2021-12-28 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, DECEMBER 28, 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 October 26, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes
3.Approve the November 10, 2021 Special Meeting Minutes
4.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2021-22 Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow the construction of a new
single-family dwelling in the Miss. River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District –
property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway (Michael & Theresa Swiggum)
b.CASE No. 2021-23 Wetlands Permit to allow for new landscaping and pond
embankment improvements at Resurrection Cemetery - 2101 Lexington Avenue South
(Southview Design – Applicant / Catholic Cemeteries – Owners)
5.New / Unfinished Business
6. Adjourn Meeting
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 29
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2021
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
26, 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, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent:
None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of August 24, 2021 Minutes
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2021.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE SIX, THE
THIRD PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, “…THAT IS GOING TO BE AN ADDITION TO
THE RESERVE.”
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
Chair Field noted that there has been discussion of changing the order of the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO
CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER ITEM A AFTER ITEMS B AND
C.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
B) PLANNING CASE 2021-18
ERIK AND SARAH IVERSON, 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST – WETLANDS
PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Iverson’s are seeking approval
of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flag-stone fire pit and patio, a walk-out
PC PACKET Pg. # 1
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 29
entry patio, retaining walls, steps, grading and landscaping work, along with some tree pruning
and removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed
an “after the fact” due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one email of
support from a neighboring owner was received and one comment of concern.
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 staff report mentions that all disturbed areas shall be
restored, and areas shall be replanted, noting that is not very specific.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are not set tree replacement
requirements and therefore he is relying on the input of the Commission.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Sarah and Erik Iverson, 2452 Pond Circle East, she stated that in addition to the project plan
outlined by staff they would like to make a statement. She stated that they moved to the property
in June, and they love being outdoors. She stated that the main goal of the backyard project is to
maintain the natural landscape and also make it safe for their children and family. She stated that
prior to moving in there was little upkeep in the backyard and a rotting wall. She stated that there
were also erosion issues, old stumps, diseased trees, and overgrown trees that were dropping limbs
on the deck and home. She believed that their landscape plan would address all the issues and
would also keep the integrity of the pond.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not see any grading plans with the landscaping plan.
She stated that the material for the wall was not noted on the plan, but she did visit the property
and the applicant advised her that the wall would be made of boulders. She stated that she would
also be interested in detailed planting information and how the rock spill would be handled.
Tim Johnson, contractor representing the applicant, stated that the retaining wall will be made of
fieldstone boulders and natural cut stone steps will provide access from the existing patio to the
lower parts of the yard. He stated that the current fire pit was neglected and the new fire pit would
be shifted west to provide more separate between the deck and trees. He provided details on the
other work that would be done to repair the deteriorating backyard elements. He stated that an
arborist was retained, and they walked the property to identify the healthy trees that could remain.
He stated that the box elder, ash and other unhealthy trees are/were removed. He noted that some
of those trees were leaning towards homes and were removed in order to remove that liability. He
commented on the work that they have done to ensure the health of the trees that are being saved
as they are heritage trees, and they want them to remain healthy during construction. He provided
details on the three tree species that will be planted to replace the unhealthy trees. He noted that
PC PACKET Pg. # 2
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 29
the remainder of the yard was most likely woodchips and dirt because it had been neglected and
eroded. He stated that they would be putting in turf grass, similar to the neighboring properties in
order to provide ground coverage. He noted that silt fence was also installed for erosion control.
Joe Slater, 2464 Pond Circle E, stated that he has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 27
years. He hoped to know the applicants better in the future. He stated that his concern is that the
City did not follow its own rules. He stated that a permit is supposed to be requested prior to work
being completed. He believed the City was notified prior to the trees being cut down. He stated
that the pond area is very special and home to wildlife. He believed that the City should have done
a better job visiting the site and gaining control of the process. He stated that he does not begrudge
the residents for wanting to beautify their property but is concerned with the City not following its
process to ensure the natural area is protected.
Seeing no one further 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: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Corbett asked the root cause of why this is an after the fact permit and whether the
City was involved before a permit was requested.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the applicant did call the City the day before
the tree removal contractor was scheduled to show up. He stated that it was explained that ash and
boxelders were being removed and noted that dead and diseased trees can be removed without a
permit. He stated that once they received a call from a neighboring property owner, the City visited
the property to see which trees were being removed. He agreed that some trees were dead and
leaning over the property or were ash trees or other trees that would soon need to be removed. He
explained that he told the property owners they could continue with the tree removal but then
would need to stop work and apply for a permit for the remainder of the work. He stated that the
applicant was instructed that absolutely no work could be completed within the 25-foot buffer area.
He stated that the trees that were removed were not quality trees and/or imposed a risk to the home.
Commissioner Corbett asked if staff believes that activity was within what was allowed.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that the tree removal was allowed but the stop work
order was issued on the remainder of the work planned. He commented that homeowners can
remove dead/diseased/dying trees without a wetland permit.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan but believes that would be more
appropriately described as a hardscape plan. She stated that specific information is not provided
related to the trees, grading, or vegetation. She stated that there would need to be excavation to
install the boulders. She noted that she would also like more details on the rock spill. She stated
PC PACKET Pg. # 3
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 29
that a detailed site plan identifying drainage, grading, and landscaping is required for a wetlands
permit. She commented on the other items that she also believed are missing in terms of the
existing drainage and grading of the site. She stated that she would prefer to table the request and
extend the review by 60 days in order to gain those specific elements. She stated that the
Commission needs those items in order to provide an accurate review and ensure reviews are being
done consistently.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO
TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE REVIEW PERIOD.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE AGREES
WITH THE READING OF THE ORDINANCES BUT ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CODE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD MATERIAL
INFORMATION TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED HE DID NOT
BELIEVE A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WOULD ADD TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
HE STATED THAT HE COULD SUPPORT THE MOTION BUT NOTED THAT THIS
WOULD DELAY THE PROJECT AND WOULD THEN POSTPONE WORK UNTIL THE
SPRING.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE AGREES WITH WHAT HAD BEEN
SAID, NOTING THAT THERE ARE ITEMS MISSING THAT ARE REQUIRED. SHE
STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION
RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION PROVIDING THE DIRECTION RELATED TO TREE
PLANTING. SHE STATED THAT ABOUT 30 TREES WERE REMOVED AND IT SOUNDS
LIKE THREE TREES ARE BEING REPLANTED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE
A MORE DETAILED PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED IF IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE
HOME WAS BUILT, THE AREA WAS PROBABLY CLEAN AND THE YARD BECAME
OVERGROWN BECAUSE OF NEGLECT. HE STATED THAT THE NEW PROPERTY
OWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND REMOVE UNDESIRED
TREES. HE STATED THAT TO A POINT THE COMMISSION/CITY SHOULD BE
WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT PERHAPS STAFF SHOULD PLACE AN
ARTICLE IN THE CITY NEWSLETTER EDUCATING RESIDENTS ABOUT THE NEED
FOR PERMITS FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (FIELD)
Chair Field noted that this would be scheduled to come back to the Commission at its November
meeting. He asked staff to reach out to the applicant and attempt to assist them with ensuring their
application is in order.
PC PACKET Pg. # 4
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 29
C) PLANNING CASE 2021-20
STAVE AND MICHELLE MCHALE, 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE – CRITICAL
AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the McHale’s are seeking approval
of a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on property situated in the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, along with a conditional use permit
(CUP) to construct an oversized garage up to 1,444 square feet in size.
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 stated that the plan shows four silver maples and asked if that is the extent
of the planting that would be done. She asked what the soil would be covered with.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that two trees would be planted in the
front yard and two in the backyard. He stated that the applicant can provide additional details but
believed that turf and other landscaping would cover the soil.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the description of the unkempt shrub and had some concerns.
She stated that those are actually native shrubs, elderberry to be specific.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that could be included in the replacement
plan as a condition if desired.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Steven McHale, 1125 Orchard Circle, stated that they began the process to acquire the property
with the intent to build a home last January. He stated that since that time they found out the
property was within the MRCCA and there was a moratorium on building within the corridor,
which placed their plans on hold. He stated that he and his wife have attempted to design a home
that would produce as much, or more energy, on the property than they plan to consume. He stated
that they also take external landscaping very seriously. He recognized that anything removed
would need to be replanted with native vegetation and that is their full intent. He stated that they
have had discussions with three landscapers but do not yet have a plan in place as they have spoken
with the neighboring property owners and are currently working with those properties in order to
create a cohesive landscape over the three properties that works together. He stated that they will
replace each tree removed with at least two new trees. He stated that his children like pollinator
gardens and they plan to have a pollinator garden and vegetable garden on the property. He noted
that they need to see how the home will lie on the property and see where sunlight hits in order to
PC PACKET Pg. # 5
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 29
plan appropriately for those elements. He referenced the proposed four car garage, noting that
they have two vehicles, and the remaining space would be used to create a space for his wife to
play basketball. He stated that this has been quite an ordeal as they have been renting a home that
has a lease that will expire in the summer of 2022. He stated that they would most likely need to
find a second rental until the home construction is completed.
Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, stated that it would seem that a recommendation for the City and
Planning Commission would be to require a landscaping plan from the beginning to prevent further
delays. She noted that the last case was tabled and perhaps that could have been alleviated by staff
ensuring a landscape plan was provided.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Johnson stated that as with the previous case there is a checklist of what is required
to review an application. She reviewed the details that would be required in order for the
Commission to make its decision that are not included in the application. She stated that she would
like to review applications consistently and therefore the required information should be provided.
Commissioner Petschel referenced the diameters shown of the trees removed which would provide
an indication of the current conditions.
Commissioner Johnson stated that information is needed for proposed plantings as well.
Commissioner Petschel asked if that information is dictated in the City Code.
Commissioner Johnson replied that she believed it is.
Commissioner Katz commented that even though some of those items related to landscaping are
not shown, this is new construction therefore he would be willing to provide approval for
construction and the applicant could bring back details about the landscaping. He stated that the
issue he would struggle with is the necessity of the four-stall garage, other than the desire for the
property owner to have a large garage. He stated that allowing a large garage for that reason would
seem to set precedent for future requests.
Commissioner Johnson stated that 36 feet of garage door is allowed, therefore the four nine-foot
doors meet that requirement.
PC PACKET Pg. # 6
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 29
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that any resident in the R-1 district can ask
for a garage greater than 1,200 up to 1,500 square feet with a CUP. He stated that there does not
need to be a rational reason, other than ensuring the effective standards of the CUP Code are met.
Commissioner Johnson noted that this would meet all the requirements for that garage size request.
Commissioner Katz asked if it could be required for the applicant to come back with the
landscaping plan.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the applicant indicated that he is
working on a cooperative landscaping plan with the neighbors. He believed that a recommendation
of approval could still move forward, and staff could work with the applicant on the landscaping
plan, or it could be brought back for a cursory review. He noted that this is a vacant lot and does
not have bluffs or shoreline on the property.
Commissioner Johnson asked if a condition could be added that there would need to be approval
of the landscaping plan and the other items on the checklist prior to moving to City Council.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he believes the Critical Area Permit
and Conditional Use Permit could be approved to allow this to move forward. He stated that staff
could work with the applicant to ensure the landscaping plan is sufficient would be a part of the
building permit process and bring it back for the Commission to review. He stated that the
applicant is unable to provide that landscaping plan at this time as they are attempting to work
cohesively with the neighbors.
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the last request was tabled for lack of landscaping plan and
asked how it would be justified to move ahead without a landscaping plan.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is technically a landscaping plan
showing two trees removed and four additional trees planted. He stated that an additional
landscaping plan is being developed and staff will work with the applicant on that.
City Attorney Elliott Knetsch commented that there is a landscape plan, it would be the decision
of the Commission as to whether that plan is adequate.
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the previous applicant submitted a landscape plan.
City Attorney Elliott Knetsch replied that the Commission found that plan to not be sufficient.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE
WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
PC PACKET Pg. # 7
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 29
2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE
PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.
WEEKENDS.
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
6. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN
AS VERBALLY MENTIONED AND IN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED THE COMMISSION IF
PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM A LANDSCAPING PLAN OR WHETHER
THEY ARE BOUND TO THAT. HE ASKED IF PEOPLE COULD CHANGE THEIR
LANDSCAPING AFTER BEING IN THEIR HOME FOR A YEAR WHEN THEIR NEEDS OR
DESIRES CHANGE. HE STATED THAT HE CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE
HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT SOME FLEXIBILITY AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE
COMMISSION SHOULD DICTATE OR MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW PEOPLE WANT
THEIR YARDS.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE
REQUEST BUT WOULD FIND THAT THE CONDITION REQUESTING A MORE
DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN WOULD MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND
THE PLAN SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT. SHE STATED THAT PERHAPS THAT
CONDITION IS REMOVED AND THE APPLICANT CAN STILL WORK WITH STAFF IF
THEY WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
HOME AND THE FOCUS IS NOT ON THE PLANTINGS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THIS PLAN IS SIMILAR TO ALL THE
OTHERS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION, NOTING THAT LANDSCAPING PLANS
ARE NOT THAT DETAILED FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE DETAIL
AS THIS IS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES BUT
BELIEVES THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AND PROCESS
OUTLINED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS TO ALL RESIDENTS.
PC PACKET Pg. # 8
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 29
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS THAT THE
APPLICANT STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS ABOVE
THOSE SHOWN ON THE EXISTING DRAWINGS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT THE CHECKLIST SPECIFIES TYPE AND
DIAMETER OF ALL PLANTINGS. SHE STATED THAT IN THE CRITICAL AREA, EVEN
THOUGH THIS IS NOT ON THE BLUFF OR SHORELINE, THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN
PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOUND IN THE AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES
WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE CHECKLIST. SHE NOTED THAT PERHAPS THAT LIST
NEEDS TO BE REVISED BUT THE CITY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE MRCCA
ORDINANCE AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE CITY WOULD DO THE ENVIRONMENT
JUSTICE BY NOT FOLLOWING THE CITY PROCESS.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITH
APPLICATIONS.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS
A LIST INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT ONCE RECEIVED, STAFF
REVIEWS THE APPLICATION TO DETERMINE IF IT IS COMPLETE AND SHOULD
MOVE FORWARD. HE STATED THAT STAFF FELT THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS
COMPLETE AND IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TYPICAL NEW FAMILY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN
ALTHOUGH PEOPLE TYPICALLY PUT IN TREES AND LANDSCAPING. HE STATED
THAT THE TREE REMOVAL WAS INDICATED, ALONG WITH REPLACEMENT
PLANTING OF FOUR TWO INCH BALLED AND BURLAPPED SILVER MAPLES. HE
STATED THAT IF THE TREES ARE MOVED, HE WOULD NOT REVOKE A CRITICAL
AREA PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE. HE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS
STATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO CREATE A
COHESIVE PLANTINGS PLAN, ALONG WITH A POLLINATOR AND VEGETABLE
GARDEN. HE STATED THAT WHILE THOSE THINGS ARE GREAT, IT IS NOT
REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A PLAN WITH THOSE DETAILS.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED IF COMMISSIONER KATZ WOULD BE
WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION WITH THE ADDED CONDITION, AS THAT
WOULD IMPLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT COMPLETE.
