories. There will be a partial fourth floor
providing amenities that are not seen in the first phase of the Reserve and are very unique to the market.
This fourth floor is envisioned to be a roof-top clubhouse with indoor bocce-ball, indoor pickle ball, and
community gathering spaces along with a roof-top deck. The amenities in this building are designed to
complement the first building with residents able to use either facility creating not just the look of a
community with the similar buildings, but also interaction between residents that will help create
community. The building design will be cohesive with the existing building with the brick and stone,
wood tone siding, some large overhangs and an entry that will be similar to phase one. The window
types, colors and patterns will also be the same as the phase one project providing for consistency.
Some of the elements have been scaled down as this is only a three story building whereas the first
Reserve building is four to five stories.
The lower level will be concrete construction and contains seventy-one underground parking stalls. The
grade change allows this to be easily accessed from the southern end of the site. The main level is
accessed from the south side as well, with easy access to visitor parking. Due to the grade change, there
is an upper and lower level parking area that works with the grade and will help the building fit into the
site providing some unique character as well. The central area contains an existing underground storm
water treatment system and will be developed with some green space and gardens at this central area.
The upper levels are wood frame apartments with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Approximately
half of these units also contain dens or secondary home office areas. This will have upscale amenities,
PACKET PG. # 105
finishes and features comparable to the Reserve. The sizing of the units is meant to compliment the
phase one building and by doing so has added some larger units from 1400-1650 SQFT. Being a second
phase, we believe the residential profile will be similar to the Reserve, but we have also identified a need
for larger units to meet the needs of existing community residents looking for apartment by choice style
living.
Parcel 2/Phase 2 of the Reserve – Civil Design
Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil
engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 58-unit apartment adjacent
to The Reserve at Mendota Village.
Stormwater Design
When The Reserve was constructed on the adjacent lot, the project included a two-cell underground
stormwater chamber system to treat stormwater both from the Reserve apartment development and from
the two retail buildings that were proposed on Parcel 2. The primary function of the first cell, southeast
of South Plaza Way, is to infiltrate stormwater. The primary purpose of the second cell is to control the
rate of discharge of stormwater into the existing wetland southwest of the site.
The system was designed to treat 137,410 SF of total impervious surface spanning both lots and a
portion of South Plaza Way that passes between them. This included 62,747 SF of impervious surface
on Parcel 2. This proposed project to construct an apartment building on Parcel 2 reduces the proposed
surface on Parcel 2 from 62,747 SF to 60,610 SF and the total from 137,410 SF to 135,273 SF.
The proposed project will construct a stormwater collection system that will capture and convey runoff
from the eastern developed portion of the site to the infiltration chamber southeast of South Plaza Way.
Since the proposed development has less impervious coverage than the original design, it can be
concluded that the existing system will support the proposed development.
Overflow from the infiltration chamber will continue to be routed through the second cell of the system
before ultimate discharge to the existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site. Runoff from
the western portion of the site will continue to pass through the existing pond at the west end of the
property and be discharged into the same existing wetland along the southwest boundary of the site.
This application includes a Stormwater Management Report for Parcel 1 that describes how the project
meets all stormwater requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, including infiltration, rate control,
water quality, and temporary best management practices to be implemented during construction.
Sanitary Sewer
Similar to the shared stormwater infrastructure, The Reserve at Mendota Village also included
construction of a sanitary sewer lift station that is intended to be shared between Parcel 2 and the
existing apartment building. This system is in place and actively serving the adjacent apartments with a
stub that was extended to serve future development on Parcel 2. The system was originally designed to
convey sanitary flows from two retail buildings on Parcel 2.
The applicant has reviewed calculations to verify that the existing lift station has adequate capacity to
serve the proposed change in land use from retail to residential. According to information received from
Electric Pump, Inc., the contractor who constructed the lift station, the system has a capacity of 145
gal/min. A typical flow rate for residential populations of less than 5,000 is 60 to 70 gallons per day.
PACKET PG. # 106
Therefore, the existing lift station has a capacity to serve 2,980 to 3,480 people. When applying a
conservative peaking factor of 4.0, which is appropriate for systems with pipe sizes less than 10-inches
diameter or for 250 people, the lift station can still serve a population of up to 745 to 870 people.
Water Main
The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion developments constructed a ductile iron pipe network within the
development that is connected to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system. The pipe
network serving this development is constructed within public utility easements and provides both water
supply and fire protection. There is a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 2 to serve the proposed development
on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be sufficient to serve the development.
This will be verified during the final design.
Landscape
The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and design
to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will be
covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also
includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs.
The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed
landscape design meets the City’s pollinator and native planting requirements.
Maintenance
The Applicant is uncertain if an existing agreement maintenance agreement has been executed with the
City of Mendota Heights documenting their responsibility of the maintenance of the underground
stormwater chamber system or sanitary sewer lift station. If these agreements are not already in place,
the Applicant will work with the City to execute an agreement to maintain these systems.
Parcel 1/Lot 7 – Civil Design
Anderson Engineering has prepared preliminary civil engineering plans and reports to address the civil
engineering and landscape architectural design components for the proposed 89-unit apartment on Lot 7,
Block 1 of the Mendota Plaza Expansion development.
Stormwater
When the Mendota Plaza Expansion development was originally constructed, the developer constructed
a stormwater pond in the north central portion of the site, along the south side of the existing wetland
that passes through the site. The developer also constructed a stormwater collection system to convey
water to the stormwater pond.
The stormwater infrastructure was originally permitted in 2009, based on the Stormwater Management
Plan prepared by RLK Inc. dated December 22, 2008. The infrastructure was designed to meet the
stormwater regulations that were in place at the time. However, stormwater regulations have changed
since the original approvals. The City of Mendota Heights now requires Atlas 14, MSE-3 24-hr rainfall
distributions to be used for stormwater design. The City also has implemented requirements for
stormwater infiltration and phosphorus removal.
PACKET PG. # 107
This application includes a stormwater management plan with calculations demonstrating the
compliance of the site with the new regulations. The existing infrastructure supports the updated rate
control requirements. However, the original system did not provide any infiltration, and did not fully
meet the updated phosphorus removal requirements.
This project proposes construction of an underground stormwater chamber beneath the proposed eastern
parking lot. This proposed chamber will be designed to meet the infiltration requirements. By doing so,
the volume reduction achieved by the proposed underground chamber will also exceed the phosphorus
removal requirements.
Sanitary Sewer
The previous Mendota Plaza Expansion development constructed PVC sanitary sewer main collection
system to serve the development. This collection system is routed to the City of Mendota Heights public
sanitary sewer system. The lateral main serving this development is an 8” PVC main with a 6” PVC stub
that is deep enough to provides gravity service to the proposed development.
Water Main
Similar to Parcel 2, the ductile iron pipe network constructed within the development that is connected
to the City of Mendota Heights public water main system also provides a 6-inch pipe stubbed to Parcel 1
to serve the proposed development on this lot. It is anticipated that the water pressure and flow will be
sufficient to serve the development. This will be verified during the final design.
Landscape
The proposed landscape design for the site is intended to compliment the architectural design and is
designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights landscaping requirements. Most of the pervious areas will
be covered with sod and will be irrigated to ensure healthy growth. The proposed landscape design also
includes shredded hardwood mulch and landscape poly-edging around planting beds for shrubs.
The applicant with work with City staff during the plan review process to ensure that the proposed
landscape design meets the City’s pollinator and native planting requirements.
Maintenance
The proposed project on Parcel 1 will connect to existing public storm water, sanitary, and water main
infrastructure. The Applicant will maintain the private stormwater infiltration chamber proposed under
the east parking lot, and the segments of private service connections that are within the proposed Parcel
1 boundary but not included within the public drainage and utility easements.
PACKET PG. # 108
dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůDĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵ
d ͗ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
dK͗>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ͕ WƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚZĞĂů ƐƚĂƚĞΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ
&ZKD͗tŝůůŝĂŵ^ŵŝƚŚ͕/W
ĂŶŝĞů>ƵďďĞŶ
Z ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƚŚŝƐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵƚŽĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌ
ƚǁŽƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐďĞŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďLJƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂ,ĞŝŐŚƚƐ͕DŝŶŶĞƐŽƚĂ͘dŚĞĨŝƌƐƚŝƐ
ĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽďĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚƉŚĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞ
ĂŶĚƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽŚĞƌĞŝŶĂƐDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŝƐĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚŽŶ
>ŽƚϳǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂWhĂŶĚƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽŚĞƌĞŝŶĂƐƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ͗
ϭ͘ dŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐΖDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚŝƚǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ
ĨĞǁĞƌĚĂŝůLJ͕DƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌ͕ĂŶĚWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞƵƐĞƐƚŚĂƚǁĞƌĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƐŝƚĞŝŶϮϬϭϲďƵƚŶĞǀĞƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘;^ĞĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐϭĂŶĚϯŝŶdĂďůĞϲŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϮ͘Ϳ
Ϯ͘ ^ŝŵŝůĂƌůLJ͕ƚŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͛DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚŝƚ
ǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĨĞǁĞƌDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌĂŶĚĨĞǁĞƌWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ
ĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJƵƐĞƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂWhŝŶϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ
ďƵƚŶĞǀĞƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘tŚŝůĞƚŚĞĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŽďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůďĞĂŵĞƌĞƚǁŽǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞ;ĂĚĂLJĐĂƌĞͿ͕ŝƚŝƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůůLJŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŽĨŵƵĐŚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƚŚĂŶĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂƌĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJůŽǁĞƌ͘
;^ĞĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐϰĂŶĚϱŝŶdĂďůĞϲŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϮ͘Ϳ
ϯ͘ dŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂůƐŽƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ;ĚĂŝůLJ͕DƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌ͕ĂŶĚWD
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƉůƵƐƚŚĞ
ϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhĂƌĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐĨŽƌǁŚĂƚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďLJƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘;^ĞĞdĂďůĞϳŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϰ͘Ϳ
ƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƐŝƐĂŵĂũŽƌĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶƚŚĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚƚŚĞ
>ĞǀĞůƐŽĨ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ;>K^ͿƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǁŝůůĞdžŚŝďŝƚĂƚŬĞLJŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŝƚŝƐƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞƚŽĂƐƐƵŵĞ͕ǁŚĞƌĞ
ŽƚŚĞƌĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƌĞŵĂŝŶĐŽŶƐƚĂŶƚ͕ƚŚĂƚůŽǁĞƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶďĞƚƚĞƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ
ŚŝŐŚĞƌ>K^ĂƚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
PACKET PG. # 109
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϮ
ĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͗
&ŝǀĞLJĞĂƌƐĂŐŽŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕WĂƐƚĞƌWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŶĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂƉĂƌĐĞůůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ
ŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶǁĂƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚƌĞĞƵƐĞƐ͗ϭͿ
ĂŶĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͕ϮͿƌĞƚĂŝůƐƉĂĐĞĂƚϰ͕ϴϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ͕ĂŶĚϯͿĂϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞ
ĨŽŽƚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͘^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐǁĂƐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚďLJWĂƐƚĞƌWƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐƚŽƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĂƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJƚŽ
ĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŚŽǁƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŽƵůĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƚ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ͕ŝŶƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌ͕ŚŽǁĂƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌŝŐŚƚͲŝŶͬƌŝŐŚƚͲŽƵƚĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJǁŽƵůĚĂĨĨĞĐƚ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŶd,ϲϮĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐĂĨĞƚLJ͘&ŝŐƵƌĞƐϭĂŶĚϮ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƚĂŬĞŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ
ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJ͕ĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƚŽƐŚŽǁƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
KĨƚŚĞƚŚƌĞĞƵƐĞƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕ŽŶůLJƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚϭϯϵƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨϭϰϵƵŶŝƚƐ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐƐŝƚĞůLJŝŶŐǀĂĐĂŶƚ͕ƚ,ŽŵĞ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝƐŶŽǁƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƚŽƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŶĚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚ͕ƚŚƌĞĞ
