01 27 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Packet.pdf
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
January 27, 2026 at 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approve meeting minutes from the December 29, 2025 Planning Commission
Meeting.
4. Public Hearings
a. CASE No. 2026-01 MRCCA Permit Application of Homes by Tradition, LLC,
requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to allow for the
construction of a new single-family home on the vacant property located at the
northwest corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve.
5. New and Unfinished Business
6. Updates/Staff Comments
7. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make
every attempt to provide the aid. However, this may not be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
Page 1 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 29, 2025
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
December 29, 2025, 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,
Cindy Johnson, Jason Stone, Jeff Nath, and Steve Goldade. Those absent: Commissioner Brian
Udell.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of November 25, 2025, Minutes
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 2025.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A)PLANNING CASE 2025-16
CHASE REAL ESTATE (ON BEHALF OF CONDOR LIVING/LEXINGTON
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS), 2300 LEXINGTON AVENUE – PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden explained that the applicant, Chase Real Estate,
LLC, requests approval of an amendment to the Lexington Heights Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to allow for the construction of a new 84-unit apartment building on the property in addition
to the existing structures. The application had been tabled from the Planning Commission’s
November 25, 2025, meeting.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350 feet of the site; no
comments or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden 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.
Page 2 of 44
3.a.
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 10
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Joe McElwain, Chase Real Estate, commented that he believed that staff addressed the questions
that the Commission previously presented in the presentation, and was present to address any
additional questions. He stated that the resident meeting on-site went well. He noted a report
dated May 6, 2025, which identified the housing needs in Mendota Heights and recommended
1,290 new residential units over the next five years. He hoped that this application for 84 units
would help the cause.
Commissioner Johnson appreciated the effort of the applicant to answer most of the questions.
She referenced a plan for buffering using plant materials to the north and east and a related letter
from MnDOT about noise buffering. She commented that she would like to see additional buffers
on the north and east. She recognized the trees that would be removed to the north for the fire
turnaround and identified additional opportunities for planting on the site. She recommended
native buffering around the infiltration area.
Commissioner Corbett asked why this was originally constructed through a PUD.
Mr. McElwain was unsure, as the project was constructed in 1984.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that part of the reason was related to the
density, which was ten units per acre. She stated that she can provide additional information after
the questions for the applicant are completed.
John Riley, property owner, stated that he is present to answer any property-specific questions.
Elliot Side, 2300 Lexington, commented that his bedroom window faces the forest, which will
partially be removed. He asked the Commission to consider what it would be like to live across
from a construction site. He noted that once the construction is completed, the view to the east
will change as they will look at a building, and the new building will have views of the existing
building or the highway. He commented on the disruption that this project will create for residents
and believed that the additional units would put more pressure on the site. He asked the
Commission to reject this project as he did not see a benefit to the residents already living on the
site.
Harvey Prahl, 2300 Lexington, appreciated the concerns raised by the previous resident but also
recognized that it is part of development and economic progress. He stated that buildings are being
developed in undeveloped areas and recognized that the community is going through economic
growth, which is great for jobs and additional residents. He commented that this community is a
beautiful place to live and the service at Lexington Heights has been phenomenal, noting that
whenever he has an issue, it is immediately addressed by management. He recognized that
Page 3 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 10
construction would be inconvenient and messy, just as a road project is. He stated that while some
tweaks could potentially be made to the project, he did not see a need to reject the proposal.
Stacia Terrhar, 2370 Lexington, commented that the management has been great at the property.
She expressed concerns about safety along Lexington Avenue.
Katelynn Noseworthly, 2300 Lexington, commented that the current design has room for large
vehicles to turn around and park without blocking anyone in. She stated that in the new design,
there still needs to be a turnaround area. She noted that there is a fire hydrant in front of the 2300
building and asked if there could be parking in front of that, as identified in the plan.
Allison Runche, 2300 Lexington, commented that it is disappointing to see that some of the
wooded area would be removed, as they were told it would not be removed at the resident meeting.