COMMISSIONER KATZ EXPLAINED THAT HIS MOTION IS BASED ON THE INTENT
THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERMIT.
HE STATED THAT HE ALSO UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, THEREFORE THE
ADDITIONAL CONDITION WAS ADDED TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN WHILE STILL
ALLOWING THE HOME CONSTRUCTION TO MOVE FORWARD.
CHAIR FIELD ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR INPUT.
PC PACKET Pg. # 9
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 29
CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH STATED THAT HE WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING
THE CONDITION IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THE PLAN IS ADEQUATE AND
THAT STAFF WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THEIR MENTIONED PLAN.
HE STATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS NOT COMFORTABLE WITHOUT SEEING
THE PLAN, THE ITEM SHOULD BE TABLED. HE STATED THAT THE REQUEST COULD
BE APPROVED AND THE PLAN COULD BE BROUGHT BACK ON AN INFORMATIONAL
BASIS.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE PLAUSIBLE TO HAVE THE
REMAIN ING ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST NOT CURRENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR,
PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPLIED THAT WOULD BE
A FAST TURNAROUND, AS THE ITEM WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL THE
FOLLOWING WEEK.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE A CATCH 22 AS
THE ADDITIONAL PLAN WILL NOT BE FULLY DEVELOPED UNTIL THE HOME IS
CONSTRUCTED. HE STATED THAT HE FINDS THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS CASE
DIFFERENT AS SIZES, LOCATIONS AND SPECIES ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN. HE
STATED THAT PERHAPS THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT IS AN ERROR IN THE
PROCESS AS IT WOULD SEEM TO FORCE SOMEONE TO CREATE A PLAN THAT
WOULD PLACATE THE COMMISSION BUT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE CHANGED
DEPENDING ON THE HOME CONSTRUCTION.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THIS IS AN MRCCA CASE AND ASKED IF IT WOULD BE
POSSIBLE TO APPROVE THIS WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN. HE NOTED
THAT IF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLAN, WOULD THE
HOMEOWNER NEED TO COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL BECAUSE THE
PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE MRCCA.
CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH COMMENTED THAT IF THERE IS A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND IF THE ORDINANCE TRIGGERS SUCH ACTION, THE
APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT THE
ORDINANCE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. HE
STATED THAT IF ADDITIONAL TREES WERE GOING TO BE PLANTED, HE WOULD
NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AS THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
HE STATED THAT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT, STAFF WORKS TO ENSURE
THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PLANS MEET CITY CODE. HE STATED THAT IF THE
APPLICANT DEVELOPED A PLAN WITH THE NEIGHBORS, STAFF WOULD LOVE TO
SEE THAT AND PROVIDE COMMENTS, BUT IF THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL WORKING
WITH THEM, THEY WILL PROVIDE SOMETHING EFFECTIVE THAT WOULD BE AN
IMPROVEMENT. HE STATED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT
NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION.
PC PACKET Pg. # 10
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 29
COMMISSIONER KATZ WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE
WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE
PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND
CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.
WEEKENDS.
5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THIS LANDSCAPE
PLAN IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE IN TERMS OF DETAILS.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, November
3, 2021 meeting.
A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AND 2021-13
AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, MENDOTA
PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION AND EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION –
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND WETLAND PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the report packet contains
additional information submitted by At Home Apartments, the applicant/developer of the proposed
Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The
Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 24th meeting, these two planning case items were
presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city
staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the Commission determined additional
information was needed from the applicant/development and voted to table both cases to a future
meeting date. The additional information was determined as follows:
PC PACKET Pg. # 11
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 29
1) Provide an overall and proposed impervious surface calculation;
2) Provide a lighting plan;
3) Provide a traffic circulation plan;
4) Provide an updated parking analysis or parking data on the existing site;
5) Provide an update traffic analysis;
6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap
stalls;
7) Provide an updated landscape plan;
8) Address fire protection and safety measures.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this report also includes an update on
the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24th hearing; along with a legal opinion
from the City Attorney addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. The Site Development
and Elevation Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those
presented at the August 24th meeting. The Commissioners should also refer to the information and
analysis contained in the original August 24th Planning Reports which were included in the
supplemental packet.
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 reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should first consider the 58-unit development
and then consider the 89-unit development.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that even though the applications are
being presented as one development, staff would still like to see two motions.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the childcare and restaurant uses and whether
those were approved and part of the original PUD.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the approved PUD did include a
childcare center use on the Phase III property. He explained that if the developer had an interested
childcare business they brought forward, that could move forward without additional approvals.
He also confirmed that the Phase II site was approved for a restaurant use and as such, if there was
an interested restaurant, the developer could move forward on that in the same manner. He stated
that those elements were never built, which is why the developer is requesting the amendment
process.
Chair Field reopened the public hearing.
PC PACKET Pg. # 12
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 29
Leanna Stefaniak, At Home Apartments, that she is available to answer any additional questions.
She stated that she believes that they addressed the requests the Commission made at its last
review.
Commissioner Toth stated that he was not present at the last meeting. He referenced the traffic
study and noted that it was said there had been a three percent decrease on Dodd Road.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that compared the projected traffic from the current approved uses to the
projected traffic from the proposed new uses. She stated that if the restaurant and daycare would
add 1,024 trips onto Dodd Road while the proposed uses would add 794 trips on Dodd Road.
Commissioner Toth asked if there have been any current studies on Dodd Road.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that since 2016 there have been several studies on Dodd Road and at the 62
intersection. She stated that the City conducted its own north/south mobility study in 2017/2018
in addition to the 2016 study they completed. She stated that they completed the analysis for the
new uses and then the City’s consultant reviewed those results.
Commissioner Petschel appreciated the data provided related to parking. He stated that he has
driven through the lot quite a bit since the last review to observe parking. He asked how many
parking spaces are paid within the underground parking structure.
Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit receives one underground stall for free, which is a total of 139.
She stated that there are also overflow stalls which are available for rental and 20 reserved guest
stalls.
Commissioner Petschel asked if tenants with two vehicles are allowed to park the second vehicle
wherever they want.
Ms. Stefaniak replied that tenants are told that the parking stalls out front are available for short-
term basis parking only.
Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicant for working with the Master Gardener and believed
that many good things came out of that. She noted that in the count of native plants, not including
the wildflower mix, only 48 percent are truly native for Phase II. She commented that she
appreciates that native cultivars were also used as those are also good. She stated that she has
some concern with greenspace for residents. She stated that perhaps additional planting could be
added.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that she would have to defer back to the landscape architect, noting that they
would continue to work with the Master Gardener as that plan evolves. She stated that they would
want to be concerned that the roots do not impose on each other and/or utilities.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she spoke with MnDOT and there is an opportunity for the
developer to partner with the City and MnDOT would enter into an agreement, supplying plants.
PC PACKET Pg. # 13
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 29
She stated that the developer would install and maintain the plants but would not be responsible
for the cost of the plants.
Chair Field stated that sounds like an interesting suggestion and perhaps Commissioner Johnson
could discuss that with the applicant later.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is somewhat aware of the program. She stated that she would want
to review other concerns, such as vehicle safety. She noted that if a vehicle goes off road, they
would go down a grass area and would be concerned with placing a tree where a vehicle could hit
that.
Commissioner Johnson stated that it appears the planting specs are missing from the landscaping
plan. She stated that she would like to see the correction made to the planting style of the trees to
ensure the planting style from Mendota Plaza does not continue, as those trees are not doing well.
Commissioner Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for providing the additional information as she
finds it to be a much more complete plan. She stated that a focus of the last discussion was parking.
She stated that when she reviewed the additional parking information, the handicap accessible
stalls appear to be off. She noted that a total of eight handicap stalls are shown for Phase I. She
stated that she counted the non-handicap stalls and those are also off.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that there are 155 stalls and acknowledged that there was a miscount. She
stated that it is possible that there is a typo or two as they have made changes since July. She
stated that the numbers within the narrative are correct.
Commissioner Lorberbaum reiterated that the different plans and number of stalls do not match on
the different documents. She stated that she would love to see the spaces match the table.
Pete Keely with Collage Architects and for the applicant, stated that there are 155 stalls as opposed
to 157 stalls and 117 stalls as opposed to 118. He noted that some of the spaces that Commissioner
Lorberbaum may be seeing he may be using for mechanical devices.
Commissioner Lorberbaum hoped that would be more accurate when presented to the City
Council.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he believes there is an existing parking problem that could
conceivably get worse. He stated that if he is a resident and given the choice between renting an
additional space or parking in the giant surface lot, he would take his chances on the surface lot.
He stated that driving through the site there are sometimes 45 cars in front of the building. He
noted that vehicles are also parking on the dirt, road, and demarcated spots. He stated that he also
suspects that people are parking in the shopping center lot, as there are vehicles parking in front of
vacant tenant space at 5:30 a.m. He stated that he cannot wrap his head around the scenario where
spaces are counted towards the main allotment that would require an additional rent charge to be
paid. He stated that people could, and most likely would, choose not to use those rental spaces.
PC PACKET Pg. # 14
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 29
Ms. Stefaniak stated that most buildings charge for parking, but they provide an underground space
as a service to residents. She stated that the night there were 45 vehicles there was a parent hosting
a Saint Thomas homecoming dinner in the community space.
Commissioner Petschel stated that from what he has observed it is typical to see 37 to 40 vehicles
in the front lot.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not aware of residents parking in the commercial lot and has not
received complaints from Pastor or their tenants. She stated that tenants are required to register
their vehicles with the apartment, whether they have one or two vehicles. She reported a total of
193 registered vehicles and 223 interior stalls. She stated that some of this is a seasonal and
communication issue. She noted that in the summer, some people prefer to park outdoors. She
noted that in the winter, people do use the underground stalls. She stated that there was an instance
where a vehicle was parked in the dirt lot for a few days, explaining that was a unique situation
where a resident’s parents were being treated at the Mayo Clinic and parked their vehicle to be out
of the way. She stated that with the addition of Phase II, they would have additional surface stalls
that could be used by Phase I residents as well.
Commissioner Petschel commented that he feels that there is a parking problem. He stated that if
people are parking in the dirt or on the street, that is an issue, and those spaces cannot be used. He
agreed that the applicant was very transparent with their data, but that data enforces the
interpretation that there appears to be a parking problem.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that people park on the dirt because it has been undeveloped since 2016. She
stated that the development of the lot and providing additional striped stalls would alleviate that
problem.
Commissioner Petschel commented that the data the applicant provided looks accurate compared
to what he observed.
Lee Koppy, engineer for the applicant, referenced the impervious values that were shown in the
staff report, noting that those were incorrect. He stated that for Phase II, the numbers are correct,
but they did not compare those to the previous design numbers and compared that to the impervious
surface that exists today. He stated that gravel is considered impervious surface and therefore the
proposed development would reduce the impervious coverage for that lot. He stated that currently
the overall PUD has an impervious rate of 62.4 percent and noted that if both developments are
considered, the impervious percentage would then be 65.5 percent.
Ms. Stefaniak commented that there was a typo in what was presented by staff related to the lot
coverage and provided additional clarification.
Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, he referenced the project for Lot 7 and stated that
lot has been vacant for some time.
Chair Field noted that the Commission is considering the first request at this time and noted that
there would be time to provide input on the second request.
PC PACKET Pg. # 15
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 29
Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that at the last hearing comments were permitted in
respect to both sites simultaneously and asked if that pattern is being changed tonight.
Chair Field confirmed that the intent is to vote separately and therefore the comments should be
reflected separately.
Mr. Friel stated that most of the comments would apply to both requests and asked if the
Commission prefers to have residents repeat themselves.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are two different planning
applications, and the Commission could take those separately or accept public input at once.
Chair Field stated that if comments apply to both requests, those could be made once. He stated
that related to the last speaker, those comments were specific to the second request and should be
reserved for that discussion.
Mr. Friel commented that his comments apply to both requests. He noted that the comments of
Mr. Hanton will apply to traffic and applies to both requests.
Chair Field stated that those comments could then be made now and would apply to the second
request as well.
Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that two months ago he spoke about traffic and the problems
he believed the development may aggravate. He stated that he has since had a chance to test his
theories as there was a medical emergency at his home and it took about 15 minutes for the
ambulance to reach him home on a Sunday morning. He stated that because of the traffic styles
of the prime and secondary accesses for the project, he would be concerned with the traffic that
would be generated by this traffic and the health and safety concerns it would impose on the
community. He stated that he is concerned of those north of 62. He stated that people go by that
Dodd Road and 62 intersection whether they want to or not, and it is terrible. He commented on
the traffic studies that have been done and noted that several different companies have been
involved in the studies since 2008 and the resources those companies used. He stated that this
application is using materials for a project that never happened and the projected traffic numbers
mention a decrease compared to the project that never happened. He stated that the City’s
north/south study is not even mentioned, which showed the intersection of Dodd and 62 as an F,
failing, rating at that time. He stated that the Fire Department comments mention an Opticom
system but stated that system would not provide benefit because during times of traffic there is no
area for vehicles to move out of the way for an emergency vehicle.
Tamara Wills, 788 Hokah Avenue, stated that she shares similar concerns with the last speaker.
She stated that the residents do not feel that they are being heard on this matter. She stated that
the 2017 north/south mobility study is dated as many things have changed in the area since that
time. She referenced areas that were above the critical crash rate within the report with failing
ratings. She hoped that the City would learn from those changes, noting that there has been a lot
of building and more traffic. She stated that if traffic was bad then, she was unsure why the City
PC PACKET Pg. # 16
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 29
is not paying attention to those studies and numbers. She stated that the traffic alone should be
showing that this would not work. She appreciated that people buy parcels of land for
development, but that should not be at the cost of the safety and convenience of the residents. She
stated that she must use Dodd Road daily and hopes that the Commission considers traffic more
heavily than it has. She commented that MnDOT would not allow an exit on 62 from The Reserve
because traffic moves too fast and because of the proximity to the lights, therefore that would not
be allowed for these new developments. She commented that South Plaza Drive and Dodd would
then be the only options and those are already bad. She referenced a neighborhood meeting that
was held that had representatives from the County and MnDOT, at which time it was stated that
Dodd Road was not on their radar because they have higher priorities.
John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, also commented on the traffic on Dodd Road. He stated that
if another 800 vehicles are added to Dodd Road, the developer should be required to make
improvements. He stated that if traffic issues are caused by a development, the developer should
be required to make the necessary improvements. He stated that to add 800 vehicles per day to
Dodd Road without making improvements should not be allowed. He referenced the Phase II
development and stated that it seems that building this building near the 110 right-of-way would
change the character of 110 as there are no other buildings that close to the roadway. He stated
that this would seem to be maximizing what can be put on the site to maximize returns. He stated
that the Commission does not have to go along with what the developer wants and should instead
continue to focus on what the residents want and overall vision for the community is. He stated
that it is hard to believe this would be 51 percent impervious. He stated that at his lake place, the
gravel driveway is not considered impervious because it is not bituminous or concrete. He stated
that just because the site is gravel does not mean it was intended to stay gravel and therefore, he
was unsure why a comparison was provided as it is a vacant lot. He stated that there is a lot of
parking occurring on the street, on the vacant lot, in the parking facility, and in the commercial
area from residents of The Reserve. He stated that he drives by the facility every day and it occurs
daily.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for additional ideas for traffic improvement.