ƐƚŽƌLJŵŝĚͲƌŝƐĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚďŽƚŚƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚĂŶĚƐƵƌĨĂĐĞůĞǀĞůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͘dŚĞϱϴͲƵŶŝƚ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŝƐƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞŐŝŶŝŶĨĂůůŽĨϮϬϮϭ͘
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭ͗
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞZĞŐŝŽŶĂů>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͗DĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϴ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘
PACKET PG. # 110
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭWĂŐĞϯ Retail and restaurant uses, which were never built. 139-unit apartment (The Reserve at Mendota Village), which was built in 2016.** &ŝŐƵƌĞϮ͗ŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů^ŝƚĞWůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͗DĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϴ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘ ΎΎdŚĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĂůLJnjĞĚĂϭϰϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘KŶůLJϭϯϵƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘PACKET PG. # 111
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϰ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͗
/ŶĂWhĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ͕ĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĂƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ
ďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ͛Ɛ>Žƚϳ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶĞŶĚŽĨDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂĂŶĚŽŶ
ƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚƐŝĚĞŽĨ^ŽƵƚŚWůĂnjĂƌŝǀĞ͘dŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĂƐŶĞǀĞƌďƵŝůƚ͕ĂŶĚƚ,ŽŵĞ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚ͕ĨŝǀĞͬƐŝdžƐƚŽƌLJŵŝĚͲƌŝƐĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ƚŝƐ
ŚŽƉĞĚƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞϴϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŐŝŶŝŶƚŚĞƐƉƌŝŶŐͬƐƵŵŵĞƌŽĨϮϬϮϮǁŝƚŚĂ
ϮϬϮϯĚĞůŝǀĞƌLJĚĂƚĞ͘
^ĐŚĞŵĂƚŝĐĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJ<< ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƐŝŶ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϮϬϬϵ͕
ĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶďĞůŽǁŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͘
dŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨďŽƚŚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƐŚŽǁŶŽŶ&ŝŐƵƌĞϰŽŶ
ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƉĂŐĞ͘
&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͗^ĐŚĞŵĂƚŝĐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ
PACKET PG. # 112
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭWĂŐĞϱ &ŝŐƵƌĞϰ͗>ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͛dǁŽWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDƵůƚŝͲ&ĂŵŝůLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ŝƚĞƐ^ŽƵƚŚWůĂnjĂƌŝǀĞd,ϲϮd,ϭϰϵϭϯϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿďƵŝůƚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͘dŚĞŽŶůLJϮϬϭϲƵƐĞƚŚĂƚǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐŝŶϮϬϭϲ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ>Žƚϳ͕ĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůƚŚĂƚǁĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĨŽƌĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&ĐŚŝůĚŚŽŽĚͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJŝŶϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵ͘PACKET PG. # 113
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϲ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
dŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞƐƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƌĞƐƵůƚƐŽĨƚƌŝƉ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐŝŶƚĂďůĞƐƚŚĂƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŽŶƉĂŐĞϭĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐŽŶƉĂŐĞϭϮ͘dƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐĂƌĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƐĂŶĞůĞŵĞŶƚ
ŽĨdƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐƚŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĂƚƚƌĂĐƚĞĚƚŽĂŶĚĚĞƉĂƌƚĨƌŽŵ
ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƵƐĞƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂƐŝƚĞ͘&ŝǀĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐǁŝůůďĞĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚŝŶ
ƚŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŵĞŵŽƌĂŶĚƵŵ͘
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϭ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ
ƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌƵƐĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬ
ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͕ŽŶƉĂŐĞϴ͕ƚŚĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĂ
ůŽǁƚŽŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞǁĞĞŬĚĂLJ͘ƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚĞ
ƌĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞǀŽůƵŵĞƐŽĨDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌĂŶĚWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐǁĞƌĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞĂůŵŽƐƚ
͞ƵŶƌĞŵĂƌŬĂďůĞ͘͟
ƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝĚĞŶƚŝĨŝĞĚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƚƌŝƉƐĂƐƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƚƌŝƉƐ
ĂƌĞ͞ŝŶƚĞƌŵĞĚŝĂƚĞƐƚŽƉƐŽŶƚŚĞǁĂLJ͞ďĞƚǁĞĞŶĂƚƌŝƉŽƌŝŐŝŶĂŶĚĂŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚƌŝƉĚĞƐƚŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ͘KŶĞ
ǁĂLJƚŽƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞŵĐĂŶďĞ͞ƐƉƵƌŽĨƚŚĞŵŽŵĞŶƚ͟ƚƌŝƉƐǁŚĞƌĞ͕
ĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ĂĚƌŝǀĞƌŝƐƉĂƐƐŝŶŐďLJĂDĐŽŶĂůĚƐƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͕ƐĞĞƐƚŚĞ'ŽůĚĞŶƌĐŚĞƐ͕ƐƵĚĚĞŶůLJ
ĐƌĂǀĞƐĂŝŐDĂĐ͕ƚŚĞŶƚƵƌŶƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞDĐŽŶĂůĚƐ͛ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚ͕ƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞƐĂŝŐDĂĐ͕ĂŶĚĞdžŝƚƐƚŚĞ
ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚƌŝƉ͘
WĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐĚŽŶŽƚĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐŽŶƌŽĂĚǁĂLJůŝŶŬƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚƌŝƉĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶƐďƵƚƚŚĞLJĚŽ
ŝŵƉĂĐƚƚŚĞĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐƚŚĂƚƐĞƌǀĞƚŚĞŵ͘EŽŶͲƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ďLJĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ͕ĂƌĞŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐͲͲͲƚƌŝƉƐ
ƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞŽŶĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƌŽĂĚǁĂLJůŝŶŬƐǁĞƌĞŝƚŶŽƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝŽŶ͘
/ŶdĂďůĞϭ͕ĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ŝƚŝƐƐŚŽǁŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵǁĂƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞ
ϱϯϲĚĂŝůLJŝŶďŽƵŶĚƚƌŝƉƐĂŶĚϱϯϲĚĂŝůLJŽƵƚďŽƵŶĚƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂŶĚϯϱƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĞ;ϯϴϭƚƌŝƉƐͿĂƌĞƉĂƐƐͲ
ďLJƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂƚ^ŽƵƚŚWůĂnjĂƌŝǀĞ͕EŽƌƚŚWůĂnjĂĐĐĞƐƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞ
ƌŝŐŚƚͲŝŶͬƌŝŐŚƚͲŽƵƚĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJŽŶd,ϲϮ͘dŚĞƐĞƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚŚĂǀĞĂŶŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞ
ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨd,ϲϮͬd,ϭϰϵďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞŶŽƚŶĞǁƚƌŝƉƐďĞŝŶŐĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐLJƐƚĞŵ͘/Ŷ
ĞƐƐĞŶĐĞ͕ƚŚĞLJĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJŽŶƚŚĞƌŽĂĚ͘ƐdĂďůĞϭ
ĐŽƌƌĞĐƚůLJŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƐ͕ƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;ĂƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵƐĞͿĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘
ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͕ŝĨƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĂƐŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJ
ƉůĂŶŶĞĚ͕ƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ͗
ϭ͕ϬϳϮĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϯϴϭǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϳϯDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϭϳǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϵϳWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ŽĨǁŚŝĐŚϯϮǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐ
PACKET PG. # 114
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϳ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϮ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚŝŶϮϬϭϲ
dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚŽĨŶŽƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞƚĂŝůƐŚŽƉƐĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚŝŶϮϬϭϲŝƐŽŶĞǁŚĞƌĞƚƌŝƉƐ
ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚŽƐĞƵƐĞƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ͘dŚƵƐ͕ƚŚĞLJƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƐƵďƚƌĂĐƚĞĚ
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϭ͘^ĞĞdĂďůĞϮŽŶƉĂŐĞϴ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǁŚĂƚ
ǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ͕ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘
ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϮ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚŽĚĂLJŝƐ͗
ϱϯϬĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϰϲDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ϱϮWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝŶŐdĂďůĞƐϭĂŶĚϮ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƚƌŝƉƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƌĞĂůŝnjĞĚďLJŶŽƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐ͘
WĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ϱϭƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ;ϱϰϮĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐͿŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ϯϳƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϮϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
ϰϲƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϰϱWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿŶĞǀĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŝnjĞĚ
PACKET PG. # 115
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭWĂŐĞϴ dĂďůĞϭ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵ/d >ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂŝůLJDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌWDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůĂŝůLJWĂƐƐͲďLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐͲďLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůWDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐͲďLJ>ŽĐĂů ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͿΎΎϮϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ Ϭ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ Ϭ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ ϬϴϮϲ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJZĞƚĂŝů;ϰ͕ϴϮϲ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ĞĞƚͿϲϬ ϲϬ ϭϮϬ ϲϮ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϵ ϭϬ ϯ ϰ ϳ ϰ>ŽĐĂůZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ;ϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿϮϭϭ Ϯϭϭ ϰϮϮ ϯϭϵ ϱ ϯ ϴ ϳ Ϯϱ ϭϯ ϯϴ ϮϴdŽƚĂůϱϯϲ ϱϯϲ ϭϬϳϮ ϯϴϭ ϮϬ ϱϯ ϳϯ ϭϳ ϲϮ ϯϱ ϵϳ ϯϮ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐ͗͞dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϵƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕͟/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d ͿĂŶĚůŽĐĂůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ĂƐĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdƌĂĨĨŝĐ /ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͗DĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͕ƵŐƵƐƚϴ͕ϮϬϭϲ͘ΎΎ ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘dĂďůĞϮ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞϮϬϭϲDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶWƌŽŐƌĂŵǁŝƚŚŽƵƚZĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚhƐĞƐ/d >ĂŶĚhƐĞŽĚĞĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶĂŝůLJDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌWDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůĂŝůLJWĂƐƐLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐLJ/ŶKƵƚdŽƚĂůWDWĞĂŬWĂƐƐLJ>ŽĐĂů ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐͿΎΎϮϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ Ϭ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ Ϭ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ ϬϴϮϲ ^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJZĞƚĂŝů;ϰ͕ϴϮϲ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ĞĞƚͿϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ>ŽĐĂůZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ;ϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚͿϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬdŽƚĂůϮϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ Ϭ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ Ϭ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ Ϭ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐ͗ ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘:ƵůLJϮϰ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘ΎΎ ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞ ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚPACKET PG. # 116
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϵ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϯ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚŝŶϮϬϭϲĂŶĚƚŚĞWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
ƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽďƵŝůĚĂϱϴͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮͿŽŶƚŚĞƉĂƌĐĞůǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞ
ƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐǁĞƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͘WƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚŝŶdĂďůĞϯ͕ďĞůŽǁ͕ĂƌĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐĨƌŽŵĂ
ƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚƚŽĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ
ďLJƚŚĞϭϰϵͲƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕ĂŶĚ
ƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘
dĂďůĞϯ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞĂŶĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ŽŵďŝŶĞĚ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿнн
ϭϰϵĚƵƐΎΎ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϱϴĚƵƐ ϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
dŽƚĂůϮϬϳĚƵƐ ϰϮϮ ϰϮϮ ϴϰϰ ϭϭ ϱϱ ϲϲ ϱϬ Ϯϴ ϳϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ нн >ŽĐĂůĚĂƚĞĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘
ннн dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϭϬƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d Ϳ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϵϳ͕ŶŽƚϮϬϳ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƚŽƚĂůƐŝŶdĂďůĞϯĨŽƌ
dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞLJĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĂƌĞ͘
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘
ŽŵƉĂƌŝŶŐdĂďůĞϭƚŽdĂďůĞϯ͕ŝƚŝƐƐŚŽǁŶƚŚĂƚďLJŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ĨĞǁĞƌƚƌŝƉƐǁŝůůďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲ
ĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞϰ͕ϴϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞ
ĨŽŽƚƌĞƚĂŝůĂŶĚϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƵƐĞƐ͕ǁŝůůLJŝĞůĚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͗
ůůƉĂƐƐͲďLJƚƌŝƉƐĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
ϮϭƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ;ϮϮϴĚĂŝůLJƚŝƉƐͿĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
ϭϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
ϮϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ;ϭϵWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐͿĂƌĞŐŽŶĞ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚDĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚĂ
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ƐŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚ͕ĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĚĂLJĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĂƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ
ŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂWůĂnjĂ͛Ɛ>Žƚϳ͘/ƚǁĂƐŶĞǀĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐĂŶϴϵͲ
ƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘dĂďůĞϰƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚŝĨƚŚĞϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁĞƌĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚŽŶ>Žƚϳ͕ĂůŽŶŐ