Mr. Maczko stated that developers have been required to add traffic control, additional lanes, and
other improvements that would support the proposed development. He stated that it is clear that
the development would place increased stress on the issue. He stated that the improvements are
typically a negotiation between the different entities. He stated that it is clear there is already a
traffic problem and adding 800 vehicles would not make it better. He stated that 62 and Dodd
Road already has Opticom.
Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that Opticom is being anticipated for 149 and 62, noting
that both are controlled by MnDOT. She stated that any improvements for Dodd Road are very
far down on the priority list for MnDOT. She stated that even if this would be needed, MnDOT
approval would be required and is not guaranteed. She stated that the Mendota Plaza guidelines
were used to support plan consistencies, but the setback set as a standard by McDonalds is not
being used for Phase II.
Chair Field asked if the setback from 62 has been changed from the original review.
PC PACKET Pg. # 17
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 29
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it has not been changed.
Chair Field asked that comments be focused on the additional information. He noted that many of
the speakers had an opportunity to speak at the last public hearing and the Commission received
those comments, therefore any comments tonight should focus on the new information provided
since that time.
Ms. Smith stated that the Fire Department previously required access behind the Phase II building
and asked if this is no longer needed and how that would impact those residents. She stated that
many of the items within the findings of fact are not facts and suggested the Commission review
those carefully. She stated that this development would have an impact far beyond Mendota Plaza
and asked the Commission to consider the impacts to the overall community.
Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, referenced the landscaping plan and comments of the Master
Gardener. She wanted to ensure that the model landscape ordinance is reviewed more carefully
from the standpoint of the developer. She stated that the current ordinance is very gray, and the
PUD allows the City to make additional requests. She would want to ensure that the GreenStep
Cities model is followed and that the plan of the Master Gardener is followed rather than the plan
proposed.
Kate Christianson, 2280 Ocala Court, stated that the traffic study completed in 2017 was well done
with facts and data. She stated that it includes a summary and conclusion with suggested
improvements. She believed that should be considered and the City should work with MnDOT
and implement those improvements before additional development is added.
Chair Field encouraged the residents to reach out to their State Representatives to push pressure
on MnDOT.
Ms. Christianson stated that the City should not make the situation more difficult for the residents.
Jim Losleben 815 Hazel Court, stated that he uses Dodd Road as the main route to leave his home
and the road is already overloaded. He commented that Dodd Road has serious problems with the
existing traffic and adding this amount of traffic would only make the situation worse. He stated
that he was a member of the City Council from 1973 through 1984, and in 1979 they had some
tough times with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to keep Mendota Heights spacious and
gracious. He commented that most people like to live in the community because it is an open
space area. He stated that four or five years ago, the City began to lose the spacious and gracious
attitude and is once again under pressure to give away that vision. He asked that the
Comprehensive Plan be used as a guide for new development with a focus on keeping existing
residents happy. He stated that because of the proximity to the Twin Cities, developers are
attracted to Mendota Heights and there will continue to be pressure placed upon the City. He
stated that Dodd Road is in trouble right now and encouraged the City to be cautious with the
traffic that is added.
PC PACKET Pg. # 18
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 29
Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the Commission is being asked to possibly
approve the revised proposal for these two buildings. He stated that the revised proposal does not
deserve serious consideration as it offers very little change from the August proposal. He
referenced the staff analysis and stated that he disagrees with some of the proposed findings of fact
for approval. He stated that a number of years ago the traffic rating for Dodd Road and 62 was an
F, which is the lowest grade you can receive. He referenced the findings of fact listed in the report
supporting denial and provided additional comments. He asked what rationale there could be for
the Commission to approve the revised project as there is no change from the original project. He
considered it to be an insult that the developer would bring back this “revised” proposal and
provides opportunity for denial. He did not believe the Commission has a choice other than
denying the request. He commented that he doubts that the developer would provide a plan that
would change the nature of the proposals.
Mr. Friel commented that he would prefer to hold his comments until the presentation is made for
the second case.
Chair Field stated that the Commission would most likely vote on this request prior to Mr. Friel’s
comments if he chooses to make his comments in that fashion.
Mr. Friel asked if the actions would be separated rather than making motions at the end of the
complete presentations.
Chair Field stated that he believes that is the expectation of the Commission.
Mr. Friel stated that he would make his comments at this time then. He stated that the staff report
mentions a five-year completion for the PUD, which was deleted and no longer governs
development activities within the PUD. He clarified that the project, not the PUD needed to be
completed by 2026. He noted at that time the apartment complexes were not contemplated and
therefore cannot be considered. He stated that the extension allowed time for the project and not
the PUD. He stated that the PUD appears no longer to be, withstanding the assertions of the
applicant, a 21-acre PUD as some land was sold. He stated that the tenants within the plaza have
not been made aware of the proposals, which he found unusual. He stated that he also found it
troubling that staff and the Commission are not understanding the terrible difficulty people in the
first section of Friendly Hills have accessing Dodd Road. He noted that those residents were also
not notified of this meeting and proposed development. He commented on the issues that exist in
terms of safety and traffic volumes on Dodd Road from the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated
that the developer has suggested that it is important to compare the traffic generated by what was
proposed in amendment six, the retail space, restaurant and childcare facility and was unsure why
that would be relevant to compare something that was not with something proposed. He stated
that there never was a plan for the size of the childcare facility, retail facility or restaurant and
there was not a plan for the parking that would be available. He stated that the only thing that was
approved by the City is amendment six, which was an agreement that those proposals could be
made but nothing was ever planned for or submitted. He stated that he has not heard a word of
how these projects benefit the people of Mendota Heights. He stated that it would appear that
these projects would only hurt the residents by making the traffic issues worse and would make
PC PACKET Pg. # 19
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 29
access to the shopping center even worse. He stated that he has comments with respect to the
second project when that presentation is provided.
Chair Field briefly recessed the meeting.
Chair Field reconvened the meeting.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that some residents brought up the north/south mobility study, which she also
mentioned. She stated that report used assumptions and modeling available at that time which
included the retail, restaurant and childcare uses as well as the Trammel-Crow project which was
larger than the Linden project. She stated that report highlighted that the most significant area of
concern was Dodd and Market Street, not Dodd and South Plaza Drive. She stated that using the
modeling and assumptions in that study, which were the higher and more intrusive uses, the results
are still valid as these would be less intensive uses. She stated that the recommendations were
made for a ten-year period rather than immediate needs. She stated that the report also considered
to be built scenarios that were outside of the control of the City, as the assumptions concluded that
Inver Grove Heights would be built out as would Vikings Lakes and both of those have not been
completed. She stated that MnDOT owns those roads and there would be time to address those
concerns over time as originally planned. She stated that she visited four times per day for two
weeks at peak times in order to obtain traffic counts as well as non-peak times. She stated that in
terms of requiring a developer to complete improvements, that applies to City owned roadways.
She stated that their plans were submitted to MnDOT and MnDOT chose not to opine on the
project. She stated that it is not their purview to tell MnDOT how to operate their roads. She
stated that the Opticom system exists and is located at South Plaza Drive. She stated that the Fire
Chief was commenting that it would be helpful to have a trigger closer to the door to trigger the
light. She stated that is not their responsibility, but they have been happy to participate in those
conversations. She stated that a resident mentioned the GreenStep program, but the City has not
developed its own ordinance of that manner. She stated that they have worked with the Master
Gardener and have implemented some of her suggestions, but others could not be due to utility
and underground water tank storage location. She noted that they would continue to work with
the Master Gardener throughout this process. She commented that she lives in Mendota Heights
and enjoys the community. She stated that she is not proposing to put apartments in a residential
neighborhood or on park property and is instead proposing this development in a business corridor
in order to complete the PUD and housing would be the best use. She stated that MnDOT objected
to the right-in/right-out access which limits the development opportunity for that parcel. She stated
that without that access housing becomes the highest and best use of the property. She stated that
they spoke about the mixed-use designation and 75 percent of that should be housing, which this
would achieve. She stated that these two parcels were identified in the Comprehensive Plan as
underutilized, and this proposal matches the goals of that plan. She stated that many residents of
The Reserve sent in supportive emails stating that they wanted this development and believes it
would complete the vision and be better than a dirt lot. She stated that business owners within the
Plaza would also like to see this development. She stated that details plan for the other proposes
uses were included in the 2009 amendment. She stated that they are requesting to change those
because market needs have changed. She stated that regardless of the ownership of the property
there is an overlying OEA that is encumbered against the entire PUD.
PC PACKET Pg. # 20
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 29
Commissioner Corbett provided clarification on the statement within the Comprehensive Plan
which states that undeveloped land proposed to develop mixed use is at 75 percent.
Ms. Stefaniak commented that these lots are undeveloped. She noted that the statement intent is
that of the undeveloped land, 75 percent of that should be housing.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked and received confirmation that there would be four handicap
stalls would be provided for each of the proposed buildings.
Seeing no one further 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: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Corbett referenced the Comprehensive Plan mixed use section that was discussed
along with tabled identifying the dwelling units within mixed use within the staff report. He stated
that he was confused on the language used and the related 75 percent. He stated that it seems to
be a discontinuity as the majority of the land is developed, and with other uses. He stated that the
math seems to be convenient in making the calculations work for mixed use and has concern with
the density as proposed.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this method was used consistently with
The Reserve.
Commissioner Corbett stated that his concern would be that the convenient math would continue
to compound the problem that already exists. He stated that if this is reviewed lot specifically and
not under the PUD, perhaps a different calculation should be used and that would still exceed the
dwelling units per acre. He commented that he does not believe that math to be appropriate.
Commissioner Katz stated that the original PUD includes language related to traffic impacts and
that access and exits to the mall could be adjusted if there are impacts to traffic. He stated that
there were specific requirements that stated if a traffic grade of such is issued, these specific
adjustments/improvements would be made. He noted that it appears those may have been lost
through the multiple amendments that have been made. He noted that the primary concern from
residents is related to traffic. He asked who would then pay for improvements if deemed necessary.
He understood that staff may be unable to answer his question tonight.
Commissioner Petschel asked staff for the best assessment of the traffic grade for Dodd and 62.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City’s north/south mobility study, completed
in 2018, showed a level of service at F for that intersection. He stated that the other intersections
along Dodd were identified in green. He stated that looking towards 2040, assuming other
PC PACKET Pg. # 21
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 29
communities build out, a number of intersections will go to a poor level of service. He stated that
the City continues to work with MnDOT as the study includes ideas for improvements. He stated
that the City would just need to continue to work with MnDOT to install improvements.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the original developer agreement dated March 31, 2008 a
degrading level of service D or worse was included, but amendment six stated an overall below
level of service F. She asked if an intersection could get below an F.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that F is the lowest level of service.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the 2016 amendment and asked how the below level of service
F would be obtained.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that the 2016 amendment mentioned the South Plaza
Drive and Dodd Road intersection. He stated that the level of service for Dodd Road and 62
existed before that 2016 amendment.
Commissioner Petschel stated that he commutes through this intersection twice per day and The
Plaza does not get credit for the southbound traffic as that is moving right or left on 62. He asked
the opinion of staff for the direction of traffic attributing to the poor level of service.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the southbound traffic for Dodd Road at 62
provides the worst level of service.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data determining where the northbound traffic is
originating.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is a streetlights program that could track cell
phone data, but he does not have that for Dodd Road. He stated that the City met with MnDOT in
early September and MnDOT received the feedback from the City and has been watching the
cameras. He provided details on the ques for northbound traffic, noting that all vehicles in the que
are able to make it through the first traffic light cycle.
Commissioner Toth commented that he uses Dodd Road, traveling from the south to the north and
has been in traffic behind Mendakota Park, taking 11 minutes to make it through the light, therefore
he questions that data.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that MnDOT has asked the Fire Department to provide
additional data on their observations and MnDOT would then review the cameras on those
dates/times.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he struggles with how this is framed. He stated that this is a
mixed-use PUD and asked how the appropriate levels of density and setbacks would be
determined. He stated that within City Code, it would appear the appropriate underlying zoning
standards should be applied for the use. He stated that using R-3, the square footage of units was
breeching with The Reserve and therefore the developers have consumed the residential footprint
PC PACKET Pg. # 22
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 29
for the site. He stated that when reviewing the mixed-use language within the Comprehensive
Plan it appears the numbers are made to work rather than reasonable. He recognizes the input on
traffic and noted that he does not experience that firsthand and therefore appreciates those
comments. He stated that the traffic backs up past the park every day. He appreciated the
comments of the developer comparing what could be versus what is proposed but the comments
should have focused on what exists and the current circumstances versus what is proposed. He
stated that traffic will increase and there was no plan to mitigate for that. He stated that this plan
relies on the City going outside of its ordinances and requirements requesting additional flexibility
in return for financial motivation. He believed that consideration should be put into the effort that
was put into creating ordinance and guidance for development by previous Councils and residents.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2021-12 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR
THE REASONS HE SPECIFIED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE HAS NO
PROBLEMS WITH APARTMENTS OR THE DENSITY. HE STATED THAT THE
ENTIRETY OF THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF DENSITY BECAUSE
THIS IS PHASED DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS HIS LARGEST
CONCERN AND IT IS ALREADY HORRIBLE. HE STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
MANY TIMES HE HAS SAT THROUGH THREE LIGHT CYCLES. HE STATED THAT HE
CANNOT IMAGINE MAKING THAT TRAFFIC WORSE AND HE CANNOT IMAGINE A
WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT MAKE IT WORSE. HE STATED THAT
ULTIMATELY, HE BELIEVES THESE APARTMENTS SHOULD BE BUILT, BUT THE
INTERSECTION HAS TO BE FIXED FIRST.
COMMISSIONER TOTH AGREED THAT HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
BUT HE HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT IF A BETTER PLAN CAN BE REACHED TO
ADDRESS TRAFFIC, THEN THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED. HE STATED THAT THERE
IS ALREADY A CONCERN WITH HOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN MANEUVER
THROUGH THE TRAFFIC. HE STATED THAT THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO WORK WITH
THE DEVELOPER AND HOPEFULLY PROPOSE SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE
INTERSECTION.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ECHOED THE COMMENTS MADE. SHE THANKED
THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS
AND MADE COMMENTS. SHE AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS RELATED TO
SETBACKS, DENSITY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT
THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND BELIEVED A
SOLUTION COULD BE FOUND THAT IS LESS DENSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE
DECISION MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HEARS THE CONCERNS OF THE
RESIDENTS AND SHARES THAT CONCERN. SHE STATED THAT WHEN THEY
LOOKED AT SPLITTING THE TWO REQUESTS, SHE HAS CONCERNS WITH DENSITY,
PC PACKET Pg. # 23
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 29
SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SHE
COMMENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE
THIS PHASE MORE APPEALING TO THE RESIDENTS BY USING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND WORKING WITH MNDOT TO DO THAT. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS PLEASED
TO SEE A 2.0 RATIO FOR PARKING FOR THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS
MUCH HAPPIER WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN
THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS MANY MORE CONCERNS WITH PHASE III.
SHE COMMENTED THAT THIS PHASE WOULD ADD SOME TO THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT
IS ONLY 58 UNITS. SHE BELIEVED THE CITY SHOULD WORK DILIGENTLY WITH
MNDOT AND REVIEW OPTIONS WITH OPTICOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH
TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT IN HER MIND, SHE WAS OKAY MOVING FORWARD
WITH THIS PHASE.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT TO SOME EXTENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WILL PUSH
MNDOT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 2 (Johnson and Fields)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that 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 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 purposes of this combined application
submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7) and is generally located 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.
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 reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take.
Chair Field reopened the public hearing.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that given the conversations they have already had, she will stand for
questions. She stated that the supplemental information they provided applies to this request as
well.
PC PACKET Pg. # 24
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 29
Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the plan it appears a ratio of 1.76 for parking for a
total of 155 stalls. She stated that when reviewing the traffic circulation, on the west side of the
building there is no yellow or red lines, only traffic. She asked why a sidewalk was not proposed.
Pete Keely - architect, stated that the reasoning is based on the connections. He stated that the
access is on the east side with another access on the east and both of those would have sidewalks.
He stated that those accesses would connect to the sidewalk and then to a sidewalk to the shopping
center. He noted that the west side has a parking ramp.
Commissioner Johnson commented on the walkability of the entire PUD and believed that would
be the shortest path of resistance. She believed people would walk in that street.
Mr. Keely replied that they could include a sidewalk.
Commissioner Johnson asked if that could be fit in without modifying the landscaping.
Mr. Keely replied that the landscaping would need to be moved in that area in order to
accommodate additional sidewalk.
Commissioner Johnson provided clarity on the actual percentage of native plantings, which would
be 52 percent.
Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, stated that he studied this application with friends,
and they found this to be wholly noncompliant in terms of the unit square footage, density, and
building and setbacks. He also commented on issues with parking and traffic. He commented that
this is an excessive development and the allocation for residential development within the Plaza
was already filled through The Reserve. He asked the Commission to carefully consider the lot
line boundaries for Lot 7.
Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, referenced the area behind the Plaza building, which she assumed
is for employee parking but noted that those stalls are identified and included within the apartment
count. She also provided comments related to open space and greenspace, noting that the building
could be smaller to accomplish that goal.
John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that he understands that the whole idea is to create a
mixed-use PUD, but it is developed piecemeal. He stated that when he looks at this, he cannot
help but think of how this is being individually rather than as a whole. He acknowledged that the
market desires have changed. He referenced the development across the street that was built as a
whole unit with places for people to go and with open space for recreation. He stated that this is
concentrated residential development on a portion of the property, and it is not walkable. He stated
that every available piece of property is being used, reducing setbacks, and decreasing greenspace.
He commented that the density does not match with the vision people had to make that happen.
He stated that the setbacks proposed are too tight and are dramatic compared to the original
concept. He stated that this is a maximization of what can be developed rather than thinking of
people that will live there or use the space. He stated that parking is an issue and employees use
the parking behind the Plaza. He did not believe there is enough vision to put this in. He
PC PACKET Pg. # 25
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 29
commented that when you continue to deviate from the plan and piecemeal development, it
deviates from the original vision. He stated that people have a right to develop property, but it has
to be within the vision for what the community is rather than the availability of what developers
want. He stated that the longer-term vision does not play out with this proposal that puts buildings
on every inch of the property, exceeding density, in order to maximize profits. He stated that there
is a reason people come to Mendota Heights and want to live here, and it is not because they
develop every square inch. He stated that this would take exception from every ordinance in order
to make this fit and the residents deserve better than this.
Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, referenced the size of the parcel and property lines. He stated
that it appears the two acres includes half the private drive, all of the alley, the parking on the south
side of the alley, and all of South Plaza Way. He stated that it seems to utilize parts of the PUD
that have already been used to support other portions of the PUD in order to provide additional
size on this parcel. He stated that if the delivery access to the Plaza and employee parking would
be lost to this development as presented. He stated that he also has concern with the density and
parking issues already addressed.
Ms. Stefaniak stated that the PUD does allow for accommodations to the underlying zoning code.
She stated that the deviations from various zoning code applications are not different or uncommon
from other PUD developments. She stated that the Code was written in 1980 and the size of the
units was considered in 1980, while apartment trend development has changed since that time.
She stated that the deviations requested are similar to The Reserve which was a collaborative
process through the developer, Commission and City Council. She stated that also applies to two
other recent apartment developments. She stated that she is more sensitive to greenspace because
this would be for her residents. She stated that the residents at The Reserve appreciate the
greenspace and amenities that are provided. She stated that they would not develop a building
where they want people to live without providing the necessary amenities. She stated that the
parking stalls employees currently use for the Plaza are on Lot 7. She stated that she cannot speak
of how the strip mall will parks its employees when Lot 7 develops but noted there is ample parking
in front of the Plaza.
Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he grew up in Mendota Heights and lived on Douglas
Road prior to City Hall being constructed in this location. He stated that he has sat patiently and
has not been happy with the way the night has gone. He commented on the changes and expansion
of the strip mall throughout the years noting that he and his father before him working
cooperatively with the City on the project during that time. He stated that he is open to the
comments from the residents. He stated that he is a long-term owner of the Plaza and is not just
interested in financial gain or the return on investment. He commented on his involvement in the
Plaza and community which shows they are committed to the communities and neighborhoods
they invest in and are interested in making more livable and enjoyable developments. He believed
that this is a unique and rare opportunity to be able to look at the Plaza and have a vision they have
worked with the City to create. He stated that the vision has somewhat changed, as the market
conditions have changed. He stated that they took a guess in 2016 and discovered the market was
not there to support that change. He stated that part of being a retail and commercial developer is
that you can create unique places that bring people together and allow them to congregate. He
commented on the businesses that have been a part of the development throughout the years. He
PC PACKET Pg. # 26
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 27 of 29
commented that perhaps he should have spoken during the first review in August. He noted that
positive comments that have been received via telephone and email. He stated that as a long-term
owner he looks at the Plaza to determine what could be made to make the area to most attractive
and bring people in. He stated that in today’s world, more density adds more vibrancy and energy
to an area which is critical to retail in today’s world. He noted that the retail sector has been
challenged even before COVID because of the introduction of Amazon into that market. He stated
that Mendota Heights is much stronger is the retail node at 110 and Dodd is as strong as possible,
and density is required in order to make that strong. He stated that perhaps the mindset is shifted
to consider that area as a downtown where people can come together. He acknowledged that many
have a perspective that they do not want to see change and that the land should stay open. He
stated that while everyone appreciates open space, things become denser in a first ring suburb. He
believed that the PUD allows this flexibility. He stated that today is a different world than 2009
when the initial PUD was approved. He asked everyone on the Commission how they are shopping
differently and visiting restaurants differently than they did in 2009. He ventured that those
experiences are pretty different, and those things should be considered when thinking about the
vision for Mendota Plaza and what is appropriate. He commented that they are a quality developer,
which is reflective in their work not only in this development but in others throughout the metro.
He acknowledged that change is hard, especially in a community where things have remained the
same for a long time. He believed that the proposal from At Home would increase the housing
stock and provide people to come to Mendota Heights as a renters, which is a good thing and
would be a good thing for the retailers in the shopping center as well. He stated that if they want
to continue to maintain the existing retailers and fill the vacancy, they will need additional density
to support that. He stated that he was involved with the PUD in 2009 and he thinks it was a great
disservice to include the calculation related to vacant lots and should have been sorted out ahead
of time to make that calculation clear. He stated that there is no question that traffic is a problem,
noting that it was a problem in 2009 when they began working on the PUD and the intersection
was rated a D. He stated that this development is not what is causing the traffic grade and that is
an unreasonable standard. He noted that traffic is already at a level F. He noted that they are open-
minded as to how that can be fixed, but it should be fair and reasonable. He believed they should
be treated as an equal partner, and they should be able to make this work in a reasonable manner.
He apologized if his frustration shown through but noted that this is important to him and this is
important to the future of Mendota Plaza.
Commissioner Corbett referenced the language that was used in terms of the previous amendments
being “bad guesses” and commented that he would want to ensure that this was not another bad
guess.
Mr. Pastor stated that what he referred to was that in 2009 and again in 2016 they could not just
leave parcels blank and therefore they planned for childcare, a restaurant and drive-thru coffee.
He stated that prior to 2016 they included office and retail, which was somewhat of a guess based
on the market. He stated that there is not always a retailer or proposal for those spaces. He stated
that the difference is that today there is a viable proposal for viable uses on the two remaining lots
rather than a guesstimate on what could be on those parcels.
PC PACKET Pg. # 27
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 28 of 29
Commissioner Corbett commented that there have been a lot of amendments since 2009. He noted
that times will change again in another two years and therefore the use has to be considered in the
immediate timeframe as well as the future.
Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that Pastor Properties has been a long-term community
leader hosting many public events. She hoped that Mr. Pastor heard that many of the
Commissioners believe there is a way to get to the desired result, but changes would be necessary.
She stated that there was not a no to the concept, but to this plan.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-13 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT AS WELL AS THE REASONS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THE POINTS HE
MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS CASE APPLY TO A HIGHER DEGREE ON THIS
PROPOSAL AS THIS IS A MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE APPRECIATES MR. PASTOR’S
INTENSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT HE
DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DENSITY AND DOES NOT EXPECT THAT THE
ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE RAZED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH
WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THE SAME THING WITH THE SAME DENSITY AS IT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE PROJECT. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT
KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION COULD DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC
WORSE IN GOOD CONSCIOUS. HE AGREED THAT MNDOT HAS TO DO SOMETHING
BUT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE “IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME” PLAN AND
BELIEVES THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE SOLVED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDED.
HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PLAN, ONLY WITH THE IMPACT
THIS WOULD HAVE ON A SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY BAD IN TERMS OF
TRAFFIC.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAD MORE CONCERNS ON THIS
PHASE DUE TO THE DENSITY AND PARKING. SHE COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD
LOVE TO SEE A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PASTOR. SHE STATED
THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE 2 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT WITH A SIDEWALK
TO MAKE IT MORE USABLE AND WALKABLE, WHILE KEEPING THE GREENSPACE.
SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOWER DENSITY WITH BETTER
SETBACKS.
PC PACKET Pg. # 28
October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 29 of 29
COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 22
YEARS AND PASTOR PROPERTIES BRINGS RESIDENTS TOGETHER THROUGH THEIR
BONFIRE. HE STATED THAT HE HOPES THAT THEY COULD COME TOGETHER AND
WORK TOGETHER, THE CITY, PASTOR PROPERTIES, AND MNDOT AND FIND
SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK FOR EVERYONE. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS THE
BIGGEST ISSUE IN HIS MIND. HE THANKED MR. PASTOR FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE
FOR THE CITY.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Field)
New/Unfinished Business
No comments.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:43 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
PC PACKET Pg. # 29
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday,
November 10, 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, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent:
None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2021-18
ERIK AND SARAH IVERSON, 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST – WETLANDS
PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Iverson’s are seeking approval
of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flagstone fire pit and patio, a walkout entry
patio, retaining walls, steps, grading and landscaping work, along with some tree pruning and
removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed an
“after-the-fact” due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was held at the October 24, 2021 regular meeting,
where this item was tabled to the next meeting. Hearing notices were published and re-mailed to
all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with
conditions.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there is an ordinance limiting the height of a retaining wall.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is not such guidance outside of
the critical area.
Commissioner Lorberbaum referenced the pollinator friendly policy which is noted in the staff
report and stated that she had difficulty finding the policy.
PC PACKET Pg. # 30
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this policy was adopted in 2016, prior
to his arrival. He was unsure if it is available on the website. He stated that any new development
is encouraged to use pollinator friendly and/or native plantings.
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it would be nice if that information is made available on
the website.
Commissioner Petschel noted that while it is recommended, it is not required by policy.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that it is encouraged but not required.
Commissioner Petschel stated that perhaps condition five should be adjusted.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that is the typical language used for that
condition, but the language could be modified.
Commissioner Petschel commented that the Commission cannot give the City power it does not
have.
Commissioner Katz referenced the silt sock and asked if those are permanent or just through
construction.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it is used during construction and until
the yard is established to prevent silt runoff.
Commissioner Katz asked if berms are ever encouraged as a natural barrier for this type of
property.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the City does not prefer berms as that
can prevent the proper flow of water. He stated that the applicants have agreed not to disturb the
buffer area.
Commissioner Johnson stated that a double row silt fence is mentioned in the conditions, while
the applicant’s narrative suggests use of silt sock.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he spoke with other City staff, and they
believe the socks work better than the fencing. He stated that the language in the condition could
be modified to state, redundant silt protection measures.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Sarah Iverson, applicant, thanked the Commission for holding a special meeting to reconsider this
application. She also thanked staff for their assistance throughout this process. She commented
that the grading information has been provided. She stated that they also added three more trees
to the proposed landscaping plan, although that is not required. She stated that the lot continues
to be heavily wooded, and they are attempting to find balance between greenspace and the wooded
PC PACKET Pg. # 31
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8
area. She stated that the two rock spills will come out of the base of the north retaining wall and
provided additional details. She stated that they only cleared out two dead trees from the buffer
area and are committed to leaving that area be as it is.
Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicants for removing the buckthorn and being good
stewards. She stated that while she feels that the applicants will continue be good stewards, she
still has questions on the plan. She asked the distance from the rock wall to the pond edge, that
she did not notice on the plan.
Tim Johnson, contractor representing the applicant, stated that distance is about 50 feet.
Commissioner Johnson asked what else would happen below the rock wall in terms of ground
cover or plantings.
Mr. Johnson replied that area would stay as is as they are not working in that area. He stated that
other than the dead tree removal, they have not done work in that area. He noted that most of that
area is mulch or eroded soils. He explained how the wall would be constructed.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would be willing to plant a native mix from the
buffer to the wall area.
Mrs. Iverson stated that after the buckthorn removal they noticed additional plant growth. She
stated that it would be difficult to access that area for maintenance after the wall is completed.
Commissioner Johnson stated that area looked bare when she visited the site. She asked for details
on the types of plant growth.
Mr. Johnson commented that this is the fall season and noted that he provided photos from the
summer when the area was lusher. He stated that the applicants desire a minimum landscape and
do not want to add additional things that would need to be maintained in an area they are not
disturbing.
Commissioner Johnson stated that if some type of ground cover is not added, that will return to
invasive species.
Mrs. Iverson commented that buckthorn removal is a process and would feel fruitless planting
something that may be overrun with buckthorn.
Commissioner Johnson asked for details on the rock spill.