PACKET PG. # 117
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϬ
ǁŝƚŚdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ;ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚͿ͕ĂŶĚĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĨŽƌ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘
dĂďůĞϰ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂů&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ D WĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿнн
ϭϰϵĚƵƐΎΎ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϱϴĚƵƐ ϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ
>Žƚϳ
/d ŽĚĞϱϲϱннн
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^& Ϯϰϭ Ϯϰϭ ϰϴϮ ϱϵ ϱϮ ϭϭϭ ϲϬ ϱϯ ϭϭϯ
dŽƚĂůϮϬϳĚƵƐ
ĂŶĚ
ĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ϲϲϯ ϲϲϯ ϭϯϮϲ ϳϬ ϭϬϳ ϭϳϳ ϭϭϬ ϴϭ ϭϵϭ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ нн>ŽĐĂůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘
нннdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϭϬƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d Ϳ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϵϳ͕ŶŽƚϮϬϳ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƚŽƚĂůƐŝŶdĂďůĞϰĨŽƌdŚĞ
ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞLJĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĂƌĞ͘
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϰ͕ƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽŝƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶ͗
ϭ͕ϯϮϲĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϭϳϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ϭϵϭWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͗dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>Žƚϳ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
dŚŝƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵďŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚƌĞĞƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ
ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͖ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞ
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͘ƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶdĂďůĞϱ͕ďĞůŽǁ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐ
ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂͲ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐůŽǁ͘>ŝŬĞǁŝƐĞ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚŝƐ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĂƚŽƚĂůǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚŝƐůŽǁŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂŶĞŶƚŝƌĞ
ĚĂLJĂŶĚ͕ŵŽƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚůLJ͕ŝƐĂůƐŽůŽǁƚŽůŽǁͬŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƐ͘
PACKET PG. # 118
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϭ
dĂďůĞϱ
ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿнн
ϭϰϵĚƵƐΎΎ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϱϴĚƵƐ ϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>Žƚϳ
/d ŽĚĞϮϮϭннн
ϴϵĚƵƐ ϮϰϮ ϮϰϮ ϰϴϰ ϴ Ϯϯ ϯϭ ϭϰ ϭϲ ϰϬ
dŽƚĂůϮϵϲĚƵƐ ϲϲϰ ϲϲϰ ϭϯϮϴ ϭϵ ϳϴ ϵϳ ϲϰ ϰϰ ϭϭϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ нн >ŽĐĂůĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚďLJ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐ͘
нннdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗ϭϬƚŚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ;/d Ϳ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕ƚŚĞƚŽƚĂů
ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞϮϴϲ͕ŶŽƚϮϵϲ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉƐŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ
ZĞƐĞƌǀĞŝŶdĂďůĞϱĂƌĞƐůŝŐŚƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞLJĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĂƌĞ͘
ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘
dĂďůĞϱƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚďLJŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞ
ĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ĂůŽŶŐǁŝƚŚdŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕ƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƚƌŝƉƐŝƐ
ĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽďĞ͗
ϭ͕ϯϮϴĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ
ϵϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ϭϭϴWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐĂŶĚŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐ͗
dĂďůĞϲƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐƐŝĚĞͲďLJͲƐŝĚĞĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐŽĨĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĞĂĐŚŽĨĨŝǀĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͘ƐƐŚŽǁŶ͕^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ŝƐĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůůLJŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌĂŶĚWD
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŚĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ͘
PACKET PG. # 119
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϮ
dĂďůĞϲ
ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
ϭͿdŚĞ
ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲ
džƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ
WƌŽŐƌĂŵ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϰ͕ϴϮϲ^&ZĞƚĂŝů
• ϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&
ZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ
ϱϯϲ ϱϯϲ ϭϬϳϮ ϮϬ ϱϯ ϳϯ ϲϮ ϯϱ ϵϳ
ϮͿϮϬϭϲ
tŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ
ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
ϯͿWŽƐƚϮϬϭϲ
tŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ
ĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚ
ǁŝƚŚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϱϴĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ϰϮϮ ϰϮϮ ϴϰϰ ϭϭ ϱϱ ϲϲ ϱϬ Ϯϴ ϳϴ
ϰͿtŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ͕
ƉůƵƐ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕
ƉůƵƐĂ
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
• ϭϰϵĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϱϴĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
• ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^&
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ
ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ϲϲϯ ϲϲϯ ϭϯϮϲ ϳϬ ϭϬϳ ϭϳϳ ϭϭϬ ϴϭ ϭϵϭ
ϱͿtŚĂƚǁĂƐ
ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJďƵŝůƚ͕
ƉůƵƐ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮ͕
ƉůƵƐ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>Žƚ
ϳ
ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
• ϭϰϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΎΎ
• ϱϴͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
• ϴϵͲĚƵ
ƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ϲϲϰ ϲϲϰ ϭϯϮϴ ϭϵ ϳϴ ϵϳ ϲϰ ϰϰ ϭϭϴ
ΎΎ^ƉĂĐŬŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝƚƐƚƌĂĨĨŝĐƐƚƵĚLJĂƐƐƵŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞǁŽƵůĚďĞϭϰϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͖ŽŶůLJϭϯϵĚǁĞůůŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁĞƌĞĂĐƚƵĂůůLJĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ͘
PACKET PG. # 120
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϯ
ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ͗
&ŽƵƌŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘
ϭ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϭĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϯ͘dŚĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨƚ,ŽŵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐ͛ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ϱϴͲ
ƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚͿǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶůŽǁĞƌƚƌŝƉŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂŶ
ǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝĨƚŚĞϮϬϭϲĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶƉƌŽŐƌĂŵŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘
Ϯ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͘dŚĞĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐƐŚŽǁĞĚƚŚĂƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂŶϴϵͲƵŶŝƚ
ĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;ƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚͿǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŶĞĂƌůLJĞƋƵĂůǀŽůƵŵĞƐŽĨĚĂŝůLJ
ƚƌŝƉƐĂƐƚŚŽƐĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĂϭϬ͕ϭϯϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͖ϭ͕ϯϮϲĚĂŝůLJ
ƚƌŝƉƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽϭ͕ϯϮϴĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƐƚĂƌŬĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨ
ƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚ͘^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬĞĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂů
ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ͕ǁŽƵůĚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂŶ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞϴϵͲ
ƵŶŝƚĂƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͖ϭϳϳDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽϵϳ͘>ŝŬĞǁŝƐĞ͕^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϰǁŝůů
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞϭϵϭWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱǁŝůůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞϭϭϴ͘
ϯ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞdƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌǁŚĂƚǁĂƐWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϲĂŶĚϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵĂŐĂŝŶƐƚǁŚĂƚŝƐ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚdŽĚĂLJ͘ƐdĂďůĞϳƐŚŽǁƐ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚƵƐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉĂƌĐĞůƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞLJŝĞůĚϭ͕ϱϱϰĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͘
dŚŝƐŝƐƚŽďĞĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ;ϭ͕ϯϮϴͿƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ
ZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐ;ϱϴƵŶŝƚƐŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚϴϵƵŶŝƚƐŽŶDĞŶĚŽƚĂϳͿ͘
dĂďůĞϳĂůƐŽƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůůLJŵŽƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ
ƚŚĂŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŵĞŽĨĚĂŝůLJƚƌŝƉƐ͕ǁŝůůďĞůŽǁĞƌǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŶĞǁůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐ͕ĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ
ƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵƐĞƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWh͘Ɛ
ƐŚŽǁŶ͕ƚŚĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐĂƌĞƐƚĂƌŬ͗
ŽŵƉĂƌĞϭϴϰDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŽϵϳ͕ĂĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϴϳǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌ
ŽŵƉĂƌĞϮϭϬWDƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌŝƉƐƚŽϭϭϴ͕ĂĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϵϮǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐƉĞƌŚŽƵƌ͘
WĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐĂƌĞŵŽƌĞĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞƚŚĂƚŽĐĐƵƌŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƐĞŽĨĂϮϰͲŚŽƵƌ
ĚĂLJ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƐĂƌĞƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚƐǁŚĞƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐĂƌĞĂƚƚŚĞŝƌŚŝŐŚĞƐƚǁŝƚŚŝŶ
ĂƐŚŽƌƚƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĨƚŝŵĞ͘
PACKET PG. # 121
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϰ
dĂďůĞϳ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞƐ
hƐĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞĂŝůLJdƌŝƉƐ DWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ WDWĞĂŬ,ŽƵƌdƌŝƉƐ
/ŶKƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů /Ŷ KƵƚ dŽƚĂů
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ&ƵůůLJ/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂŶĚϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWh
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿ
ϭϰϵĚƵƐ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJZĞƚĂŝůϰ͕ϴϮϲ^&ϲϬϲϬ ϭϮϬ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϵ ϯ ϰ ϳ
ZĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚϲ͕ϬϬϬ^&ϮϭϭϮϭϭ ϰϮϮ ϱ ϯ ϴ Ϯϱ ϭϯ ϯϴ
ŚŝůĚĐĂƌĞͬ ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
&ĂĐŝůŝƚLJ
ϭϬ͕ϭϯϬ^& ϮϰϭϮϰϭ ϰϴϮ ϱϵ ϱϮ ϭϭϭ ϲϬ ϱϯ ϭϭϯ
dŽƚĂůϳϳϳ ϳϳϳ ϭϱϱϰ ϳϵ ϭϬϱ ϭϴϰ ϭϮϮ ϴϴ ϮϭϬ
dƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚhƐĞƐ
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
;dŚĞZĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƚ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂsŝůůĂŐĞͿ
ϭϰϵĚƵƐ Ϯϲϱ Ϯϲϱ ϱϯϬ ϲ ϰϬ ϰϲ ϯϰ ϭϴ ϱϮ
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶ'ĞŶĞƌĂů
hƌďĂŶͬ^ƵďƵƌďĂŶ
^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ
ϱϴĚƵƐϭϱϳ
ϭϱϳ
ϯϭϰ
ϱ
ϭϱ
ϮϬ
ϭϲ
ϭϬ
Ϯϲ
DŝĚͲZŝƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶ'ĞŶĞƌĂů
hƌďĂŶͬ^ƵďƵƌďĂŶ
^ĞƚƚŝŶŐƐ
ϴϵĚƵƐϮϰϮϮϰϮ ϰϴϰ ϴ Ϯϯ ϯϭ ϭϰ ϭϲ ϰϬ
dŽƚĂůϲϲϰ ϲϲϰ ϭϯϮϴ ϭϵ ϳϴ ϵϳ ϲϰ ϰϰ ϭϭϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗ ŝŬŽƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐ͕/ŶĐ͕͘ƵŐƵƐƚϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ
ϰ͘ ŽŵƉĂƌĞ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϮĂŶĚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͘dŚĞĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞƐĞƚǁŽƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ
ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƚŚĂƚĐĂŶďĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂĨƵƚƵƌĞ
ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶǁŚĞƌĞďŽƚŚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďŽƚŚ
ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ͘dŚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĂƚďLJŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞ
ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĐĂŶďĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚ͘
ĂŝůLJ нϳϵϴƚƌŝƉƐ
DWĞĂŬ нϱϭƚƌŝƉƐ
WDWĞĂŬ нϲϲƚƌŝƉƐ
dŚĞƐĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂĨƵƚƵƌĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ;ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞ
DĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďŽƚŚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚͿĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚĂƌĞƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƚŽďĞƚŽŽůŽǁƚŽŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽĨŽƵŶĚĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚĞŝƌƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞŝŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞďĞĐŽŵĞƐŽďǀŝŽƵƐǁŚĞŶĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŝŶƚƌŝƉƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝĨƚŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůϮϬϭϲWhŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ;ƚŚĞϭϰϵͲ
PACKET PG. # 122
DƐ͘>ĞĂŶŶĂ^ƚĞĨĂŶŝĂŬ
ƵŐƵƐƚϵ͕ϮϬϮϭ
WĂŐĞϭϱ
ƵŶŝƚZĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕ƚŚĞϰ͕ϴϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚƌĞƚĂŝůƐƉĂĐĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞϲ͕ϬϬϬƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚͿĂŶĚ
ƚŚĞϮϬϬϴͬϮϬϬϵWhŚĂĚďĞĞŶŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚĂƐƉůĂŶŶĞĚ͘
ĂŝůLJ нϭ͕ϬϮϰƚƌŝƉƐ
DWĞĂŬ нϭϯϴƚƌŝƉƐ
WDWĞĂŬ нϭϱϴƚƌŝƉƐ
LJĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƐĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶĂƌĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĂŶĚĂƌĞŵŽƌĞůŝŬĞůLJƚŽ
ŚĂǀĞĂŶŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƉĞĂŬŚŽƵƌƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƵŶĚĞƌ
^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽϱ͕ǁŚĞƌĞďŽƚŚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂϮĂŶĚƚŚĞDĞŶĚŽƚĂ>ŽƚϳĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞ
ŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚ͘
PACKET PG. # 123
ǣ̳
̳ͲͳͳʹͷʹͲͳ̳ʹ̴̴̳̳ʹͲʹͳǦͲͺǦͳ̴ Ǥ
D DKZEhD
Date: August 16, 2021
To: Ryan Ruzek, P.E.
Public Works Director, City of Mendota Heights
From: Bryan Nemeth, P.E.
Subject: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
City of Mendota Heights
Project No.: 0R1.125201
This memorandum provides a review of the proposed development and the associated traffic analysis
dated August 9, 2021 (Trip Generation Analysis). The August 9, 2021 study references a previous traffic
impact study completed for the project area that included the some of the area under consideration for
development. As this is the basis for the traffic analysis, the study results were reviewed.
2016 Analysis Study Review
The 2016 study proposed maintaining two full access points on the west to TH 149/Dodd Road and
proposed adding one right-in/right-out or just a right-in access on the north to TH 62 (previously TH
110). Ultimately, the access to TH 62 was constructed with right-in access only. The 2016 study indicates
that there will be resulting poor levels of service for all of the intersections by 2040 with the development
but also indicates that improvements are beyond the scope of the study.