Mr. Johnson stated that the property currently has downspout collections made from landscaping
tile. He noted that one spout is pointed towards a neighboring property and that would be
redirected to the proper path. He stated that the rock spills would help to slow the rate of runoff.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the rate of flow would be slowed enough to hit the rock spill and
then slowly move to the other areas.
PC PACKET Pg. # 32
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8
Mr. Johnson confirmed that is the intention. He noted that currently flows from the retaining wall
towards the neighboring property, with nothing to slow it down. He stated that they need to protect
the natural area of the pond, but also need to protect the retaining wall and integrity of the wall, as
well as protect the neighboring home.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the light grey area on the plan is trap rock.
Mr. Johnson confirmed that decorative rock would be used in those areas. He stated that they are
replacing that material that already exists and are attempting to protect the trees they are attempting
to save.
Commissioner Johnson asked if shrubs and other things will be planted.
Mrs. Johnson confirmed they are intending to place additional plantings on the property.
Commissioner Johnson asked if any other ground cover or trees are planned in the area shown in
white.
Mr. Iverson commented that area is already heavily treed.
Mr. Johnson noted that area is not being worked on.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the contractor is familiar with the prevention measures for
invasive jumping worm.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is not.
Commissioner Johnson provided additional details on that process.
Commissioner Corbett thanked the applicant for coming back with an updated plan. He referenced
the comment of Commissioner Johnson that the plan misses the water line and asked the applicable
requirement of the City that would apply to that.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the wetlands permit requires a detailed plan.
Commissioner Petschel stated that the Commission has typically accepted Google Earth images
provided in the packet to satisfy the 500 feet.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he was simply wondering where the ordinance requirement was
for that element.
Commissioner Johnson stated that because it is a wetlands permit, she would want to know what
is being done to the wetland, in items F and H.
PC PACKET Pg. # 33
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she welcomes the residents to Mendota Heights and
recognizes that they were not aware of the regulations when they purchased the property. She
stated that sharing the requirements in the newsletter would help advise residents of the
requirements. She stated that there was mention that the landscape plan is not complete, but the
Commission would need the plan to be complete in order to make a recommendation. She noted
that if this is the completed plan, additional items could be added in the future. She asked if the
landscape plan is complete.
Mr. Iverson replied that the plan is complete, and this item was added to the agenda because staff
deemed the application complete.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he would assume the applicants met with staff following the
previous meeting and asked what was given as guidance for the updates to the application.
Mrs. Iverson stated that she re-watched the meeting to use the questions and concerns as items that
needed to be addressed. She stated that staff also provided assistance.
Commissioner Corbett stated that he is simply attempting to find out where the gap is, which is
why the Commission is holding a second meeting for an application.
Jim Neuharth, 2450 Pond Circle East, commented that he was unable to attend the previous
meeting. He stated that he was one of the first to move into the development and paid a premium
in order to have the wooded lot near the pond. He provided background information on the work
he has completed on his property, with the proper permitting, along with his work with wetlands
during his retirement. He stated that he is concerned that the demolition work began before the
applicable permit was received. He was also concerned with shade trees that were removed
between the properties and with potential damage that could occur to trees near the property line.
He stated that perhaps he should have been more proactive with the applicants about making them
aware of the proper permitting that was necessary. He stated that he would also like to see a
notification process that addresses new residents near wetlands along with existing residents to
spread education about the protected areas.
Joe Slater, 2464 Pond Circle East, stated that he and his wife love living in the City and hope the
same for the Iverson’s. He stated that his complaint is with the City and the process that was not
followed. He believed that this process is much better than what occurred at the last meeting. He
hoped that the Iverson’s can make the desired improvements, following the parameters of the
City’s ordinances and regulations.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the contractor to address the concern mentioned with the oak
trees.
Mr. Johnson stated that they brought in an arborist before the project started and have treated those
trees to help them recover from the construction stress. He stated that when utilized
preconstruction, the success rate is great. He stated that they would minimize any construction
street over the top of the roots to the extent possible. He noted that if the wall is not replaced, that
PC PACKET Pg. # 34
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8
will fall and cause additional damage. He provided additional details on the construction process
that would be followed.
Commissioner Toth asked the distance of the equipment to the oak trees mentioned.
Mr. Johnson provided additional details on how the equipment would work to replace the wall.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST, WHICH WOULD ALLOW
CERTAIN BACKYARD IMPROVEMENTS AND TREE/VEGETATION REMOVAL AND
REPLACEMENT WITHIN 100 FEET OF A WETLAND, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. ANY NEW REMOVALS, EXCAVATING, GRADING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE NEW BACKYARD IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING
THE FIREPIT PATIO, RETAINING WALLS, STAIRS, AND PATHS, SHALL BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT.
2. FULL EROSION/SEDIMENT MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE
DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. A DOUBLE ROW OF SILT
FENCE WITH SUITABLE FABRIC MATERIAL OR OTHER EROSION MEASURES
APPROVED BY THE CITY’S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MUST BE IN PLACE
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION OR
REMOVALS. EROSION BARRIER SHALL BE PLACED ALONG THE OUTER
EDGES OF THE SIDE YARDS, AND THE LOWER EDGE NEAR THE POND
BUFFER.
3. THE APPLICANT/OWNER SHALL NOT REMOVE ANY TREES OR VEGETATION,
NOR PERFORM ANY UNNECESSARY GRADING OR DISTURBANCE TO THE 25
FOOT WETLAND BUFFER AREA.
4. IF ANY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WORK, OR AREAS INSIDE OR BEYOND
THIS BUFFER EDGE (FROM THE NEW BACK WALL TO THE POND EDGE) NEED
TO BE DISTURBED, EXCEPT FOR THE PLANTINGS OF NEW
TREES/VEGETATION, THE OWNER MUST CONTACT CITY STAFF PRIOR TO
COMMENCING ANY WORK, AND REPAIR AND REPLANT ANY DISTURBED
PC PACKET Pg. # 35
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8
AREAS WITH SUITABLE PLANTINGS AND MATERIALS PER DIRECTION OF
THE CITY’S NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN.
5. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ANY NEW TREE OR LANDSCAPING MATERIAL
USED UNDER THIS APPROVED PLAN MUST MEET THE CITY’S LIST OF
NATIVE PLANTINGS AND POLLINATOR FRIENDLY TREES AND VEGETATION.
6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED, PROTECTED AND PERMANENT
GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BACKYARD IMPROVEMENTS
HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
7. ANY NEW SITE CONSTRUCTION OR REMOVAL SHALL OCCUR ONLY
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. WEEKDAYS; AND 9:00 A.M.
TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAS
CONCERN WITH THE ALREADY DISTURBED AREAS AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE
DISTURBED AREAS BELOW THE ROCK WALL REPLACED WITH NATIVE
PLANTINGS. SHE NOTED THAT ERODED SOIL WILL GO INTO THE POND.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF
VEGETATION AND THE BUFFER EXISTS. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD BE FINE
WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION BUT WOULD NOT MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SUGGESTED A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
APPLICANT WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN TO REVIEW THE OPEN
GROUND AREAS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT REVEGETATING THOSE AREAS.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AGREED THAT HE LIKES THAT AS A
RECOMMENDATION. HE STATED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE INTENT, THAT IF
THAT AREA IS LEFT BLANK, SOMETHING WILL EVENTUALLY GROW THERE AND
MOST LIKELY WOULD BE BUCKTHORN. HE STATED THAT IT IS NOT A
REQUIREMENT THOUGH.
CHAIR FIELD CONFIRMED THAT THE MOTION MAKER AND SECONDER ACCEPT
THAT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT REFERENCED THE USE OF DISTURBED LAND AND
STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT AREA WAS NOT TOUCHED BY
THE APPLICANTS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AGREED SHE INITIALLY USED THAT TERM BUT
REPLACED THAT LANGUAGE WITH BARE GROUND.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI PROVIDED SUGGESTED
LANGUAGE THE COMMISSION COULD USE.
PC PACKET Pg. # 36
November 10, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT SHE WANTED TO INCLUDE THE
OPEN SOIL AREAS IN ADDITION TO THE DISTURBED AREAS. SHE STATED THAT
SHE WOULD ALSO WANT REFERENCE TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICIAN
BECAUSE OF HER PLANT EXPERTISE.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI AGAIN REVIEWED THE
LANGUAGE PROPOSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION. IT WAS
CONFIRMED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE AN OBLIGATION.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE SUPPORTS SOME DIRECTION BUT
NOTED THAT THE APPLICANTS CANNOT BE FORCED TO DO ACTION ON AN AREA
THEY HAVE NOT DISTURBED.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM REFERENCED THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THOSE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND TRUE
STATEMENTS. HE EXPLAINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORT THE
MOTION.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 16, 2021
meeting.
B) DISCUSSION OF CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEETINGS/EVENTS
CALENDAR YEAR 2022
Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the 2022 meetings and event calendar.
Staff and the Commission discussed any dates that may vary from the typical schedule.
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
• A ruling was made by the First Judicial Court related to the Culligan case and reported that
the City did not prevail. The City is meeting with the representatives from the League of
Minnesota Cities to determine the proper next steps.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
PC PACKET Pg. # 37
Planning Staff Report
DATE:December 28, 2021
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2021-22
MRCCA-CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
APPLICANT:Michael & Theresa Swiggum
PROPERTY ADDRESS:796 Sibley Memorial Highway
ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:February 2, 2022
INTRODUCTION
The Swiggum’s are seeking approval of a new Miss. River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to
construct a new single-family dwellingonproperty, located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway. The property
is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published
in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property.
The city has not received any objection or comments related to this application.
BACKGROUND
The subject lot is legally described as Lot 6,
Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08
acres. The lot is rectangular and somewhat
narrow in shape, and extends towards the back
wooded bluff area by approximately 610-feet in
depth (see aerial image – right).
The westerly half-section of subject site is fairly
level with even grades coming off Sibley
Memorial Highway, but the property begins a
dramatic upward slope towards the back half of
the property, going form 810 feet to roughly 860
feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded
with a variety of mature trees, along with some
sections of volunteer and invasive vegetation
(buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered
throughout the site.
PC PACKET Pg. # 38
Planning Case #2021-22 (Swiggum) Page 2
The property is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential zone, and is in the SR - Separated by River
district within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District. This is an existing lot of
record, which has been vacant for a few years.
In 2017, a local developer/contractor submitted application for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use
Permit on the subject property, which at that time contained an existing two-story, 3,432 sq. ft. single-
family dwelling that straddled the two parcels, owned (then) by James Hanson. The City Council later
adopted Resolution No. 2017-58 (08/01/2017), which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to the
developer authorizing the demolition and removal of the old Hanson home; minor grading and leveling
work, and some limited vegetation removal on the two lots. Most of this preliminary work was to prepare
the two parcels for two new house pads to be designed and constructed by the developer/contractor.
The following year, and upon a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission at the February
18, 2018 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolutions Nos. 2018-23 and 24 (03/18/2018) approving two
additional critical area permits to the original developer/contractor, which would have allowed for two new
single family homes to be built on each lot at 796 Sibley Memorial Hwy. and 1224 Wachtler Avenue. The
developer/contractor later elected not to build the new homes, and the lots went back on the marker for sale.
The now vacant 1224 Wachtler Avenue lot was later purchased by the homeowners to the south (who wish
to keep it undeveloped at this time); while the Swiggum family purchased the remaining lot to build their
new home, and have been waiting for the new MRCCA Ordinance to be adopted in order to proceed with
their new home development.
The new Swiggum Residence will be new 1.5 story, modern architecture designed dwelling, with an
attached 3-car garage, and consisting of over 5,019 sq. ft. of building area (see image – below).
The old home and driveway was calculated with 7,861-sq. ft. of impervious area; while the new home and
adjusted bituminous (driveway) areas are shown with 6,301 sq. ft. of impervious area, which is a reduction
of 1,560-sq. ft. of hard surfaced areas from old vs. new.
The survey/site plan calls for the home to have a front setback of over 100-ft. from SMH; 14.72-ft. from
the north (side) lot line, 10-ft. from the south (side) lot line, and well over 400-ft. from the back /rear line.
The plans call for the additional removal of a four (4) trees on the site, which include two 10” maples, one
16” maple and one 10” ash.
The grading plan calls for drainage around and away from the new home structure, which is intended to be
directed out near the front towards Sibley Highway; while most of the rear yard area will be drained further
into the back of the lot and towards a new drainage basin/rain-garden like feature behind the new home.
PC PACKET Pg. # 39
Planning Case #2021-22 (Swiggum) Page 3
The survey/site plans show a small are of “Slopes Greater than 18%” – but this area is not affected or will
be impacted by this new construction or removal of the nearby old bituminous driveway material.
ANALYSIS
Critical Are Permit
As the Planning Commission is aware, with the recent 2040 Comprehensive Plan update, the city included
a new Chapter 11 – Miss. River Corridor Critical Area Plan. This plan set the beginning stages for the City
of Mendota Heights to update its own Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance found under City Code Title
12-3-1. On September 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 568, which essentially replaced
old Title 12-3-1 with a new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District ordinance.
The new ordinance provides for new rules and standards for new developments, which may include a Site
Plan, Land Alteration and Vegetation Management permit.
Per Code Sect. 12-3-12, the site plan must include a detailed survey, location of any existing and proposed
structures, existing and proposed contours; a new stormwater management plan; descriptions of soils and
types; a tree removal and landscape (replacement) plan, and other features. The Survey/Site Plan must also
include the location of any bluffs or steep sloped areas, which may include any Bluff Impact Zones (BIZ)
or Shore Impact Zones (SIZ) on the lot. The plan must also identify or map out any Significant Vegetative
Stands, Vegetation Restoration Priority Areas or Native Plant Communities.
This subject property does contain a bluff identified on the survey/site plans, which is situated on the far
reaches of the lot. The new home is setback approximately 180-feet from the line identified where “Slopes
Greater than 18%” begin, and almost 300-ft. from where the “Toe of Bluff Line” is identified.
Due to the readily available space for development along the front half of the lot; the fact the front half is
fairly level and does not contain any slopes greater than 18%; and since the bluff line and bluff impact
zone(BIZ) are far enough away from the home, makes this front section of the parcel ideal for this type of
small, residential development in the MRCCA. Although the city’s mapping identifies Significant
Vegetative Stands, Vegetation Restoration Priority Areas or Native Plant Communities adjacent to the
property, these areas are situated primarily on the bluff areas along the rear area of this parcel and other
surrounding properties. The plans clearly shows this bluff area and significant areas will not be impacted
or affected by any construction activities associated with the new home or other related site improvements.
As stated previously, the plans call for the removal of a four (4)trees on the site. The plans noted that up
to twenty (20) “high-value” trees were inventoried in and around the proposed construction or disturbed
areas, meaning 16 will be saved under this new plan. The plans further note tree replacement will take
place after the home is constructed. Staff will ensure any new tree or vegetation will meet or comply with
Native Plantings List or comply with Pollinator Friendly policy of the city.
The construction of this new residential dwelling will comply with all standards and regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant must demonstrate the development of this site will not impact
neighboring residential properties, and must ensure that proper and positive drainage is maintained during
and after construction of the new home.
The Applicants have submitted a detailed Grading Plan and Hydrology Plan, which includes information
on soils, soil types, and proposed drainage features and their related calculations. The city’s Public Works
Director/City Engineer has reviewed these plans and does not have any additional comments or
recommendations on these plans.
City staff feels this Survey and Site Plan submitted under this new MRCCA/Critical Area Permit appears
to be in order; and the information provided is complete and appears to be accurate and acceptable for on-
PC PACKET Pg. # 40
Planning Case #2021-22 (Swiggum) Page 4
site storm management under this proposed land development. Final grading and development plans will
be reviewed as part of the future building permit process.
For all intents and purposes, approving this critical area permitand allowing construction of this new single-
family dwelling at this location should have little, if any effect upon the Mississippi River Critical Area or
the surrounding neighborhood and environment.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
Under the MRCCA Ordinance, the city is required to give Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) and the
National Park Service (NPS) at least 20-day notice of any new MRCCA-Critical Area Permit application
requests. These notices were emailed (12/09/2021) directly to the appropriate staff; and the City received
replies from both reviewing agencies indicting no issues, comments or recommendations as part of this
MRCCA application.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, which would
allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed
project is compliant with the policies and standards of the MRCCA Overlay District and City Zoning
Code standards, with certain conditions; or
2. Deny the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the
revised or amended findings-of-fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of
City Code as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the site
plan for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance
with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 796 Sibley Memorial Highway
(Alternative No. 1), with the following conditions:
1. A building permit, including all new grading and drainage work, must be approved by the City of
Mendota Heights prior to the commencement of any new construction work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
4. Any new tree or landscaping materials provided on this site must meet the city’s list of Native
Plantings and Pollinator Friendly trees and vegetation.
5. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
6. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and
permanent ground cover immediately after the dwelling project is completed.
PC PACKET Pg. # 41
Planning Case #2021-22 (Swiggum) Page 5
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
MRCAA -Critical Area Permit
for
796 Sibley Memorial Highway
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed single-family dwelling project meets the general purpose and intent of the new
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Overlay District.
2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new single-family dwelling is deemed
minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Overlay District.
3. The proposed single family dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The overall construction of this proposed residential home will comply with all standards and
regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and Zoning Ordinance
and other applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; fits well with the current
developed character of the neighborhood; and will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
PC PACKET Pg. # 42
774
1275
788
796
1268
1256
782
1238
1223
1232
1316
1284
1300
1312
1297
1291
1220
746
1235
740
745
1308
1245
1309
754
1294
741
1320
736
131313161321
739
739
WACHTLER AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL H
WY
KNOLLWO OD LNME
DO
R
A
R
D
KN
O
L
L
W
O
O
D
C
T
796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN
MRCCA MAP
City of
Mendota
Heights0190
SCALE IN FEET
Legend
MRCCA Districts
CA-RN
CA-ROS
CA-RTC
CA-SR
Water
MRCCA Bluff Impact Zone
Municipal Boundary
Water
Date: 12/6/2021
PC PACKET Pg. # 43
35E494
35E
494
55
55
55
62
555
55
110
5
Eagan
Fort
Snelling
(unorg.)
Lilydale
Mendota
Mendota
Heights
St. Paul
West
St.
Paul
M innesotaR iverM in n e s o ta R iv e rMississippi River
M is s i s s i p p i R i v e rCounty Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
NCompass Street Centerlines
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area - Native Plant Communities and
Significant Existing Vegetative Stands
01230.5
Miles
City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
MRCCA Boundary
DNR Native Plant Communities
MRCCA Significant Existing Vegetative Stands
796 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
(approx. location)
PC PACKET Pg. # 44
35E494
35E
494
55
55
55
62
555
55
110
5
Eagan
Fort
Snelling
(unorg.)
Lilydale
Mendota
Mendota
Heights
St. Paul
West
St.
Paul
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
NCompass Street Centerlines
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area - Vegetation Restoration Priorities
01230.5
Miles
City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County
MRCCA Boundary
DNR Native Plant Communities &
Significant Existing Vegetative Stands
Vegetation Restoration Priorities
(Bulff and shore impact zones, floodplains
and wetlands not already covered by
native plant communities and significant
existing vegetative stands)
796 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
(approx. location)
PC PACKET Pg. # 45
NOTES1.) NO CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN UNTIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.2.) NO CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN UNTIL A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING IS HELD WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.3.) PREVAILING SPECIFICATIONS: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MUTCD, MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS, CEAM SPECIFICATIONS.4.) NO CHANGES SHALL BE MADE TO APPROVED PLANS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.5.) ONLY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS EMPLOYEES ARE PERMITTED TO OPERATE VALVES AND HYDRANTS.6.) ELEVATIONS FOR CONNECTING TO EXISTING STUBS FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATER, AND STORM SEWER WILL NEED TO BE FIELD VERIFIED.7.) EXISTING "AS-BUILT" INFO IS FROM BOTH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.CITY MENDOTA HEIGHTS PUBLIC WORKS...........651-454-4059XCEL ENERGY .........................................................800-895-4999FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS...............................800-921-8102FIRE DEPARTMENT .................................................651-452-1850 CONTACTSMEDIACOM................................................................866-609-6180CENTURYLINK..........................................................800-244-1111LEGEND796 SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAYSITE ADDRESSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 LOT 6, BLOCK 1, GOODRICH HAPPY HOLLOWSITE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONThese standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet.FIRM MAP NUMBER: 27037C0017EFLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP EFFECTIVE DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2011GOODHUE COUNTY COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC...507-732-5117MINNESOTA ENERGY RESOURCES CORP...........800-889-9508VICINITY MAPSITE LOCATIONBENCHMARKTOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINEOF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16PC PACKET Pg. # 46
●CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE BEFORE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. TO PREVENT SEDIMENT RUNOFF FROM REACHING THE CURB OR STREET RIGHT OF WAY, PERIMETER DOWNSLOPE SILTFENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ACROSS ALL PRIVATE LOTS. WHILE STILL VULNERABLE DUE TO EXPOSED SOIL, ROCK CHECK DAMS WILL BE PLACED EVERY 25 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF EACH DRAINAGE SWALE ON GRADESEXCEEDING 4% TO REDUCE FLOW VELOCITIES THAT CAUSE EROSION.●TO PREVENT TRACKING OF DIRT ONTO HARD SURFACE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL VEHICLE ENTRANCES ONTO THE SITE ARE NO LONGER REQUIREDAND TOPSOIL IS SCHEDULED TO BE REPLACED. ALL VEHICLE ACCESS TO THIS SITE SHALL USE THE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. SHOULD THE ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES BECOME INEFFECTIVE DUE TO EXCESSIVE SOILCONTAMINATION, THEY SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.●SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL IS TO BE SALVAGED TO PROVIDE COVER AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS. ALL SOIL STOCKPILES AND FINISHED GRADED AREAS ARE TO BE SEEDED IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION WITHWHEAT OR RYE GRASS @ 100 LB./ACRE DURING CONSTRUCTION. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN APPROVED INLET PROTECTION AT ALL ACTIVE STORM SEWER INLETS. SEDIMENT RUNOFF SHOULD BE MINIMIZED BY RESPONSIBLE SITE EROSIONCONTROL. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY BEFORE ANY GRADING ACTIVITY BEGINS. TO PREVENT SILT AND SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, A FILTER BAG INSERT, SEDIMENTCONTROL INLET HAT, ROCK LOG RING OR OTHER DEVICE APPROVED BY THE CITY, SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE INLET.●ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED OR AT FINISH GRADE, BUT HAVE NO ACTIVE WORK, SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED OR SODDEDWITHIN 14 DAYS, EXCEPT ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4H:1V. STEEPER SLOPES SHALL BE SEEDED AND COVERED WITH AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR SEEDED AND MULCHED WITH A TACKIFYING AGENT OR SODDED. AS SOON ASPOSSIBLE AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, TOPSOIL SHALL BE SPREAD AND THE ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE VEGETATED. FINAL SITE STABILIZATION SHALL BE EVIDENT WHEN SEEDED GRASS IS PRESENT ON ALLEXPOSED GRADING AREAS AND HAS GROWN TO A LENGTH OF 6 INCHES AND THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF ONGOING EROSION. IF SOD IS PLACED IN-LIEU OF SEED, IT SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED AND SHOW NO SIGNS OF STRESSFOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS. THE CITY SHALL APPROVE FINAL SITE STABILIZATION.●A CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION. THE WASHOUT SYSTEM CAN BE A PORTABLE UNIT PROVIDED BY THE CONCRETE SUPPLIER OR AN IN-GROUND SYSTEM CONSTRUCTED BY THECONTRACTOR. ONE ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF CREATING AN IN-GROUND WASHOUT PIT WOULD BE TO EXCAVATE A 3 FOOT DEEP AREA (MIN. 3' WIDTH X VARIABLE LENGTH AS NEEDED), LINED WITH 10 MIL. PLASTIC AND PERIMETERANCHORED WITH SAND BAGS OR AGGREGATE. IF THE LINING BECOMES DAMAGED (PUNCTURED OR RIPPED), THE WASHOUT SHALL NOT BE USED UNTIL THE LINING IS REPAIRED. CONCRETE POURS SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED DURINGOR BEFORE AN ANTICIPATED STORM EVENT. CONCRETE WASTES SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HARDEN, BROKEN UP, THEN DISPOSED OF ACCORDING TO LOCAL ORDINANCE. THIS WASHOUT PIT SHALL BE LOCATED AWAY FROM ALL STEEPSLOPES AND DRAINAGE INLETS.●A NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.EROSION CONTROL NOTES●ALL ASPHALT TO REMAIN SHALL BE SAW CUT AT LIMITS OF REMOVAL.●LOCATE AND PROTECT ALL UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO AND DURING DEMOLITION AND GRADING OPERATIONS. UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED.DEMOLITION NOTESGRADING NOTES●ALL SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL HAVE AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLED AS SOON AS GRADING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE MNDOT CATEGORY 3 (MNDOT SPECS3885 & 2575.●AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, TOPSOIL SHALL BE SPREAD AND THE ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO MINIMIZE EROSION. FINAL SITESTABILIZATION SHALL BE EVIDENT WHEN SEEDED GRASS IS PRESENT ON ALL EXPOSED GRADING AREAS AND HAS GROWN TO A LENGTH OF 6 INCHES AND THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF ONGOING EROSION. IF SOD IS PLACED IN-LIEU OFSEED, IT SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED AND SHOW NO SIGNS OF STRESS FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS.●ALL RADII AND LENGTHS ARE TO EDGE OF BITUMINOUS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.●SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR HOUSE DIMENSIONSSITE PLAN NOTESPC PACKET Pg. # 47
UTILITY NOTES●WATERMAIN SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CONFORMING TO AWWA C151 . ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE MECHANICAL DUCTILE IRON CONFORMING TO ASME B16.4, AWA C110, AWWA C153. (SEE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE CHAPTER 6,TABLE 604.1)●ALL WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SHALL BE DISINFECTED PER MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.2250 AND AWWA STANDARD C651.●A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10 FEET MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICE AND ANY SEWER WHENEVER POSSIBLE. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEENWATER SERVICE AND ANY SEWER. THE WATER SERVICE SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE CROSSING.●SEWERS CROSSING WHICH ARE NOT AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW A WATER SERVICE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS APPROVED FOR USE WITHIN A BUILDING (SEE SECTIONS 609.2, 720.1, AND TABLE 701.1). THE WATERSERVICE SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE CROSSING.●A MINIMUM 4" OF EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE BOARD INSULATION SHALL BE INSTALLED ANYTIME WATER LINE CROSSES SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, OR SUBDRAIN SYSTEM.●PVC SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS MUST MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ASTM STANDARDS: D1785, D2665, D3034,F789, F794, F891, F949, OR F1488 (SEE TABLE 701.1 AND INSTALLATION STANDARD 1). FITTINGS MUST COMPLYWITH ASTM D1866, D2665, OR F794 RESPECTIVELY. JOINTS MUST BE APPROVED MECHANICAL OR PUSH-ON UTILIZING AN ELASTOMERIC SEAL, OR SOLVENT WELDED USING ASTM F656 PURPLE PRIMER AND ASTM D2564 SOLVENTCEMENT. THE INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D2321, WHICH REQUIRES OPEN-TRENCH INSTALLATION ON A CONTINUOUS GRANULAR BED. ASTM F679 PVC MAY BE USED FOR STORM SEWERS IF APPROVED BY THE LOCALBUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION (SEE SECTION 301.2).●CONCRETE MANHOLES AND SEWER LINES SHALL BE TESTED BY NEGATIVE PRESSURE PER ASTM C1214-13, ASTM C1244-11, OR HYDROSTATICALLY PER "MN RULES 4714", SECTION 1109.2.2 (SEE ALSO SECTION 712.4).●INLET AND OUTLET CONNECTIONS TO SEWER MANHOLES MUST USE FLEXIBLE COMPRESSION JOINTS LOCATED BETWEEN 12 AND 36 INCHES FROM THE MANHOLE (SEE SECTION 719.6). WHERE PERMITTED BY THEADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AS AN ALTERNATE INSTALLATION METHOD, APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MAY BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES (SEESECTION 301.2).●THE PLUMBING SYSTEM AND THE STORM SYSTEM WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED PER "MN RULES 4714", SECTIONS 609.4, 712.0, AND 1109.0.●ALL PVC INLET AND OUTLET CONNECTIONS TO A CONCRETE STRUCTURE SHALL BE MADE BY THE USE OF A FLEXIBLE COMPRESSION JOINT NOT LESS THAN 12 INCHES AND NOT EXCEEDING 3 FEET FROM THE MANHOLE.NO FLEXIBLE COMPRESSION JOINTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED IN THE MANHOLE BASE.●PROPOSED ELECTRIC INSTALLATION MUST BE COORDINATED WITH EXCEL. EXCEL STANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.●PROPOSED GAS INSTALLATION MUST BE COORDINATED WITH EXCEL. EXCEL STANDARDS SHALL BE FOLLOWED.●ALL CLEANOUTS IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE PLACED IN A VALVE BOX. TOP OF VALVE BOX SHALL BE FLUSH WITH FINISHED PAVEMENT SURFACE.PC PACKET Pg. # 48