Review of the queues resulting from the 2016 study indicates that the AM northbound queues at TH
62/TH 149 increase by 100 to 150 feet with the development in 2040 compared to the existing scenario in
2016. The AM queue can be accommodated with the existing access spacing on TH 149 and does not
appear to be a concern. The PM queue in 2016 already extended past the North Plaza Access and would
be longer by around 75 feet in 2018 and 1,200 feet in 2040 with the right-in access. Additionally, any
queuing on the Plaza accesses to TH 149/Dodd Road are shown to be acceptable but would operate at
LOS F in the 2040 scenarios. Overall, the study indicated that an access to TH 62 would provide some, if
minimal, improvement to operations. The biggest improvement is likely a safety improvement to TH
149/Dodd Road, south of TH 62, by not having as much traffic make the southbound left turn movement
into the accesses off TH 149/Dodd Road.
Trip Generation
The traffic study Technical Memorandum documented the trip generation analysis for two projects being
proposed by At Home Apartments. This includes:
• Mendota 2: 58-unit apartment
• Lot 7: 89-unit apartment
It is proposed that the increase in trips from the new development for Mendota 2 would be less than what
was previously proposed in 2016, so no additional analysis or mitigation is necessary. Additionally, Lot 7
was previously proposed as a daycare/childhood center in a 2008/2009 PUD application but it is unknown
whether a traffic analysis was completed with it. Review of historical aerial images indicates that Lots 6
PACKET PG. # 124
Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
Date: August 16, 2021
Page: 2
and 7 of the area were not developed by the time of the 2016 study. Consequently, the 2016 traffic impact
study does not appear to take the Lot 6 or Lot 7 development into account.
The ITE Trip Generation analysis uses the correct rates resulting in the following for Mendota Plaza. This
also displays the previous trip projections for the two sites.
Site Mendota Plaza Trip Projections 2009/2016 Trip Projections (new trips)
Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak
Mendota 2 314 20 26 542 27 45
Lot 7 484 31 40 482 111 113
Total 798 51 66 1,024 138 158
This results in fewer trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily for “Mendota 2” than the
previous development proposed in those areas for the 2016 study. This also results in fewer trips during
the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and essentially the same for daily trips for Lot 7 than the previous
development proposed in the area from the 2008/2009 PUD Application. This indicates that the new
development would likely result in fewer trips than previously proposed, especially during the critical
AM and PM peak hours.
By itself, this does not indicate that the operations are acceptable or that the proposed development does
not need to provide transportation network improvements. This new additional traffic will be added to the
traffic that is there today. The most noticeable change is likely to be on South Plaza Drive, since much of
the Lot 7 traffic would likely use South Plaza Drive to access TH 149/Dodd Road, due to proximity and
due to queues on TH 149.
Traffic Operations
The 2016 study indicated substantial operational concerns with or without any new development in the
area. This is a result of existing traffic volumes on the roadway, increased background traffic growth due
to new development locally and region-wide, and the new proposed development. The poor operations are
likely a concern for MnDOT (jurisdiction over TH 149 and TH 110) and the city of Mendota Heights,
especially when it impacts the safety of the traveling public. As indicated previously, the new
development by itself does not appear to be the biggest driver for the operational concerns, as the 2018
operations appear to be minimally different than the 2016 operations prior to the expanded development.
But the new development will add trips to the network, resulting in slightly longer queue lengths.
Additional review of options for improved operations and safety, such as different access configurations
at both North Plaza and South Plaza Drive may need to be considered.
Traffic Safety Review
A review of the recent crashes in the area was completed to understand how the most recent development
since 2016 impacted traffic safety and if improvements are needed in the area, especially as traffic
increases due to additional development.
Location 2014-2016 Crashes 2018-2020 Crashes Notes
Angle Rear-end Other Angle Rear-end Other
Dodd/South Plaza - 1* - 1* - -
Dodd/North Plaza 2* 1* - 1** 2* 1
TH 62/Right-in - - - - - - ***
*Crash involved a northbound queue backup through the intersection
**Crash involved a motorized scooter using the pedestrian crossing
***No crashes appear to involve the right turn off of TH 62
PACKET PG. # 125
Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
Date: August 16, 2021
Page: 3
Overall, it appears that the development increase did not result in an increase in crashes or a reduction in
safety. The crash data does indicate that there is a consistent crash type occurring on TH 149, especially
when there is a long queue evident that extends south from TH 62. The number of crashes are low though,
and would not appear to be a substantial concern.
With the increased traffic at South Plaza Drive, constructing a southbound left turn lane at South Plaza
Drive would be anticipated to provide a safety improvement by allowing southbound traffic to bypass
southbound left turning vehicles, especially since the access appears to be blocked by vehicles on a
frequent basis. The proposed development on Lot 7 would likely increase the number of southbound left
turning vehicles in the PM peak hour, when the queues appear to be the most prevalent.
Mendota 2 development does have some safety concerns that should be rectified prior to development.
The current north access occurs right after the right turn off of TH 62 and is directly after the entrance
sign structure. These are significant safety concerns for sight lines. The north access should be moved
south to provide more distance from TH 62 and the sign structure. Additionally, the signing and striping
of the internal roadway that connects to the right-in off of TH 62 should be revised to make it easier for
motorists to understand the traffic movements allowed in the area as the Mendota 2 site is developed.
Pedestrian Considerations
The network for pedestrians appears to provide access to all of the currently developed parcels except for
Lot 6. With the development of Mendota 2 and Lot 7 the pedestrian network should be expanded to serve
those parcels. Of special consideration, the transit stop on South Plaza Drive is not connected to the
overall pedestrian network, nor is the transit stop on the southeast corner of TH 149/Dodd Road and
South Plaza Drive. A sidewalk or trail should be extended from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza Drive.
Additionally, the sidewalk/trail should extend from the access points for the building on Lot 7 to this
sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive. This would provide access to the overall transportation network
and the transit stop from Lot 7.
Pedestrian network access to and from Mendota 2 can expand on what has already been completed in the
area during Phase 1. Mendota 2 should connect to this network of sidewalk and trail to the east.
In conjunction with the above improvements, the current pedestrian activated RRFB located on the
southeast corner of TH 149/S Plaza Dr should be considered for relocation to the north side of the
intersection since that is where the pedestrian crossing is located, to get it in compliance with the
MnMUTCD.
Conclusions
The following improvements are recommended to be made to the surrounding transportation network to
improve pedestrian connections and improve potential safety concerns with the development of Mendota
2 and Lot 7 into apartments:
• Construct a sidewalk/trail along South Plaza Drive from TH 149/Dodd Road to North Plaza
Drive. This should also include ADA improvements to get to the transit stop on the southeast
corner of TH 149/Dodd Road.
• Construct a sidewalk/trail from Lot 7 building accesses to the new South Plaza Drive
sidewalk/trail.
• Construct a sidewalk/trail from Mendota 2 building accesses to the sidewalk/trail to the east.
• Construct a southbound left turn lane on TH 149/Dodd Road at South Plaza Drive as space allows
and as approved by MnDOT.
• Revise access, signing, and striping in the area of Mendota 2.
PACKET PG. # 126
Name: Mendota Plaza Development Traffic Review
Date: August 16, 2021
Page: 4
Beyond this current development proposal, it is recommended that the City and MnDOT give
consideration to other roadway network improvements south of TH 62 on TH 149 to better control traffic
movements and improve safety.
PACKET PG. # 127
Metropolitan District
1500 County Road B-2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
An equal opportunity employer
August 11, 2021
Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
SUBJECT: At Home Apartments - MH
MnDOT Review #S21-049
SE quadrant of MN 149 and MN 62
Control Section: 1917
Mendota Heights, Dakota County
Dear Tim Benetti,
Thank you for submitting the plans for At Home Apartments – MH. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the documents, received 7/19/21, and has the following
comments:
Drainage
A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate
that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The
drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to:
https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/.
The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application:
1. Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to
MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced.
2. Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the
submitted calculations.
3. Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events.
Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed, and additional
information may be requested. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234-
7539 or jason.swenson@state.mn.us with any questions.
Noise
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and
highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise.
Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority
to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities,
PACKET PG. # 128
Page 2 of 3
listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use
would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards.
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of
highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required
to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the
proposed development from any highway noise.
If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries, Metro District
Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us.
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Consider including indoor bicycle parking and making sidewalk connections to South Plaza Way ADA
accessible so all road users can easily access the Parcel 2 building.
Please contact Jesse Thornsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or
jesse.thornsen@state.mn.us with any questions.
Permits
Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are
available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/.
For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro
District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.craig@state.mn.us.
Review Submittal Options
MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. In order of preference, review materials
may be submitted as:
1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments
may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are
necessary, number each message.
2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s web transfer client site at:
https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff at
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file
name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded.
3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review
staff via the above email if this submittal method is used.
MnDOT
Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Please do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link.
PACKET PG. # 129
Page 3 of 3
You are welcome to contact me at (651) 234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions.
Sincerely,
David Kratz
Senior Planner
Copy sent via email:
Jason Swenson, Water Resources
Buck Craig, Permits
Ben Klismith, Right of Way
Almin Ramic, Traffic
Jason Junge, Transit
Natalie Ries, Noise
Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support
Bryant Ficek, Area Engineer
Ryan Wilson, Area Manager
Mackenzie Turner Barger, Ped/Bike
Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike
Lance Schowalter, Design
Cameron Muhic, Planning
Tod Sherman, Planning
Casey Crisp, Surveying
Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council
PACKET PG. # 130
PACKET PG. # 131
PACKET PG. # 132
PACKET PG. # 133
PACKET PG. # 134
PACKET PG. # 135
PACKET PG. # 136
PACKET PG. # 137
PACKET PG. # 138
PACKET PG. # 139