EXISTING HOUSEEXISTING GARAGE810809 60.111042101010LOT 8LOT 5LOT 7LOT 7BLOCK 1LOT 6WACHTLER ROAD49.8859.9817 HIGHWAY S.T.H. 13SIBLEY MEMORIAL 4216" MAPLE10" MAPLE10" MAPLE10" ASH2-20" MAPLE4-20" ASH20" OAK10" ASH18" ASH8" ASH16" ASH20" OAK14" ASH10" MAPLE20" OAK20" OAK8" OAK18" MAPLE8" MAPLE18" MAPLE24" ELM6" MAPLE14" MAPLE8" MAPLE14" ASH2-24" MAPLE12" ASH10" OAK20" OAK20" ELM100A896ESLOPES GREATER THAN 40%LEGEND709710These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet. XEXISTING LOT SIZE: 1.08 ACRESSOIL DATASOIL UNIT DEPTH TO BEDROCK MAP UNIT NAME AVAILABLE WATER STORAGE IN PROFILE100A12" TO 20"VERY LOW (3")896EMORE THAN 80"MODERATE (8")NOTE: SOIL DATA COMES FROM USDA NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEYCOPASTON LOAMKINGSLEY-MAHTOMEDI COMPLEXTOTAL DISTURBED SOIL0.69 ACRESN/ATREE PRESERVATIONTOTAL HIGH VALUE TREES INVENTORIED: 20ANTICIPATED TREES TO BE REMOVED: 4TOTAL HIGH VALUE TREES SAVED: 16TREE PROTECTIONTREE PROTECTION WILL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.TREE REPLACEMENTSLOT AREABMP LIST:ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITY2 12 NEW SILT FENCELF1 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEA40913 EXISTING SILT FENCE TO BE MAINTAINED LF292EXISTING 18"RCP CULVERTINSTALL INLETPROTECTIONINV=804.36SLOPES GREATER THAN 18%REMOVE BITUMINOUSEXISTING CATCH BASININSTALL INLET PROTECTIONRIM=807.22INV=802.7TREE REPLACEMENT WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER THE HOME ISCONSTRUCTED AS REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.4 INLET PROTECTIONEA2INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEPC PACKET Pg. # 49
333360.00'EXISTING HOUSEEXISTING GARAGE14.72'10.00'R5.00A1.21R5.00A1.4613.7113.82R5.00A7.2698.6420.0030.0024.0019.718.06.05.042.5088.21PROPOSED HOUSEAREA = 2,925 S.F.46.1838.00R5.00A1.21R5.00A1.46R15.00A25.4340.4325.198.4610.005.7624.0034.39PROPOSED DRIVEWAY2-20" MAPLE4-20" ASH20" OAK10" ASH18" ASH8" ASH16" ASH20" OAK14" ASH10" MAPLE20" OAK20" OAK8" OAK18" MAPLE8" MAPLE18" MAPLE24" ELM6" MAPLE14" MAPLE8" MAPLE14" ASH2-24" MAPLE12" ASH10" OAK20" OAK20" ELMSLOPES GREATER THAN 18%SITE PLAN NOTESDRIVEWAYS AND APRONS SHALL BE BITUMINOUS.ALL RADII AND PAVEMENT LENGTHS ARE TO THE EDGE OF BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.BUILDING DIMENSIONS MUST BE VERIFIED WITH ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY ARCHITECTURAL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED.These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet.ZONINGZONED R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIALSITE AREASLOT 6......................................1.08 ACRESTREES SHOWN ARE CONSIDERED HIGH VALUE. THE NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL DEPEND ON HOWFILL IS PLACED AND WHETHER OR NOT LOCALIZED LANDSCAPE WELLS ARE UTILIZED AT TREE LOCATIONSTOE OF BLUFF LINEHISTORTICAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREASBUILDING FOOTPRINT............................2925 S.F.BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................3376 S.F.LOT 6TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................6301 S.F. (0.14 ACRES)TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA.......7861 S.F. (0.18 ACRES)TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA...6301 S.F. (0.14 ACRES)CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA (DECREASE)................1560 S.F. (0.04 ACRES)BUILDING FOOTPRINT............................1420 S.F.BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................6441 S.F.HISTORICAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS LOT 6TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................7861 S.F. (0.18 ACRES)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA LOT 6PC PACKET Pg. # 50
EXISTING HOUSEEXISTING GARAGE808812810808FG:809.93FG:809.07FFE 812.50FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:811.11FG:810.79FG:812.50FG:812.00FG:811.24FG:811.00FG:809.07FG:807.75FG:811.24FG:808.003.4%1.7%3.4%FG:812.50811810809808807806811FG:810.5811810809809811807810811810809809810
808FG:807.502.0%671.18These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet.BENCHMARKTOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINEOF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16BMALL PROPOSED CONTOURS DEPICT FINISHED ELEVATIONSEXISTING CULVERTEXTEND EXISTING CULVERTEXISTING CB673675710PC PACKET Pg. # 51
EXISTING HOUSEEXISTING GARAGE810809
EDA2EDA1/AEDA1/BEDA3EXISTING HOUSEEXISTING GARAGE810809
808812810808FG:809.93FG:809.07FFE 812.50FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:812.00FG:811.11FG:810.79FG:812.50FG:812.00FG:811.24FG:811.00FG:809.07FG:807.75FG:811.24FG:808.003.4%1.7%3.4%FG:812.50811810809808807806811FG:810.5811810809809811807810811810809809810
808FG:807.50PDA1/APDA3PDA1/BPDA2PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREASPROPOSED DRAINAGE AREASDENOTES PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR AND ELEVATION LABELDENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR AND ELEVATION LABELDENOTES PROPERTY LINEDENOTES FENCE LINEDENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR709DENOTES LOT LINEDENOTES CENTERLINE OF ROADDENOTES EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR710DENOTES PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACE675673These standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet.DENOTES SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTIONDENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREADENOTES EXISTING DRAINAGE AREAHISTORTICAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREASBUILDING FOOTPRINT............................2925 S.F.BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................3376 S.F.TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................6301 S.F. (0.14 ACRES)TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA...................7861 S.F. (0.18 ACRES)TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA...............6301 S.F. (0.14 ACRES)CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA (DECREASE).....1560 S.F. (0.04 ACRES)BUILDING FOOTPRINT............................1420 S.F.BITUMINOUS PAVING..............................6441 S.F.HISTORICAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS LOT 6TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.....................7861 S.F. (0.18 ACRES)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA LOT 6HYDROLOGY NOTES●●●DAQ2 CFS Q10 CFS Q100 CFS1CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS4.238.8820.83POST DEVELOPMENT RUNOFFDA Q2 CFS Q10 CFS Q100 CFS0.270.802.31TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENTRUNOFF*20.631.041.98DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF SUMMARYTOTAL POST DEVELOPMENTRUNOFF*TOTAL CHANGEQ2 CFS Q10 CFS Q100 CFS1.33 (-) 2.64 (-) 5.84 (-)*- SEE HYDROLOGY NOTESDECREASE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM EXISTING RUNOFF CONDITIONS = 0.062 ACRES1.974.019.1620.260.470.9712.906.2414.994.238.8820.832.906.2414.99PDA1/A0.735 ACRES0.025 ACRESIMPERVIOUSAV SLOPE = 12.58%WAV CN = 76LFP = 355 FTTC = 4.4 MINPDA1/B0.178 ACRES0.000 ACRESIMPERVIOUSAV SLOPE = 12.58%WAV CN = 74LFP = 355 FTTC = 4.7 MIN32.004.4010.7032.004.4010.70PDA31.187 ACRES0.000 ACRESIMPERVIOUSAV SLOPE = 15.00%WAV CN = 75LFP = 361 FTTC = 4.2 MINPDA20.167 ACRES0.112 ACRESIMPERVIOUSAV SLOPE = 8.00%WAV CN = 90LFP = 152 FTTC = 1.7 MINLOT 6 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA = 1.080 ACRESLOT 6 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.137 ACRES (12.69%)LOT 7 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA = 1.187 ACRESLOT 7 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.000 ACRES (0.00%)PC PACKET Pg. # 52
SANSANSANWTRWTRWTRWTRLOT 7LOT 691.01'106.05'EXISTING HOUSELOT 5WATERMAIN SHALL BE PVC CONFORMING TO AWWA C900, DR14. A NO. 12 AWG TRACER SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH ALLPVC WATERMAIN. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON.8" PVC SERVICE PIPE SHALL BE SDR-26. PIPES 4" TO 10" IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. WATERTIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES.A MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10 FEET MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICE AND ANY SEWERWHENEVER POSSIBLE. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES MUST BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN WATER SERVICEAND ANY SEWER, WITH WATER CROSSING ABOVE SEWER.UTILITY NOTES709710SANWTRThese standard symbols will be found on this plan sheet.BENCHMARKTOP NUT HYDRANT 65 FEET NORTHEAST OF CENTERLINEOF WACHTLER AVENUE AND 35 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CENTERLINE OF SYBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. ELEVATION: 810.16USE EXISTING UTILITIESFROM DEMOLISHED HOUSEINV. 797.50 (NOT FIELD VERIFIED)S.S. STUB 81 FT FROM M.H. 1014PC PACKET Pg. # 53
PC PACKET Pg. # 54
PC PACKET Pg. # 55
PC PACKET Pg. # 56
$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 6:,**805(6,'(1&( 6,%/(<0(025,$/+:<0(1'27$+(,*+760,11(627$72''.9(521,&$.7,7/(6+((7'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+766+((7,1'(;6KHHW1XPEHU6KHHW1DPH'7,7/(6+((7')281'$7,213/$1'/2:(5/(9(/3/$1'0$,1/(9(/3/$1'0$,1/(9(/6758&785$/3/$1'522)3/$1 &(,/,1*3/$1'(/(9$7,216'&52666(&7,216'63(&,),&$7,216 )5$0,1*'(7$,/6''9,(:),567/(9(/*5266$5($6&+('8/(1DPH$UHD//$5($ *5266$5($ 6)0/$5($ *5266$5($ 6)*$5$*($5($ *5266$5($ 6) 6)5(9125(9,6,21'$7(5(9,6,2163(5&86720(5 5(9,6,2163(5&86720(5 PC PACKET Pg. # 57
8368033,7
2& 0$;63$&,1* %<0)*35((1*,1((5(')/22575866(6,1+$1*(56$%29(2& 0$;63$&,1* %<0)*35((1*,1((5(')/22575866(6,1+$1*(56$%29(2& 0$;63$&,1* %<0)*35((1*,1((5(')/22575866(6,1+$1*(56$%29(81(;&$9$7('81(;&$9$7(')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1')1',17,17)7*)7*)7*)7*)7*)7*)7*)7*)7*)7*81'(5)5$0,1*%<)/225758660)*67(3'2:1)281'$7,21:$//6/$%3285('29(57232))281'$7,21:$//7<367(3'2:1)281'$7,21:$//6/$%3285('29(57232))281'$7,21:$//7<3
)7*/6((')25+($'(5'(7$,//6((')25+($'(5'(7$,//6((')25+($'(5'(7$,/64)7*
2 [/9/-.%($0*,5'(5758663(5)/225758660)*&2/801'(6,*1('%<27+(56
9(5,)<23(1,1*
9(5,)<23(1,1*
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
)281'$7,213/$1
:$//7<3(6)281'$7,21)227,1*6&+('8/(7$*)227,1*6,=()227,1*5(,1)25&(0(17)7*[ /21*%$5664)7*[[ 648$5()227,1* /21*%$56)281'$7,21:$//6&+('8/(0$5. :$//7+,&.1(66+25,=217$/%$59(57,&$/%$5)1'&21&)1'+25=%$5723%27720 5'32,1769(57%$52& &(17(5(',1:$// )1'&21&)1'+25=%$57230,''/( %277209(57%$5
2&)1'&21&)1'+25=%$5723 %277209(57%$5
2&3/$1127(6 ',0(16,216$66+2:1$5(72(;7(5,252)&21&5(7( (;7(5,25:$//6 $1'&(17(5/,1( ,17(5,25)227,1*6 $//&21&5(7()227,1*67(36/2&$7,216'(7(50,1('%<&2175$&725$//:$//5(,1)25&(0(17&(17(5(':,7+,17+(:$//8123529,'('2:(/6#($&+)281'$7,21:$//9(57,&$/%$5 $/7(51$7(+25,=217$//(*',5(&7,21:,7+,1)227,1* /$3[',$%$5 67(0 $1'+22.[',$%$5 )227,1* 3529,'(&/($5',67$1&()520%277202))227,1*)227,1* )281'$7,21:$//+$9(%((1(67,0$7('),1$/6,=,1*5(48,50(1766+$//%('(7(50,1('8321$33529$/5(9125(9,6,21'$7(PC PACKET Pg. # 58
8368033,7''
///
,17,17,17,17,17,17,172)8785(:$//681),1,6+('%$6(0(170(&+$1,&$/522081),1,6+('%$6(0(17',17
%($0*,5'(5758663(5758660)*5$'219(173,3(*&729(5,)</2&$7,2168033,7/2&$7,213(5*&'2257$*&2/8013,(57$*3L:,1'2:7$*(;7:$//)227,1*7$*52207$*$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 72''.9(521,&$./2:(5/(9(/3/$1'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+76
/2:(5/(9(/3/$1'2256&+('8/(/2:(5/(9(/0$5. :,'7+ +(,*+7+($'+(,*+7&200(176
2
23(1,1*:,1'2:6&+('8/(/2:(5/(9(/0$5. &2817 :,'7+ +(,*+7 +($'+(,*+7 &200(176/
3/$1127(6 ',0(16,216$66+2:1$5(72(;7(5,252))281'$7,21:$//6 (;7(5,25:$//6 $1'&(17(5/,1(2)528*+)5$0,1* ,17(5,25:$//6 $//'225 :,1'2:6,=(6$5(6+2:1$6120,1$/0($685(0(176&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<$//528*+23(1,1*6,=(6:'225 :,1'2:0)*$//&(,/,1*+(,*+76$5(
8125(9125(9,6,21'$7(PC PACKET Pg. # 59
'1''
'
(175<)$0,/<5220.,7&+(1 $ $&/26:$7(5&/26(70$67(5%('52200$67(5%$7+5220:$7(5&/26:,6+2:(50$67(5&/26(7 &/26%('52203$175<&/26%$7+&255,'25&/26%('5220&/26/$81'5<08'5220 &/26(7*$5$*( %
'(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7,17,17,17,17(;7(;7(;7,17,17(;7,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17,17(;76/23('&(,/,1*6/23('&(,/,1*6/23('&(,/,1*/,1(2)522)$%29(/,1(2)522)$%29(6+2:(5&21752/6+2:(5+($'*<3680%2$5'7<3(;6,363$1(/ 3(56,360)* *<3680%2$5'7<3(;(;7*<3:$//%'[678'/$<(52&*<3:$//%',17*<3:$//%'[678'/$<(52&*<3:$//%',17/$36,',1* +$5'<%2$5' 6,',1* 75,0 3(5&2175$&7252:1(5 :,1'%$55,(56,363$1(/ 3(56,360)* *<3:$//%'(;76721(9(51((5(;7(5,25),1,6+:$7(55(6,67$17%$55,(5 :5% (;7(5,256+($7+,1*[678'62&(;7*<3:$//%'[678'/$<(52&,17'2257$*&2/8013,(57$*3L:,1'2:7$*(;7:$//)227,1*7$*52207$*$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 72''.9(521,&$.0$,1/(9(/3/$1'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+76
0$,1/(9(/3/$13/$1127(6 ',0(16,216$66+2:1$5(72(;7(5,252)6+($7+,1* (;7(5,25:$//6 $1'&(17(5/,1(2)528*+)5$0,1* ,17(5,25:$//6 $//'225 :,1'2:6,=(6$5(6+2:1$6120,1$/0($685(0(176&2175$&7256+$//9(5,)<$//528*+23(1,1*6,=(6:'225 :,1'2:0)*$//&(,/,1*+(,*+76$5(
812
:$//7<3(6'2256&+('8/(),567/(9(/0$5. :,'7+ +(,*+7+($'+(,*+7&200(176
$
'2256&+('8/(),567/(9(/0$5. :,'7+ +(,*+7+($'+(,*+7&200(176
32&.(7'225
32&.(7'225
:,1'2:6&+('8/(),567/(9(/0$5. &2817 :,'7+ +(,*+7 6,//+(,*+7+($'+(,*+7:,1'2:6+$3(&200(176
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
75$3(=2,'
:,1'2:6&+('8/(),567/(9(/0$5. &2817 :,'7+ +(,*+7 6,//+(,*+7+($'+(,*+7:,1'2:6+$3(&200(176
5(9125(9,6,21'$7(5(9,6,2163(5&86720(5 5(9,6,2163(5&86720(5 52206&+('8/(),567/(9(/180%(5 52201$0( $5($52203(5,0(7(5(175< 6)
&/266)
:$7(5&/26(7 6)
)$0,/<5220 6)
.,7&+(16)
0$67(5%('5220 6)
0$67(5%$7+5220 6)
:,6+2:(56)
:$7(5&/26 6)
0$67(5&/26(7 6)
&/266)
%('5220 6)
3$175<6)
&/266)
%$7+6)
&255,'256)
&/266)
&/266)
%('5220 6)
/$81'5<08'5220 6)
&/26(76)
*$5$*(6)
PC PACKET Pg. # 60
'12& 0$;63$&,1* %<0)*35((1*,1((5('522)75866(6$%29(%<6,360)*6,36522)3$1(/6$%29(2& 0$;63$&,1* %<0)*35((1*,1((5('522)75866(6$%29(%<6,360)*6,36522)3$1(/6$%29([*/8/$0%($0 $332;6,=( ),1$/%($06,=,1*3(5522)3$1(/0)*