PACKET PG. # 140
8-Aug-21
LOT SEVEN UNIT AND AREA MATRIX
UNIT AREA LL FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH TOTAL BY UNIT TOTAL BY TYPE AREA SQFT AVG
GROSS
small one br 18 674
625 1 1 1 3 1875
676 2 2 2 2 8 5408
685 1 1 1 3 2055
700 1 1 1 1 4 2800
medium one br 23 772
775 1 6 6 6 19 14725
760 1 1 1 1 4 3040
large one br 18 864
840 1 1 1 3 2520
850 1 1 1 3 2550
855 1 1 1 3 2565
880 3 3 3 9 7920
one br den 3 960
960 1 1 1 3 2880
two bedroom 27 1119
1020 1 1
1025 1 1
1193 1 1 1 1 4 4772
1205 1 1 1 3 3615
1225 1 1 1 3 3675
1210 3 4 4 4 15 18150
0
11 26 26 26 89 89
TOTAL 6358 23380 23380 23380 76498 78550 883
TOTAL BEDROOMS 116
PARKING 26,491 10,236 36,727 36,727
RESID. AMENITY 1449 2816 0 0 837 5,102 5,102
RESIDENTIAL UNITS 6358 23380 23380 23380 76,498 76,498
RESID. CIRCULATION & SERVICE 8530 4560 4560 3723 21,373 21,373
GROSS FLOOR AREA 27,940 27940 27940 27940 27940 139,700
Parking 74%
lower level 77 110 enclosed stalls
upper level 33
east lot 20
north lot 27
Total 157
139,700
PACKET PG. # 141
13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionN0 30' 60'PARCEL 1 - EXISTINGCONDITIONSX2PACKET PG. # 142
CLUBHOUSETRELLISFENCEPATIOGRILLSARTIFICIALTURFFIREPITSIGNSIGNARTIFICIALTURFFIREPIT13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionN0 30' 60'LEGENDLEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSADJACENT PROPERTYBUILDING SETBACKSPARKING SETBACKPROPOSED CONCRETE C&GPROPOSED CONCRETESIDEWALKNO PARKING ZONEHANDICAP STALL DESIGNATIONNUMBER OF PARKING STALL INSECTION16PROPOSED 4-STORYAPARTMENT BUILDING28,800 SF89 UNITSPATIOPARKING SUMMARYEXISTINGMENDOTA PLAZARETAIL BUILDINGLOT #8PARCEL 1LOT #7BLOCK #1LOT #1LOT #6323SETBACKSPARKING : 10.0 FEET FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ZERO LOT LINES PROPOSED WITHIN PLANNEDUNIT DEVELOPMENTBUILDING: 25.0 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE / PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYZONINGEXISTING: MU-PUD MIXED USETOTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS= 116TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING STANDARD ADA TOTALINTERIOR LOWER LEVEL79 0 79INTERIOR FIRST FLOOR31 2 33EXTERIOR45 2 47TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 162 8 159PARKING RATIO = 1.4 STALL PER UNITEXISTINGMONUMENTSIGN10.0' PARKING SETBACK (TYP.)25.0' BUILDINGSETBACK (TYP.)26119.0'18.0'SOUTH PLAZA DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVESOUTH PLAZA WAYPARCEL 1 - SITE PLANC5PACKET PG. # 143
SOUTH PLAZA DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVESOUTH PLAZA WAY13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionN0 30' 60'LEGENDLEGENDLEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSEXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONDRAINAGE ARROWSILT FENCESEDIMENT INLET PROTECTIONROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESPOT ELEVATIONFLOW LINE OF CURBEXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWER966966800.1NOTE:SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR STORMSEWER SIZES AND ELEVATIONS.FL =ROOFDRAIN - 10APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINTOF UNDERGROUND STORMCHAMBERROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCEPROPOSED STMH-9EX. STMH-8EX. CBMH-7EX. CBMH-6SEDIMENT INLETPROTECTION (TYP.)PROPOSED 4-STORYAPARTMENT BUILDINGFFE = 862.5 (FIRST FLOOR)FFE = 851.5 (LOWER LEVEL)PROPOSEDCBMH-5EXISTINGMENDOTA PLAZARETAIL BUILDINGPROPOSEDCBMH-4EX. CBMH-1EX. STMH-2EX. CBMH-3PROPOSED TRENCHDRAIN 3APARCEL 1 - GRADINGPLANC6PACKET PG. # 144
SOUTH PLAZA DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVESOUTH PLAZA WAY13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionN0 30' 60'LEGENDLEGENDLEGENDLEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATERMAINPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATERMAINFITTINGPROPOSED STORM INLETSPROPOSEDTRENCH DRAIN - 3ARIM = 851.30INV. = 848.24PROPOSED CBMH-4RIM = 853.2INV = 847.80 (S)INV = 847.80 (W)PROPOSED CBMH-5RIM = 853.0INV = 848.07 (SE)INV = 848.07 (N)REMOVE 64 LFEX. 15" STORM34 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.80%37 LF 15" HDPE @ 0.8%APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINTOF UNDERGROUNDSTORM CHAMBERSCONNECT TO PROPOSEDUNDERGROUND STORMWATERINFILTRATION CHAMBER@ INV. = 846.897 LF 15" HDPE @ 1.00%EXISTING 8" DIP WATERMAINPROPOSED STMH-9RIM = 854.6INV. = 846.82 (S/NE)EX. 12 LF 15" HDPE @ 1.00%EX. STMH-8RIM = 854.4INV. = 848.8 (SE)INV. = 846.7 (SW/NE)EX. CBMH-7RIM = 852.1INV. = 846.3 (SW/NE)EX.CBMH-6RIM = 853.0INV. = 849.3 (N)INV. = 849.2 (NW)EX. 145 LF 18" HDPE @ 0.86%EX. CBMH-3RIM = 852.06EX. INV. = 848.4 (NE)NEW. INV. = 848.08 (S)PLUG EX. INV. SE @ 847.5NEW INV. = 847.50 (E)EX. INV. = 847.50 (NW)EX. CBMH-1RIM = 853.5INV. = 845.9 (S)INV. = 845.9 (N)EX 93 LF 18" HDPE @ 1.18%EX. SAN MH-1RIM = 853.5INV. = 842.0EX. STMH-2RIM = 853.6INV. = 847.0 (SE)INV. = 847.0 (N)EX. 47 LF 18" HDPE @ 1.06%16 LF 8" HDPE @ 1.00%EX. 292 LF 8" PVC @ 1.10%EX. SAN MH-2RIM 858.7INV. 845.30 (W)INV. 845.30 (E)INV. 845.20 (N)CONNECT TO EX. 6" DIPSTUB W/ 6"- 90° BENDPROPOSED 6" POSTINDICATOR VALVESIAMESE CONNECTIONEX. 21 LF 6" PVC @ 2.0%±EX. 6" SAN. STUBINV. = 845.7±STUB 6" DIP5.0' FROMBUILDINGEXISTINGMENDOTA PLAZARETAIL BUILDINGPROPOSED 4-STORYAPARTMENT BUILDINGFFE = 862.5 (FIRST FLOOR)FFE = 851.5 (LOWER LEVEL)10 LF 12" HDPE@ 1.10%ROOF DRAIN -10INV 847.00PARCEL 1 - UTILITYPLANC7PACKET PG. # 145
SOUTH PLAZA DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVESOUTH PLAZA WAY13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCJEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA51899PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionPROPOSED 4-STORYAPARTMENT BUILDING28,800 SF89 UNITSOUTDOORAREAEXISTINGMENDOTA PLAZARETAILLOT #7LOT #6UNDERGROUNDINFILTRATIONCHAMBERSN0 30' 60'SCALE:1PARCEL 1 - PLANTING PLAN 1" = 30' (22" x 34" PAPER SIZE)MONUMENT SIGNEXISTINGMONUMENT SIGN2112122121211121211LEGENDPROPERTY LIMITSADJACENT PROPERTYCONSTRUCTION LIMITSPROPOSED BUILDINGBUILDING SETBACKSPARKING SETBACKNEW SOD WITH IRRIGATIONNEW SHRUBSNEW TREES3" DEEP, SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCHLANDSCAPE POLY-EDGER121. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE IRRIGATION(SEE L3 FOR IRRIGATION NOTES)2. REFER TO PLAN SHEET L3 FOR SODDING, SEEDING, FERTILIZERAND TOPSOIL NOTES3. ALL LANDSCAPING DISTURBED BEYOND THE NEW PLANTINGSSHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND.4. FINAL PLANTING PLAN WILL BE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITHCITY"S POLLINATORS AND NATIVE PLANTINGS REQUIREMENTSNOTESCITY CODE: REQUIRED PLANTINGZONE: HR-PUDHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.§12-1E-8: R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:xSCREENING:xxSCREENING OF MECHANICAL UTILITIESxxSCREENING OF VEHICLE LIGHTSxMINIMUM AREA AND PLANT MATERIAL REQUIRED:xxAT LEAST TWENTY FIVE PERCENT (25%) OF THE LAND AREA SHALL BE LANDSCAPEDWITH GRASS, APPROVED GROUND COVER, SHRUBBERY AND TREES.xxAT LEAST FIVE PERCENT (5%) OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN A PARKING AREA SHALL BELANDSCAPEDxx ALL SITE AREAS NOT COVERED BY BUILDINGS, SIDEWALKS, PARKING LOTS,DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS OR SIMILAR HARD SURFACE MATERIALS SHALL BE SODDED,EXCEPT THOSE AREAS TO BE PRESERVED IN A NATURAL STATE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,THAT AREAS RESERVED FOR FUTURE BUILDING EXPANSIONS MAY BE SEEDED.xxNOT MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES SHALLBE COMPOSED OF ONE SPECIESxIRRIGATION:xxAN UNDERGROUND SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF EACH NEWDEVELOPMENT EXCEPT ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES WHICH DO NOT ATLEAST EQUAL THE FLOOR AREA OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. A SPRINKLER SYSTEMSHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS EXCEPT AREAS TO BE PRESERVEDIN THE NATURAL STATE.MONUMENT SIGNPARCEL 1 - PLANTINGPLANL2PACKET PG. # 146
13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionSECTIONPLANSEE C3 STORM SCHEDULECASTINGPRECAST INVERT MUST BE 1/2 DIAMETER OFPIPE AND BENCHES SHOULD BE SLOPED 2"TOWARD INVERT. MATCH 0.8THS POINT OFMAIN LINE SEWER AND LATERIAL BRANCH.MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE PLACEDSO THAT OFFSET VERTICAL PORTIONOF CONE IS FACING DOWNSTREAM.NEENAH FRAME AND COVER OREQUAL LETTERED "SANITARYSEWER" OR "STORM SEWER" WITH 2CONCEALED PICK HOLESCONCRETE ADJUSTMENT RINGS WITHFULL BED OF MORTAR BETWEEN EACH.TOTAL ADJUSTMENT MIN. 4" MAX. 14"PRECAST ECCENTRIC CONE SECTIONMANHOLE STEPS, NEENAH R1981NOR EQUAL, 16" ON CENTER.COPOLYER POLYPROPYLENEPLASTIC (PSI-PF) AND ALUMINUMSTEPS APPROVED.ALL JOINTS IN PRECAST MANHOLESECTIONS TO HAVE "O" RING RUBBERGASKETS.PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONSPIPE SHALL BE CUT OUT FLUSHWITH INSIDE FACE OF WALL.NOTE: KOR-N-SEAL MANHOLE OR EQUALCONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE.ALL DOG HOUSES SHALL BE GROUTEDON BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.MINIMUM THICKNESS OF PRECASTBASE IS 6" FOR 14' DEEP OR LESS, ANDINCREASES 1" IN THICKNESS FOREVERY 4' OF DEPTH GREATER THAN 14'.5"4'-0"4'-0"VARIES12"-16"VARIES"B""A"NOTE: DEPENDING UPON CONFIGURATION, ATTACH FABRIC TOWIRE MESH WITH HOG RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH TIE WIRES, ORWOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES.DIRECTION OFRUNOFF FLOW2' MINENGINEERING FABRICFABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCHBACKFILL WITH TAMPEDNATURAL SOILMETAL OR WOODPOST OR STAKEWIRE MESHREINFORCEMENT(OPTIONAL)TYPICAL INSTALLATIONNATURAL SOIL6" MIN.6" MIN.NOTE: DEPENDING UPON CONFIGURATION,ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH WITH HOGRINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH TIE WIRES, ORWOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES.PLAN VIEWCB / INLETTYPICAL INSTALLATIONSTORM INLETRING SILT FENCEGEOTEXTILE FABRIC(SILT FENCE)FABRIC ANCHORAGETRENCH BACKFILLWITH TAMPEDNATURAL SOILWIRE MESHREINFORCEMENTMETAL OR WOODPOST OR STAKE1' MINIMUM6 INCH MINIMUM6 INCH MINIMUM2'MIN50' MINIMUMAS REQUIRED6" MINIMUM1"-2" WASHED ROCK12"DIA+12" MIN.DIA/4 BUT NOTLESS THAN 6""DIA" DENOTES OUTSIDEDIAMETER OF PIPEHAND SHAPED FROMANGULAR BEDDING MATERIALCOMPACTED BACKFILLCOARSE FILTER AGGREGATEMnDOT SPEC. 3149H MOD.LOAD FACTOR 1.9CLASS BDIA.6"COMPACTED BACKFILL"DIA." DENOTES OUTSIDEDIAMETER OF PIPEDIA.DIA+12" MIN.0.5 DIAHAND SHAPED FROM FIRMUNDISTURBED SOILLOAD FACTOR 1.5CLASS C-1"DIA." DENOTES OUTSIDEDIAMETER OF PIPECOMPACTED BACKFILLDIA.DIA+12" MIN.LOAD FACTOR 1.5CLASS C-2COARSE FILTER AGGREGATEMnDOT SPEC. 3149H MOD.HAND SHAPED FROMANGULAR BEDDING MATERIALDIA/4 BUT NOTLESS THAN 6"6"0.5 DIA0.5 DIA12"6"GRANULAR BORROW MnDOT SPEC 3149A MOD.COMPACTEDBACKFILLDIA+12" MIN.COMPACTED BACKFILL12"COARSE FILTER AGGR.MnDOT SPEC. 3149H MOD.DIA+12" MIN.IMPROVED PIPEFOUNDATIONPIPE FOUNDATION IMPROVEMENT MATERIAL(3149H MOD.) CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL WITHCOST OF PIPE AND GRANULAR BORROWMATERIAL (3149A MOD.) IN THIS AREAPARCEL 1 & PARCEL 2- SITE DETAILS 1C8PACKET PG. # 147
13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.LEE KOPPY, PE412676/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date DescriptionR=28"R=12"R=68"SLOPE 1/4" PER FT.SURMOUNTABLEB612B6181 31 3AT ALL TRENCHES 2#4 REINFORCING RODSSHALL BE PLACED IN THE LOWER PORTION OFTHE CURB 20 FEET IN LENGTH.2#4 REINFORCING RODS AT CATCH BASINS NOLESS THEN 10 FEET IN LENGTH.NOTE:CONTROL JOINTS SHALL CONFORM WITHMNDOT SPEC. 2531.3C.NOTE:B618 CURB TO BE USED AT RADIUS.SLOPE 3/4"PER FT.SLOPE 3/4"PER FT.1/2" RAD.6"3" RAD.1/2" RAD.13.5"6"2"2"2"7"8"12"1/2" RAD.6"3" RAD.13.5"6"7"1/2" RAD.2"2"2"8"18"10.5"4"6.5"17.5"10.5"28"3/4"7"3' RES.5' COM.VARIABLE3' RES.5' COM.B618EXPANSION JOINT(BOTH SIDES)ZZZZCONTROL JOINTEXPANSION JOINTPROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS ATBUILDING AND CONCRETE STOOPINTERFACE, AS WELL AS EVERY 24 FEETOF CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK AND ATSIDEWALK INTERSECTIONS.PROVIDE CONTROL JOINTS PER MANUFACTURERRECOMMENDATIONS.1/8" R (TYP)D/41/8"3/8"JOINT SEALERCONFORMING TOASTM D 1850PREMOULDED EXPANSION JOINTFILLER CONFORMING TO ASTMD1751 OR D1752NOTE: JOINTS CAN BE SAW CUT.24" #4 DOWEL, FIXEDONE SIDE, SLIPOTHERAPPROVED SUBGRADESAWCUT PAVEMENT FULL DEPTHAGGREGATE SUBBASEWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR SUBGRADE STABILIZATIONFLUSH W/ADJACENT PAVEMENTNOTES:1. EXTEND 6" AGGREGATE BASE 1' MINIMUM PAST CONCRETE EDGE IF CONCRETE IS NOTABUTTING EXISTING PAVEMENT OR STRUCTURES.2. CONCRETE JOINTS PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS.3. VERIFY CONCRETE AND BASE COURSE WITH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATIONS.EXISTING SUBGRADEEX. PAVEMENTAPPROVED SUBGRADESAWCUT PAVEMENT FULL DEPTHAGGREGATE SUBBASEASPHALT BINDERASPHALT TACK COATFLUSH W/ADJACENT PAVEMENTBITUMINOUS WEAR COURSEBITUMINOUS BASE COURSEEX. PAVEMENTEXISTING SUBGRADENOTES:1. VERIFY ASPHALT AND BASE COURSE WITH GEOTECHNICAL REPORTAND RECOMMENDATIONS.TIP OUT GUTTERWHERE PAVEMENTSLOPES AWAYPAVEMENT SECTIONNOT TO SCALENOTE: VERIFY PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN AND SUBGRADEREQUIREMENTS WITH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.B612 CONCRETE CURB& GUTTER6"MIN.3" MIN.BITUMINOUS WEARTACK COATBITUMINOUS BASE COURSECLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASESELECTGRANULAR BORROWAPPROVED SUBGRADECONCRETE PAVEMENTNOTES:1. 0' CURB HEIGHT.2. FULL CURB HEIGHT3. 3' FOR 6" HIGH CURB AT NONWALKABLE SURFACES ADJACENTTO RAMP4. 4'X4' MINIMUM5. 6' FOR 6" HIGH CURB AT WALKABLESURFACES ADJACENT TO RAMP.4558.33%MAXPARCEL 1 & PARCEL 2- SITE DETAILS 2C9PACKET PG. # 148