(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7(;7/,1(2)522)$%29(/,1(2)522)$%29(&2/801%($5,1*'(6,*1('%<27+(56[*/8/$0%($0 $332;6,=( ),1$/%($06,=,1*3(5522)3$1(/0)*[*/8/$0%($0 $332;6,=( ),1$/%($06,=,1*3(5522)3$1(/0)**,5'(575866%($03(5758660)*$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 72''.9(521,&$.0$,1/(9(/6758&785$/3/$1'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+76
0$,1/(9(/6758&785$/3/$13/$1127(6 ',0(16,216$66+2:1$5(72(;7(5,252)6+($7+,1* (;7(5,25:$//6 $1'&(17(5/,1(2)528*+)5$0,1* ,17(5,25:$//6 6(('(7$,/621')257<3,&$/)5$0,1*5(48,5(0(176%/2&.62/,'%(/2:$//*,5'(575866/2&$7,216:,7+,1:$//6 )/2255(9125(9,6,21'$7(PC PACKET Pg. # 61
6,3522)3$1(/629(5522)75866(66,363$1(/522)6,363$1(/522)
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))
$))6,36522)3$1(/6,36522)3$1(/
$))(175<)$0,/<5220.,7&+(1:$7(5&/26(70$67(5%('52200$67(5%$7+5220:$7(5&/26:,6+2:(50$67(5&/26(7 %('52203$175<%$7+&255,'25%('5220/$81'5<08'5220 *$5$*(6/23('&(,/,1*6/23('&(,/,1*6/23('&(,/,1*$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 72''.9(521,&$.522)3/$1 &(,/,1*3/$1'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+76
522)3/$1
0$,1/(9(/&(,/,1*3/$15(9125(9,6,21'$7(PC PACKET Pg. # 62
))(0$,1/(9(/72)227,1*#*$5$*(
72*$5$*()/22572)227,1*/2:(5/(9(/
))(/2:(5/(9(/
72)281'$7,2172)281'$7,21727233/$7(+,*+(1'
727233/$7(0$67(5%('5220
727233/$7(0$67(5%('5220
5,*,',168/$7,2121&21&5(7()281'$7,21/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 6,',1* 3(5&2175$&7252:1(5 &('$5%$77(1%2$5'/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 5,*,',168/$7,2121&21&5(7()281'$7,21$/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 6,',1* 3(5&2175$&7252:1(5 &('$5%$77(1%2$5'))(0$,1/(9(/))(0$,1/(9(/727233/$7(0$,1/(9(/
))(/2:(5/(9(/
))(/2:(5/(9(/
72)281'$7,2172)281'$7,21727233/$7(+,*+(1'
727233/$7(0$67(5%('5220
/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 """/6,',1* 3(5&2175$&7252:1(5 &('$5%$77(1%2$5'/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 ))(0$,1/(9(/727233/$7(0$,1/(9(/
72)227,1*#*$5$*(
72)227,1*/2:(5/(9(/
))(/2:(5/(9(/
72)281'$7,2172)281'$7,21727233/$7(+,*+(1'
727233/$7(0$67(5%('5220
//72/2:7233$7(
/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 0(7$/522)3(5*&2:1(55,*,',168/$7,2121&21&5(7()281'$7,215,*,',168/$7,2121&21&5(7()281'$7,21%))(0$,1/(9(/))(0$,1/(9(/727233/$7(0$,1/(9(/
72)227,1*#*$5$*(
72)227,1*/2:(5/(9(/
))(/2:(5/(9(/
72)281'$7,2172)281'$7,21727233/$7(+,*+(1'
727233/$7(0$67(5%('5220
72/2:7233$7(
/$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 /$36,',1* 3(5%8,/'(52:1(5 "5,*,',168/$7,2121&21&5(7()281'$7,21
6,',1* 3(5&2175$&7252:1(5 &('$5%$77(1%2$5'$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 72''.9(521,&$.(/(9$7,216'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+76
)5217(/(9$7,21
/()7(/(9$7,21
%$&.(/(9$7,21
5,*+7(/(9$7,215(9125(9,6,21'$7(5(9,6,2163(5&86720(5 PC PACKET Pg. # 63
$OOLDQFH3ODFH1(5RFKHVWHU01 352-(&7180%(5 '5$:1%< 5(9,(:('%< '$7( 7+,6'2&80(17,67+(3523(57<2)'5$)76285&($1'0$<127%(86('&23,('25'83/,&$7(':,7+28735,25:5,77(1&216(176+((71$0( 352-(&71$0( 6+((7180%(5 35,17'$7( 72''.9(521,&$.'9,(:),567/(9(/'6:,**805(6,'(1&(0,11(627$0(1'27$+(,*+76'9,(:522))5$0,1*'9,(:),567/(9(/5(9125(9,6,21'$7(5(9,6,2163(5&86720(5 PC PACKET Pg. # 64
PC PACKET Pg. # 65
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 28, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-23
WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT: Southview Design / Catholic Cemeteries
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2101 Lexington Avenue South
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: February 7, 2022
INTRODUCTION
Southview Design, acting on behalf of Catholic Cemeteries, is seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to
allow new landscaping and pond embankment improvements in Resurrection Cemetery.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were
mailed to properties within 350-feet of the subject property. City received no comments or communications
regarding this matter.
BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The cemetery property consists of over 187 acres of
land, and is generally located south of Hwy. 62 and
the Lexington Business Park, and fronts mainly along
Lexington Avenue South (see Dak. Co. GIS Map
image – right). The entire cemetery property is
located in the R-1 One Family Residential zone.
The pond is identified under the City’s Local Surface
Storm Water Management Plan (LSWMP) as a Type
V Wetland (see map image – below-left); and is
identified on the city’s official Wetlands Systems
Map of 1976. The second image is recent Sept. 2021
aerial map shot of the subject pond area with
volunteer vegetation ring surrounding the pond
(below-right).
This pond provides for stormwater retention for a
large portion of the cemetery lands around the main
office and maintenance buildings, and some drainage
from across the road (Lexington Avenue).
PC PACKET Pg. # 66
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 2 of 7
SITE / LANDSCAPE PLAN
The cemetery hired Southview Design as their landscaper/contractor, and has submitted a Proposed
Landscape Plan for this wetlands permit review.
Initial plans call for the removal of the volunteer vegetation ring that surrounds the pond, which according
to Southview is noted as “Buckthorn, Thistle – Overtaking Area”. The applicants indicated further in their
project narrative that most of the trees surrounding the pond were dead or rotting, and their removal was
needed. The replacement plan is to provide a 10-foot wide layer of 3” to 7” river rock on top of landscape
fabric around the perimeter of the pond. The rock will be held in place with new poly-landscape edging;
and the surrounding areas where the old vegetation is removed will be replaced with grass seed mixture.
The removal of the volunteer vegetation ring and preplacement of river rock will help with pond
embankment stabilization, and provide a suitable views to the reflective/memorial pond feature.
Upon completion of the new landscape and outer pond improvements, the cemetery will install a new
fountain to prevent algae growth and improve the visual and aesthetic appearance of the pond for visitors.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water
resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of
wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map.
City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter
a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city;
with the list of activities noted as follows:
1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards.
2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards.
3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water
bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system.
4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure.
5. The removal of vegetation.
6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity.
7. Permanently storing materials.
8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials).
PC PACKET Pg. # 67
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 3 of 7
9. Installation and maintenance of essential services.
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to:
• Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas;
• Maintain the natural drainage system;
• Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife
and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive
sedimentation;
• Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
• Ensure safety from floods.
The Surface Water Management Plan provides certain guidelines and suggested standards (not
requirements) for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water
features. The SWMP recommends – but does not require a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer
zone from the wetland edge. This buffer is meant to provide an extra level or protection or natural means
in preventing erosion run-off, for silt protection, and reducing any fertilizer or chemical runoff that may
occur from adjacent residential lawns.
Under this plan, the cemetery is not providing any new vegetative buffer, but instead plans to install and
provide the 10-foot wide rock layer as its buffer, along with the replacement of turf grass. There are no
plans or indications of any new plantings or trees to be installed under this pond improvement project.
Per the Wetland Ordinance Section 12-2-7 Standards and Conditions:
• Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only
when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to
disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity.
• No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause
the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area.
• Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has
been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter.
• Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that
reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property.
The Applicants have indicated the removal of the vegetative ring surrounding the existing pond was
necessary due to most of it being invasive plantings (buckthorn) and noxious weeds (thistles); and a small
number of trees that were dead or rotting, probably due to the wet/saturated soils next to the pond.
Although the Wetlands Ordinance does not specifically require the placement (or replacement) of a wetland
buffers, it has normally been suggested in other wetlands permit review cases, that Owners should leave an
area approximately 25-feet from the wetland/pond edge to be left undisturbed; or install (if needed or
requested) suitable and sustainable vegetative plantings that provide a natural buffer to these wetlands.
Vegetative buffers provide additional natural filters for any surface water runoff entering into the wetlands,
and help increase overall water quality entering the pond. Although the rock layers and grass may provide
some or even adequate runoff and buffering protection, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss with
the cemetery owner or landscape contractors in providing some additional vegetation around the outer limits
of the pond, besides turf grass, in order to help reduce any increased silt or fertilizer infiltration; and increase
the water quality entering the pond.
PC PACKET Pg. # 68
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 4 of 7
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of
approval; or
2. Deny the Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s)-of-facts supporting such a recommendation as
determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant
to MN State Statute 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Wetlands Permit to Catholic Cemeteries and for the property
located at 2101 Lexington Avenue South, which would allow certain pond embankment improvements and
landscaping within 100-feet of a wetland, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Any grading and/or construction activity related to the pond improvement work shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance
with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
2. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and
maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. Erosion barriers shall be placed
along the outer edges of the pond site and pond edge and remain place throughout the duration of
the project and the surrounding lands have been properly restored.
3. The Applicant/Owner shall install new landscaping or plantings in and around the pond area with
suitable plantings and materials consistent with the direction of the Planning Commission, with
final buffer planting plan to be approved by the city’s Natural Resources Technician.
4. Any new trees or landscaping material used under this wetlands permit plan must meet the city’s
list of Native Plantings and Pollinator Friendly trees and vegetation.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored or have an established, protected
and permanent ground cover immediately after the pond area improvements have been installed or
completed.
6. Any new site construction or removal shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm
weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
PC PACKET Pg. # 69
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 5 of 7
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
Wetlands Permit for Existing Pond at Resurrection Cemetery
2101 Lexington Avenue South
Planning Case No. 2021-23
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The requested pond embankment stabilization work and related landscaping work in and around
the pond is a reasonable request for this very large and open cemetery property.
2. All new work should have very little, if any negative impacts to the existing on-site drainage or the
drainage from the surrounding properties or areas.
3. Owner/Applicant will provide additional, suitable and adequate vegetation and plantings around
the perimeter of the existing pond, which help ensures storm water run-off quality; and any soil
and contaminant runoff is reduced or minimized from the subject property.
PC PACKET Pg. # 70
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 6 of 7
SITE PHOTOS – RESURRECTION CEMETERY
PC PACKET Pg. # 71
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 7 of 7
PC PACKET Pg. # 72
Resurrection Cemetery Pond Shoreline Project
The purpose of the Resurrection Cemetery Pond Shoreline project is to create more usable space for the
cemetery owners (Catholic Cemeteries), and improve user experience by opening up views across the
cemetery. Upon completion of the project, Catholic Cemeteries plans to put a fountain in the pond to
prevent algae growth and improve the experience for the many people that run/walk through the
cemetery daily. The new design for the pond shoreline will also create a more aesthetic, and
maintainable space for the cemetery.
The vegetation surrounding the pond is currently comprised primarily of dead/rotting trees, buckthorn,
and thistle. Our process after removing the existing vegetation would be to place 1,100 linear feet of silt
logs along the shoreline to prevent soil erosion, then install a 10’ wide strip of landscape fabric
surrounding the pond. That fabric would be covered with 200 cubic yards of 3-7” river rock, installed at
an average depth of 6”. Poly landscape edging would be used to define the edge of the new shoreline.
Outside of the new 10’ shoreline, areas where vegetation was removed will be overseeded with a mix of
Fescue, Ryegrass, and Kentucky Bluegrass at a rate of 5-7lbs per 1,000 square feet. The newly seeded
areas will be covered with a netless erosion control blanket system to prevent soil erosion and seed
runoff. After construction is complete, the silt logs will be removed from the water’s edge. The
grading/drainage of the area surrounding the pond will not be altered as part of this project. The
construction process is expected to begin on 12/6/2021, and finish by 12/23/2021.
PC PACKET Pg. # 73
PC PACKET Pg. # 74
),*85(PC PACKET Pg. # 75
Resurrection Cemetery - CONTOURS MAP
Property InformationElevation
December 14, 2021
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
PC PACKET Pg. # 76
Resurrection Cemetery - SOILS ID MAP
1 Crystal Lake silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes 3 Water
2 Udorthents, wet 4 Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
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 = 400 feet 12/14/2021
PC PACKET Pg. # 77