13605 1st Avenue N. #100Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.comP 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLCJEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA51899PRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE:LICENSE NO.6/28/2021REVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:www.collagearch.comDATE:Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Aveenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413JUNE 28, 202116460LAND USEAPPLICATIONMendota Heights, MNNo. Date Description1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIORTO SUBMITTING BID TO BECOME COMPLETELYFAMILIAR WITH SITE CONDITIONS.2. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALLGRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEENCOMPLETED IN IMMEDIATE AREA.3. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER &CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY ALL UNDERGROUNDCABLES, CONDUITS, WIRES, ETC., ON THEPROPERTY.4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETEMAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT MATERIAL(WATERING, SPRAYING, FERTILIZING, MOWING,ETC.) UNTIL THE WORK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, BYTHE OWNER.5. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THENUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THENUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN IN THE PLANTSCHEDULE, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ONTHE PLAN WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE.6. ALL CONTAINER MATERIAL TO BE GROWN INCONTAINER A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS.7. ALL MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATESTEDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FORNURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OFNURSERYMEN.8. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROMPLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO THEOWNER.9. GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONECALENDAR YEAR. DECIDUOUS TREES WILL BEGUARANTEED FOR TWO CALENDAR YEARS FROMTIME OF PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE.10. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATEDCAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SHALLBE APPROVED BY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVEBEFORE THEY ARE INSTALLED.11. CONTRACTOR CAN SUBSTITUTE MACHINE MOVEDMATERIAL USING APPROPRIATE SIZE TREE SPADEFOR B & B WITH OWNERS REPRESENTATIVEAPPROVAL.12. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THATNEW TREES MOVED ONTO THE SITE ARE DUG FROMSIMILAR SITES WITH SIMILAR SOILS TO THE SOILSOF THIS PROJECT (HEAVY TO HEAVY, LIGHT TOLIGHT. HEAVY TO LIGHT SOILS).13. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TOPROVIDE OWNER WITH MAINTENANCEINFORMATION DURING GUARANTEE PERIODRELATING TO WATERING, FEEDING, PRUNING, PESTCONTROL, AND RELATED ITEMS. THIS WILL BEPREPARED AND DELIVERED TO OWNER AFTERPROVISIONAL INSPECTION APPROVAL HAS BEENGIVEN BY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.14. BREATHABLE SYNTHETIC FABRIC TREE WRAP:WHITE IN COLOR, IN 3 INCH WIDE ROLLS. MATERIALSHALL BE SPECIFICALLY MANUFACTURED FORTREE WRAPPING. TREE WRAP SHALL BE SECUREDTO THE TRUNK USING BIO-DEGRADABLE TAPESUITABLE FOR NURSERY USE AND WHICH ISEXPECTED TO DEGRADE IN SUNLIGHT IN LESS THAN2 YEARS AFTER INSTALLATION. WRAP ALL TREES,EXCEPT HACKBERRY TREE SHALL BE PROTECTEDPRIOR TO 12/1.15. POLY EDGER UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE,SHALL BE BLACK VINYL STYLE EDGER.16. LANDSCAPE FABRIC (FILTER MAT) TO HAVE ACOMBINED WEIGHT OF 4.5-5.5 OZ. PER S.Y. FABRICSHOULD BE U.V. STABILIZED AND HAVE A FIVE YEARMINIMUM WEATHERABILITY FACTOR IN FULLSUNLIGHT. FABRIC TO BE PHILLIPS DUON R OREQUIVALENT. SAMPLE REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL.20. LANDSCAPE BED MULCH SHALL BE SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLEDAT A DEPTH OF 3" WITH NO WEED BARRIERLANDSCAPE FABRIC.21. ALL TREES PLANTED INDEPENDENTLY OFSPECIFIED BEDS SHALL RECEIVE 3" DEEPSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITHOUT FABRIC.22. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE FERTILIZER ANDAPPLIED AT THE RATE INDICATED BY THEMANUFACTURER. FERTILIZER SHALL BE GENERALPURPOSE 10-10-10.23. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM OF FIVE(5) CANES AT SPECIFIED HEIGHT NOTED IN PLANTSCHEDULE.24. IF THE CONTRACTOR FEELS AN ERROR HAS BEENMADE REGARDING SPACING OR HARDINESS OF ASPECIES OF PLANT MATERIAL INDICATED ON THEPLAN, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO THE INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL.25. ALL NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BEPLANTED IN WELL-DRAINED AREAS. CONTRACTORSHALL AVOID INSTALLING ANY PLANT MATERIAL INDRAINAGE SWALES OR WET & POORLY DRAINEDAREAS.26. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEREMOVAL OF ALL TREE STAKES, GUYS, STRAPSAND TRUNK PROTECTION MEASURES FOLLOWINGTHE COMPLETION OF THE WARRANTEE PERIOD ORAS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER.27. THE PRACTICE OF STAKING SHOULD NOT ALLOWNAILS, SCREWS, WIRES, ETC. TO PENETRATE THEOUTER SURFACE OF THE TREES.28. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH THE OWNERON SITE WHEN THEY FEEL THE PROJECT ISCOMPLETE ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACTDOCUMENTS. IF ALL WORK IS SATISFACTORY ANDCOMPLETE ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OFTHE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THEN THE OWNERMUST DECLARE THE PROJECT COMPLETE. THISDECLARATION WILL CONSTITUTE AS THEBEGINNING OF THE WARRANTEE PERIOD FOR ALLPLANT MATERIAL. THE OWNER SHALL PROVIDE ALETTER WITH SIGNATURE STATING THE DATE OFACCEPTANCE.1.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, VERIFY WITH THEGENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL LOCAL UTILITYCOMPANIES TO LOCATE EXACT LOCATIONS OFUNDERGROUND UTILITIES.2. THE IRRIGATION SHALL BE DESIGN/BUILD SYSTEMBY THE CONTRACTOR. THE LANDSCAPECONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORPROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN ANDSPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF THE SCOPE OFWORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO ORDERAND/OR INSTALLATION.3.VALVE AND CIRCUITS SHALL BE SEPARATED BASEDON WATER USE, SO THAT TURF AREAS AREWATERED SEPARATELY FROM SHRUB ANDGROUND COVER AREAS. IRRIGATION HEADS INTURF AREAS SHALL BE VALVED SPEARATELY FROMSHRUB AMD GROUND COVER AREAS. IT ISRECOMMENDED THAT FULL SUN AND SHADYAREAS TO BE VALVED SEPARATELY AS WELL ASHIGH RUN-OFF AND LOW RUN-OFF AREAS TO BEVALVED SEPARATELY.4.CONFIRM LIMITS OF IRRIGATION, EXISTING ANDFUTURE HARDSCAPE AND BUILDING LOCATIONSPRIOR TO THE DESIGN OF THE IRRIGATIONSYSTEM.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WATER SOURCELOCATION AND PRESSURE AND SUPPLY A SYSTEMTHAT PROVIDES FULL AND COMPLETE COVERAGETO ALL AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED.6. SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO COMPLETEWATER SCHEDULES WITHIN 12-HOURS MAXIMUM.7. RAIN SENSORS AND OTHER WATER SAVINGTECHNOLOGIES SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THEIRRIGATION DESIGN.8. PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AN OPERATINGSCHEDULE THAT WORKS WITH THE APPROVEDLAYOUT PLAN AND IDENTIFY ANY FIELDADJUSTMENTS PRIOR TO PROJECT COMPLETION.9. LOCATE VALVE BOXES AWAY FROM ROAD/CURB SOTHEY ARE LESS VISUAL WHERE APPLICABLE.10. DO NOT TRENCH THROUGH THE ROOT BALLS OFNEW PLANTINGS.11. AVOID OVER-SPRAY ONTO ROADS, SIDEWALKS,SIGNS AND PARKING AREAS. SPRINKLER ARCSSHALL BE DETERMINED ON SITE BY THEIRRIGATION INSTALLER TO PROVIDE THE MAXIMUMCOVERAGE POSSIBLE. CAREFULLY ADJUST THEARCS AND RADIUS OF EACH SPRINKLER TOPROVIDE HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE.12. WITHIN EXTREME SLOPED AREAS:12.1. INSTALL STATIONS SEPARATELY FOR TOP ANDBOTTOM OF SLOPED AREAS12.2. INSTALL LATERAL PIPES PARALLEL TO SLOPE12.3. IF SLOPE IS TOO EXTREME FOR MACHINERY,INSTALL LATERAL PIPES SAFELY ANDTEE-FEED INDIVIDUAL SPRINKLERS VIADOWNHILL PIPING PERPENDICULAR TO FEEDLINE13. MAINLINE PIPING BENEATH TRAFFIC AREAS SHALLBE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM EARTH COVER OF30-INCHES FROM BOTTOM OF ROAD SUB-GRADEAND CONTAIN SLEEVES NOT LESS THAN TWONOMINAL DIMENSIONS GREATER THAT THE PIPEPASSING THROUGH.14. IRRIGATION INSTALLER SHALL FURNISH ANDINSTALL SLEEVE MATERIAL UNDER ALL ROADWAYS,WALKS AND DRIVEWAYS WHERE NECESSARY.15. TOP OF MAINLINES SHALL BE AT LEAST 30-INCHESBELOW GRADE IN TURF AREAS.16. TOP OF LATERAL LINES SHALL BE AT LEAST18-INCHES BELOW GRADE.17. MAINLINE PRESSURE PIPE FITTINGS 3-INCHES ANDLARGER SHALL BE PUSH ON GASKET JOINED ANDSHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINT RESTRAINTS.MAINLINE PRESSURE PIPE FITTINGS 2.5-INCHESAND SMALLER SHALL BE GLUED AND SHALL HAVECONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS AT FITTINGS THATCOMPRISE CHANGE IN DIRECTION.18. OTHERS SHALL FURNISH, INSTALL AND BRING24-INCHES ABOVE GRADE A MUNICIPAL POTABLESTUB FOR IRRIGATION, COORDINATE WITHGENERAL CONTRACTOR.19. INSTALLER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING ANDINSTALLING THE BACKFLOW PREVENTOR, WATERMETER AND BOOSTER PUMP, IF APPLICABLE.20. IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRE SHALL BE DIGITALTWO-WIRE, UL LISTED FOR DIRECT BURIAL.21. CONNECT ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING INACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRICALCODE AND ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL ELECTRICUTILITY CODES INCLUDING:21.1.ALL LOW VOLTAGE IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRESHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE MAINLINE PIPEWHERE POSSIBLE21.2. DO NOT LOOP THE LOW VOLTAGE IRRIGATIONCONTROL WIRE PATH.21.3.SNAKE WIRE AT BOTTOM OF TRENCH BENEATHMAINLINE.21.4.PROVIDE 18-INCH OF SLACK CONTROL WIRE ATALL CHANGES IN DIRECTION.21.5. PROVIDE 24-INCH OF SLACK CONTROL WIRE ATEACH REMOTE CONTROL VALVE COILED INSIDEVALVE BOX.21.6. ALL WIRE SPLICES SHALL BE WATERTIGHTCONNECTORS AND CONTAINED IN VALVE BOX.21.7. ALL WIRING BENEATH HARDSCAPES SHALL BECONTAINED IN SLEEVING, SEPARATE FROMPIPING. ELECTRICAL SLEEVES ARE TO BESIZED APPROPRIATELY FOR EASE OF WIREINSTALLATION AND REPAIR.21.8. ALL WIRING SHALL BE INDENTIFIED AT EACHEND TO PROVIDE INDICATION AS TO WHICHLOCATION THE WIRE IS CONNECTED.21.9. GROUNDING PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATION OR LOCAL ELECTRICALCODE.22. SCHEDULE AND PROGRAM CONTROLLER ANDVALVES FOR APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPE WATERREQUIREMENTS.GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTESIRRIGATION NOTES1. SOD SHALL BE HIGHLAND SOD, 30" X 100' ROLLSPREFERRED WHERE APPLICABLE, TO BE LAIDPARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND HAVESTAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN3:1 OR DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BESTAKED INTO THE GROUND. SCARIFY THEEXISTING GRADES WITH FIELD CULTIVATOR TO AMIN. DEPTH OF 12" PRIOR TO PLACING OFTOPSOIL AND FINISH GRADING FOR SOD.IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PLACING SOD,CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY 10-6-4 FERTILIZER ATTHE RATE OF 10 POUNDS PER 1000 SQ. FT.2. PLANTING SOIL REQUIRED: MIXTURE TO INCLUDE45% TOPSOIL, 45% PEAT OR MANURE AND 10%SAND. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIALPLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE 8” DEPTH OFPLANTING SOIL MIXTURE. ALL SODDED AREAS TORECEIVE 4” DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE. ALL SEEDED AREAS TO RECEIVE 2” DEPTH OFPLANTING SOIL MIXTURE.SODDING, SEEDING& TOPSOIL NOTESNOTE:1. KEEP MULCHAPPX. 2" OFFPLANT TRUNKOR STEM2. SEE PLANTSCHEDULEFOR EACHPLANT'SAPPROPRIATEO.C. SPACINGEDGE OFGROUNDCOVERAREA/WALK EDGEDISTANCE FROM EDGEIS 12 THE SPECIFIED O.C.SPACINGTRIANGULAR SPACE,AT SPECIFIED O.C.DISTANCE - EQUIDISTANTPLANT CENTERMULCHROOTBALLPLANTING SOILNATIVE SOILLAWNSURFACEUNDISTURBED/COMPACTEDSOILPLANTINGSOILLINE OF PLANTINGPIT WHEN PLANTEDINDIVIDUALLYUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SOIL3" DEPTH MULCHPAVED SURFACE,IF APPLICABLE6" MIN.MIN.6"3' MIN. TO PAVEDSURFACESPLANTING SOIL3" DEPTH MULCHPAVED SURFACE,OR LAWNUNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SOILNOTE:-3" DP. SHREDDED HARDWOODMULCH SHALL BE USED IN ALLLANDSCAPE PLANTINGS AREASAND UNDER TREES ISOLATEDFROM PLANTING AREAS UNLESSIDENTIFIED OTHERWISE.3xROOTBALLCENTER TREE IN HOLE, UPRIGHTSINGLE STRAIGHT LEADERTREE TIE SECURED TO STAKE.SECURE TO TREE WITHANTI-CHAFFING MATERIAL.ALLOW FOR MOVEMENT OF TREE.WRAP TREE WITH TREEWRAPPING MATERIAL ASSPECIFIED TO 1ST BRANCHLAWN OR PLANTING BEDEDGE (SPADE EDGE IN ALLLAWN AREAS)6" MIN. DIA. EARTH SAUCER(2) TREE STAKES DRIVENA MIN. 2' BELOW GRADE(NW & SW)3" DEPTH MULCH; SEE PLANSAND NOTES FOR TYPE3" HEIGHT TAMPED WATER BASINAT EDGE OF EARTH SAUCERFINISHED GRADEREMOVE BURLAP, TWINE,ROPE AND WIRE FROMTOP HALF OF ROOTBALLPLANTING SOILMOUND MIN. 6"UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SOILAFTER EXPOSING TREE ROOTFLAIR, PLANT SO ROOT FLAIRIS AT 2" ABOVE ADJACENTFINISH GRADETREE TIE SECURED TO STAKE. SECURETO TREE WITH ANTI-CHAFFING MATERIAL.ALLOW FOR MOVEMENT OF TREE.WRAP TREE WITH TREE WRAPPINGMATERIAL AS SPECIFIED TO 1ST BRANCH.TURNBUCKLE AT EACH GUY LINE TOADJUST TENSION INDEPENDENTLY.CENTER TREE IN HOLE, UPRIGHT.3" LAYER MULCH3/16" GALVANIZED STEEL BRAIDEDCABLE FLAGGED FOR VISIBILITY.3" HEIGHT TAMPED WATER BASINAT EDGE OF EARTH SAUCERFINISH GRADE(3) 2"X4"X24" LONG ANCHORSDRIVEN BELOW FINISH GRADEREMOVE BURLAP,TWINE, ROPE ANDWIRE FROM TOPHALF OF ROOT BALLPLANTING TOPSOILMOUND MINIMUM 6"UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SOILLAWN OR PLANTINGBED EDGE (SPADEEDGE IN ALL LAWNAREAS)6' MIN. DIA. EARTHSAUCERAFTER EXPOSINGTREE ROOT FLAIR,PLANT SO ROOT FLAIRIS 2" ABOVE ADJACENTFINISH GRADEPARCEL 1 & PARCEL 2- PLANTING DETAILSL3PACKET PG. # 149
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 1 of 9
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
ZONING/GUIDED:
ACTION DEADLINE:
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
August 24, 2021
Planning Commission
Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Planning Case 2021-15
VARIANCE
Zachary D. Robinson
684 – 3rd Avenue
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
September 26, 2021
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Zach Robinson, owner and resident of 684 - 3rd Avenue, is requesting a variance to expand an existing
legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 One Family Residential district.
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 provided a list of
adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to this report; and one email
letter of support from a neighbor. No other comments or objections were received.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is generally
located at the southwest corner of 3rd
Avenue and Vandall Street (see GIS
image – right) .
The property is legally identified as
Lot 6, Block 5 of T.T. Smith’s
Subdivision No. 4, which was platted
in 1887.
The property is approx. 60-ft. wide
by 125-ft. deep, or 7,500-sq. ft. in
area; and contains an existing 1,792-
sf. (finished) single-family dwelling
with a 1,344-sf. footprint, originally
built in 1952 (see street image –
below). The property also has a 14’
x 31’ detached garage located along
Vandall Street.
PACKET PG. # 150
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 2 of 9
According to the property survey (attached), the existing house sits 29.4-ft. from 3rd Avenue; 23.25-ft. from
Vandall Street; 4.5-ft. from the west lot line; and 55.3-ft. off the south line. The detached garage sits only
1.6’ to 2.1’ off the east line (Vandall Street ROW).
The Robinson’s are seeking to expand the living space in their existing home; and provide a new attached
garage to the house for convenience. The living space addition will take place primarily above the new
attached garage. A new 6’ x 33’ open deck/porch is also being proposed along the front edge of the home.
The new porch reduces the current setback off 3rd Ave. from 29.4-ft. to 23.4-feet.
The old 14’ x 31’ detached garage will be removed; and in its place will be a new 22’ x 30’ two-car garage
addition, to be attached to the main house. This new garage structure (outer wall/foundation) will be setback
six-inches (6”) and one foot (1’) off the east line.
ANALYSIS
The minimum lot and setback standards for any R-1 Zoned property are noted in the table below:
Height
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Front
Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
1 and 2
stories
15,000
sq. ft.
100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 height of the
structure, whichever is greater, to a
maximum of 15'.
30' or 20% of the
average lot depth,
whichever is greater
• Side yards abutting a street shall not be less than 30-feet in width.
City Code Section Title 12-1D-1: Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land, allows for the normal
maintenance of a legal nonconforming structure, which does not intensify the nonconformity. In this case,
the applicant seeks approval to provide some significant structural improvements to an existing non-
conforming dwelling with reduced setbacks from the front yard and side yard areas.
PACKET PG. # 151
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 3 of 9
The subject property is currently identified with the following (general) zoning standards (dwelling only):
Standard Existing Condition Conforming
Lot Area 15,000-sq. ft. 7,500-sq. ft. No
Lot Width 100-ft. 60-ft. No
Front Yard 30 ft. 29.4-ft. No
Side Yards 10 ft. or ½ of the height of the structure 4.5’ – 5.2’ west / 23.25’
east No / No
Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth 55.3-ft. Yes
Detached garages (accessory structures over 144-sf. in size) must have a 10-ft. setback from any side and/or
rear yard property line. With its reduced setbacks, the existing garage is non-conforming.
The original platting of this parcel (1887) makes it one of the oldest platted properties in the community;
and as such, the 60’ x 125’ dimensions and 7,500-sq. ft. lot area are well below the normal 100-ft. minimum
lot width and 15,000-sq. ft. minimum lot area standards required for R-1 Zoned properties. Due to the year
built (1952), it may have been constructed at a time where setbacks were not in existence, or there was little
oversight on the review or placement of the dwelling structure (and garage) on the property. Since the
applicant is expanding this existing nonconforming structure, and requesting allowances for additional
reduced setbacks to accommodate these improvements, a variance is in order.
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when
recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be
permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance
and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
• Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
• Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
• Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
• Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
• Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the
City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or
has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact
supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
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:
PACKET PG. # 152
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 4 of 9
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical
difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by City Code)
Applicant’s Response: “Our house is built within our property lines, but due to changes in the codes
since it was built (in 1958) it no longer complies with code (setbacks). It is a "legal non-conforming
house" near "the avenues". We were not informed of this at any point during its purchase, and as first
time house buyers were unaware of things like this associated with home ownership
• This practical difficulty as a technicality makes any simple change for modern needs difficult or
impossible without a variance.
• The foundation between the current house and garage is in shambles and has been slabbed over at
least 2 times, and was carefully concrete painted over before our purchase in 2014 – this area needs
to be addressed. We professionally assessed this In 2015 as "needing to be completely rebuilt". Given
the cost of this practical repair - addressing with the new structure is extremely practical from a home
ownership lens. Additionally, our garage was not professionally built and has irreversible water
damage. I will assume the city and commission is aware of the heavy water tables surrounding our
neighborhood.
• Our request is a reasonable non-extravagant and practical one. We wish to demo our existing one
car garage/shed combo and attach a new two car garage/shed and add 2 rooms and a bath above
this new structure for our growing family and new "working from home" realties of society. We wish
to do this within or in equivalence to the existing setbacks of the current garage structure
• All houses need basic care and upgrades in the long term of their life. With our proposal, we look to
address the practical realities that are difficult are: A family with a separated one care garage and
the comings and goings make the situation untenable during all 4 seasons, especially during the winter
and mostly in regard to moving people and things in and out of the house conveniently and without
danger.
Staff’s Response: County Assessor records indicate the property was built in 1952; possibly at a time
where setbacks may not have been followed very closely, or quite possibly may not have existed at that
time. In any event, the existing home does not meet required setbacks, and is therefore considered a
legal, non-conforming structure in its present state.
The owner/applicant is proposing to provide a considerable addition to this dwelling in order to
accommodate his growing family’s needs. Their desire to stay in the home and neighborhood, and
make these changes to this older home is commendable. Due to the severe limitations placed on this
property by its size; along with the placement of the dwelling, garage and driveway on the parcel by
other owners, the current owner is making a noble attempt to match and minimize the requested reduced
setbacks called for under these plans, from 1.6-ft. down to six-inches (6”). There is 15-ft. wide
boulevard (ROW) space between the property line and the Vandall Street curb-line, so the visual
impacts will virtually remain the same (from existing garage to new), or should seem very minimal.
The additional front-yard encroachment (by 6-feet) for the new open porch, appears negligible and not
significant in relation to the overall size of the property and wide boulevard space along 3rd Avenue.
An expansion of any existing single-family dwelling, especially for those in this older section of the
community, and where it creates additional living/usable space and value to the existing home, can be
(and should be) viewed as a reasonable use of the property, and considered compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. In light of this, staff feels a new addition proposed by the applicant is a reasonable
request and the property will remain to be used in a reasonable manner as prescribed by Code.
PACKET PG. # 153
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 5 of 9
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: “Unique circumstances have been mentioned, but again, even basic repairs
beyond the basic modern needs of adding 2 car parking spaces and enough rooms for a growing family
become impossible due to the circumstances of our house being built one way, then codes changing
making repairs or additions impossible without a variance. The concerning "setback" on the eastern
side would be adhered to. The new structure would be on line with the southern house border, and the
northern stair entrance.”
Staff’s Response: This property is one of many located in the “North End” neighborhood, which
contain a number of non-conforming issues throughout this area. The reduced setbacks or non-
conforming standards are a common and shared trait among many other properties in the “North End”
neighborhoods of the city. Even though it may have been recommended favorably in other planning
reports where variances were considered, these approvals do not add any precedent value to a new
variance request (i.e. variances should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), but
it is acceptable for the city to allow or grant some flexibility and favorable weight to such physical
circumstances with certain properties.
The city acknowledges there are somewhat unique circumstances that exist on this property, due in
large part to the location or placement of the home on the parcel, which was not created by the applicant.
The current location of the dwelling on the subject parcel only creates a practical difficulty in expanding
the structure as an existing legal, nonconforming structure. Staff finds there may be some or enough
unique circumstances related to this property, particularly with the reduced setbacks on the home –
which were “not created by the owner...” that lend support in the granting of a variance in this case;
and also gives some added weight to creating or supporting the practical difficulties argument for the
property owner.
3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: “We believe our request will make our house fit with the character of the
neighborhood even more than its current status. There are a few reasons for this:
o Of the surrounding neighbors, every single one has agreed with our vision that it will
actually enhance the neighborhood character and bring more beauty (see signed
petition). Our house is near a frequent walking path and many extended neighbors are
also excited.
o Of surrounding houses, we are one of two with separate external ONE car garage, and
one of 4 with an external garage in general (2 neighbors have nonattached 2+ car
garages for reference). Attached 2+ car garages are the more frequent character of
the neighborhood.
With the various new construction and remodels in our neighborhood (new $1.SM+
construction, modern remodels) going on within blocks of our house, our request in
essence and upon completion will seem quite meager in comparison, yet serve as bridge
to older and the more modern parts of the character of the neighborhood
Staff’s Response: The surrounding neighborhood is all but residential in character, and is not expected
to see or experience any major changes in the foreseeable future. This new home addition represents a
considerable investment by the Applicant to provide adequate and needed living space with the older
home. Staff believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their design plans that the new addition
is appropriate, will not look out of place; or detract from the overall design and feel of the existing
dwelling, neighboring properties or the neighborhood. Staff believes the essential character of the
neighborhood would not be altered by granting this variance.
PACKET PG. # 154
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 6 of 9
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations
alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular
case, the property owner is simply requesting to add living space that better suits his family’s needs.
The new addition does not impact any neighboring properties.
Although one can conclude this new and larger residential structure will provide some economic
value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale),
the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable
explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may
affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting
this variance.
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family
Residence district, as this proposed home addition (and porch) is consistent with and allowed as a
permitted use in the underlying zoning. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the
community, and this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like
the North End in the community.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2040 Plan. Certain
land use goals and policies are noted below:
• Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
o Land Use Policy #2: The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and
general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing
developments and buildings.
o Land Use Policy #6: A mechanism will be developed to allow for the maintenance and
reinvestment in identified non-conforming properties
• Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #1: Continue to enforce housing maintenance and zoning codes.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses
o Housing Policy #3. Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and
distinct neighborhood characteristics in the community.
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood, and would provide a substantial investment into a
property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner.
The proposed addition creates no additional impacts or poses any threats on light and air, as well
as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new home addition and request for variance
PACKET PG. # 155
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 7 of 9
can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and
consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1. Recommend approval of the variance for 684 - 3rd Avenue, based on the following findings-of-
fact that support the granting of the variance and conditional use permit as requested herein,
noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application
of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the
strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i)
the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the
Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements:
i.) the proposed garage and living space addition to the existing property is consistent with other
homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and
enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the
reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a
reasonable request.
ii.) the subject property was originally built in 1952, creating some unique circumstances not
created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing home and garage
with reduced setbacks from the adjacent road ROW’s, which in turn generate some unique
circumstances, difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for making a reasonable residential
living space addition to an existing nonconforming structure, except by means of a variance.
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the
neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the
approval of this variance; and
iv.) This new addition authorized by this variance is considered in harmony with the general
purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans,
goals and policy statements contained in the 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 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 impact or pose any negative threats
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 684 – 3rd Avenue 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.
PACKET PG. # 156
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 8 of 9
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021-
15, dated and presented August 24, 2021 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later)
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this 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) The new addition must match the architectural plans and designs presented in this variance
request on the subject property.
2) The proposed residential addition and all other related improvements shall be constructed
in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code
standards.
3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the
new addition and/or porch improvement.
4) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to
and during grading and construction work activities.
5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and
corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant
shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one (1) year
from said approval date.
2. Recommend denial of the variance request for 684 - 3rd Avenue, based on the findings-of-fact that
confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the
variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order
to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setbacks. The proposed garage and living space
addition is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and therefore
this variance is not considered a reasonable request on the property; and furthermore the applicant
failed to adequately justify the need for granting this variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
PACKET PG. # 157
Planning Case 2021-15 (Z. Robinson-VAR) Page 9 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the variance with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said variance to Zach Robinson of 684 - 3rd
Avenue, with the conditions noted therein.
Attachments
1. Aerial/Site Location Map
2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
3. Petition List of Neighbor’s Support of Variance
4. Survey/Site Plan/
5. New Addition/Porch Elevation Plans
PACKET PG. # 158
684 - 3rd Avenue (Robinson)
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.
Map Scale
1 inch = 100 feet
8/4/2021
PACKET PG. # 159
684 - 3rd Avenue (Robinson)
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.
Map Scale
1 inch = 25 feet
8/4/2021
PACKET PG. # 160
Robinson
6843rd Ave.
Mendot a Heights , MN 5 5118
Re : Lette r of Intent g ra nting Variance and 3 Question Variance Response
To :
Mendota Heigh t s City Co uncil; Men dota Hei ghts Planning Commission
. C/0 Tim Benetti
Greetings,
Thank you for the consideration of our family's request. What follows in outline form, are the practical
and circumstantial reali t ies establish ing a just basis for granting of a vari ance. Additionally, we have
provided some bas is for the establishm ent of consistent neighborhood character within our plans.
In essence, our family loves Mendot a He ights, our ne ighborhood, and wish to stay long term . We love
our house, and, as our family grows we need to make ba sic repairs and upgrades for the house to grow
with us. When discussing with our neigh bors ov er a year ago, we first learned of the potential need for
perm i ssion to undertake some basic: actions -ev en some basic things like repairs or siding considerations
-do t o the nature of m any lots in our ne ighborhood. It was at that point we contacted the city to
enqu ire about our long standing neE~d fo r an adjustment on the eastside of our house.
Essen t ially, we wish to k nockdown our non attached one car garage and shed combo, and replace it with
an attached two car garage and she d co mbo. Du e to the nature of construction, additional families
n eeds an d la stly fin ancial prudence/economies of scale, it also makes sense for use to add space for 2
new bedrooms and a bath above th1:! garage t o accommod ate our growing family. This would all be done
within or in equivalence of the existi ng setba cks of built structure. Plea se let us know if there is anything
el se needed, we are prepared, if necessa ry, to t ake further action. Below please find outlined re ponse
po i nt to the primary inquiries. Thank yo u!
Responses regarding practical difficultie s and unique property circumstances
• Our house is bu i lt within our property lines, but due to changes in the codes since it was built (in
1958) it no longer complies with cod e (setbacks). It is a "legal non conforming house " near "the
avenues". We were not informed of this at any point during it's purchase, and as first time
house buyers were unaware of things like this associated with home ownership
• This practical difficulty as a t echn icality make s any simple ch ange for modern needs difficult or
imposs i ble without a variance
• Th e founda t ion between thE! cur rent house and garage is in shambles and has been slabbed
over at least 2 times, and was ca refully concrete painted over before our purchase in 2014 -this
ar ea need s t o be add re ssed . W e professionally assessed this In 2015 as "needing to be
co mplet ely rebuil t ". Gi ven th e cost of this practical repair -addressing with the new structure is
extremely practical from a home own ership lens. Additionally, our garage was not professionally
PACKET PG. # 161
built and has irreversible water damage. I will assume the city and commission is aware of the
h ea vy water t ables surrounding our neighborhood.
• Our reques t is a r easo nab l e no n-extravagant and practical one. We wish to demo our existing
on e ca r gar age/sh ed co m bo an d attach a new two car garage/shed and add 2 rooms and a bath
ab ove this new structure for o ur growing family and new "working from home" realties of
soci ety. W e wi sh to do this within or in equivalence to the existing set backs of the current
gara ge st ructure
• All he uses nee d basi e ear e 21nd upgrades in the long term of their life. With our proposal, we
look to address the p r actical rea lities that are difficult are: A family with a separated one care
garage and t he com ings and goings make the situation untenable during all 4 seasons, especially
during t he winter and most,ly in regard to moving people and things in and out of the house
conveni ently and without dan ger.
• Wni ~µe cir~ums t ances have bee n mentioned, but again, even basi~ repairs beyond the basic
modern needs of adding 2 car parking spaces and enough rooms for a growing family become
impossible due t o the circums t ances of our house being built one way, then codes changing
making repa i rs or additions impossible witheut a variance.
• Th e concern ing "se t bac k" on the eastern side would be adhered to. The new structure would be
on line with the southern hous e border, and the northern stair entrance.
Responses regarding t he Neighborhood Character
• We be l ieve our request will ma ke our house fit with the character of the neighborhood even
mo re th an it's current st at us . There are a few reasons for this:
o Of the surrounding neig hbors, every sin gle one has agreed with our vision that it will
ac tuall y en ha nce t he n eighborhood character and bring more beaty (see signed
petition). Our hous e is near a frequent walking path and many extended neighbors are
also excited .
o Of surrounding house s, we are one of two with separate external ONE car garage, and
one of 4 w ith an extern al garage in general (2 neighbors have non attached 2+ car
ga r age s for refe r ence). Attached 2+ car garages are the more frequent character of the
ne ighborhood.
• With the va r ious new const r uction and remodels in our neighborhood (new $1.SM+
co nstruc t io n, mode rn r emode ls) going on within blocks of our house, our request in essence and
upon completi on will seem qui te meager in comparison, yet serve as bridge to older and the
more modern parts of t he cha r acter of the neighborhood
We hope this lette r of i ntent provides t he basic and rea sonable framework for granting a neighborhood
w ide sup port ed var ianc e fo r ou r prc;:,ject. We hope to break groynd this Fall .
PACKET PG. # 162
PACKET PG. # 163
PACKET PG. # 164
From:Ryan Becken
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Variance for Zach Robinson Title12, Section 12-1L-5
Date:Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:43:11 AM
Hello Tim,
I recently received a letter informing me about a variance request for Zach Robinson and his
property on 684 3rd Ave.
I will not be able to attend the meeting on Aug 24th but, I would like this email to serve as my
voice in favor of letting this variance pass.
I am Zach and Emma's neighbor directly across the street at 685 3rd Ave. I have been
informed about their plan to make modest improvements / updates to their garage and
existing structures. I see no reason that this variance should not pass when given the fact
that their improvements will better their living situation without affecting their immediate
surrounding neighbors or the overall "feel" of our older Mendota Heights neighborhood. In
contrast, there is a million dollar mansion being constructed a half a block away from both of
our residences and that home WILL change the feel of our neighborhood and that
construction was approved, so I feel the Robinson's request is very minor and should be
allowed. Lastly, and probably the best reason to pass this variance is that it will keep a great
neighbor in our neighborhood. The Robinsons take care of their property, contribute to the
community and watch out for their neighbors. I for one do not want to see them move away
because the city of Mendota Heights will not allow them improve their home.
Thank you.
Ryan Becken
PACKET PG. # 165
PACKET PG. # 166
PACKET PG. # 167
Front Elevation
:8 8
8
Left Elevation
Rear Elevation
,wa+.t
8 m ru
Right Elevation
D
DATE:
7/28/2021
E:::3
PACKET PG. # 168
D
Front Elevatlon
B • . . 8
8
J..e~ Elevatlon Rl9ht Elevation
8
DATE:
7/28/2021
Rear Elevation
PACKET PG. # 169
~. I 10'
""
-
New Add-On
21'x2q'
-
I 5'-&' 1
"'
55'
l,sl I I I I I I I I
~I I I I 111 l
99'-4' :1
Existing
j_L-p==~::t:===l=~t=~lrF1-1.=t::..==rrtJ=========================:::::Y _J ~6·---+--
1 -,o·-...1..--.1. --6·---,..1-----+
1------22·------J:" ~·
t---------------55'-------------
D
i
I
~
I DATE : I
7/28/2021 l eg
@j
PACKET PG. # 170
I
LIVING AREA
1!)&4SGFT
D
1 1 I 1]
.
I
DATE: J
7/28/2021
PACKET PG. # 171
D
55'
if~
1: 55'
~
1'-10"
«1~
11'·2" l 1' -, I
~
ffi
; 1 \__ ~
·' ...
I--
~ 1:Xl5TfNG Is I 111 l~J 36'·2" X 21'-0" ii! ~ NEl"IADD -ON Fl I I I I I 11'·6" X 2~'-0"
6 ~ D C
'iii
l:
---------------------------i tt r
I I
I
I -mo-I
I I
I ,____ ,__ I
I
'
I
I -I
I
~~ ~ I
I
'
I
I I ~ \
I 16x1 Garage Door I ,·
5/-4Xb Treated Deo<lng
ii
l 4-------------UP :
2
--
I
I:
"'~ I
r n n rl
~
·i-,
I
SS' 22'
55'
DATE: I
LlVf NGAREA / 7/28/2021
1584 SQ FT t=9
G 1
~
PACKET PG. # 172
191.b
2ROl'<S!Ce
'"""'T!lt 41n
1r.ro.t.e.
exTC!IUO!lGAAA6e
l'W.L& :IXA ------\11-1---1'~
UHLf~! HOTeO OTM!lltY(l&e
5 C..0Ult5!~6•SLOC,K
XIX.& CON C. P'TG-.
P~YV~~~~~r:~:~'--------1--.1
DlltA.IN TIL! A!o llEQO.
~Jadol DFOAM
20X6 G,ONG . ,ns.
/ _"-'LF
H YON
~----t'fH~TAI'!
PAN l'\AtHIHO AT &L L
HI -
2nd Floo r
Main Floor
_,, •• 0.$.0 .
Basem ent
S 1-a'GOHG.PLOOft
Cross 5 eGtlon
~IN DO~ TAPE DETAILS
15 1b f l!t.T
2 ROf'6 Kio!!:
&~Tl!ft
1/12
1!2"0.1 .a.
R-44 ATTIC, INSULATION
V'f'Nlt.f>IDflrri6
HOl/6!WAAI'
i------·11160.s.e .
2X6 Y'(AIJ. "·11 IN!.
112"&M!!!r:;Tll~
li(A1"W n.ooflnt\i!$
~t !lUT 01' HOV$!
,i..oo11:r•u&&
~---1----MORTlllUU
Wl~TAP!TOD!!!
Af'~l!C O'Y!lt HOU&!!~
D
i
I
DATE :
7/28/2021
PACKET PG. # 173