She referenced the proposed density, which is calculated over the entire site, although it will be
added to the 2300 property. She asked why the City established a density range if it is not going
to be kept, and asked for the criteria that are considered for increased density requests.
Mr. Riley stated that the trees being removed are to accommodate the required turnaround. He
noted that the treed area is not a high-value or high-quality forest. He stated that when the property
was constructed, the parking required 2.5 vehicles per unit, which results in large parking lots that
are underutilized, estimating that only about 30 percent of the parking is utilized.
Mr. McElwain identified the line that estimates the boundary of the tree survey. He stated that the
forest to the northeast is not anticipated to be impacted and simply identifies the boundary of the
survey. He stated that the island will be placed in front of the hydrant, and the details of the
turnaround will be determined as they move forward and work with the Fire Department.
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 STONE, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Corbett stated that he researched the reasoning for a PUD and understands that it
can accommodate multiple variances while also preserving green space. He stated that the space
proposed to be built upon is only there because of the original PUD, which created that space. He
appreciated the intent of the applicant but also believes there is no urgency to move forward with
this, as there are more than enough high-density apartments that have been constructed in the last
six years, with additional apartments being constructed in neighboring communities as well. He
stated that he would recommend denial of the request as he did not see a need or urgency.
Commissioner Goldade stated that one of his main thoughts has been around density, not only for
this site but for the city as a whole. He asked if there is a possibility for this site that future
Page 4 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10
buildings could be added if this were approved, or whether this would be the last building on the
site.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that part of the initial discussions with
the developer at the time the concept was presented included a review of the entire site and that
the northernmost parcel had the most available space for a new building that would meet modern
construction and needs. She stated that setback flexibility is still requested as part of this request.
She stated that when the PUD was originally proposed, the full right-of-way acquisition was
growing and changing, and all multi-family developments with multiple buildings were developed
under PUDs at that time. She stated that the PUD ordinance at that time did not include the same
language it includes today, and explained how the density requirements have changed over time.
She also reviewed items of discussion for the original PUD approval. She stated that the
Comprehensive Plan of the City today includes density goals and anticipated growth, and noted
that the past density ranges of the City have changed over time. She commented that the PUD tool
has existed since the 1980s, but has also changed over time to allow flexibility. She stated that
exceeding the density is a discretionary authority of the City Council. She stated that the
Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. She noted that increased
density is something that has been approved by the City Council in recent years, providing
examples.
Chair Field asked for information on the fire hydrant issue mentioned.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that this would likely be the location of
the landscaping island within the parking lot and will be reflected in the updated plans, as parking
is not allowed in front of a hydrant.
Chair Field referenced the concerns with the treed area and related comments of the applicant and
asked for staff thoughts.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the line shown on the plan is
an estimated boundary for the tree canopy, and the majority of the trees fall deeper into the property
on private property. She stated that, depending on the needs for the fire turnaround, additional
trees may need to be removed, but there would be a requirement for replacement.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this building would be at the same elevation as the other building
or whether there would be an opportunity for the new building to have a lower elevation.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the buildings will not be at the exact
same elevation, noting the grading plan.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Page 5 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 10
Mr. McElwain provided the elevation of the existing building and the proposed elevation of the
new building. He explained the changes that would be necessary to dig the new building lower,
which would require a higher retaining wall and potentially additional tree impacts.
Commissioner Johnson commented that there will be damage to trees from the construction of the
retaining wall, again noting the map she created, which identifies areas where additional plantings
could occur.
Mr. McElwain stated that they would add trees around the fire turnaround to mitigate for
headlights.
Commissioner Goldade noted that the existing buildings are three stories, and this is proposed to
be four stories, so it would be a higher elevation.
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2025-16 AS THE NEED IS NOT URGENT, THE
BUILDINGS EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, AND THERE ARE STILL HIGH-
DENSITY HOUSING BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ARE YET TO
COME ONLINE.
Further discussion: Commissioner Stone commented that he has been in Mendota Heights for 17
years and originally did not support the apartment buildings that have come to the community, but
his opinion has since changed as the buildings are nice and allow more residents to live in the
community. He stated that he has always been surprised by the amount of green space on this site
and completely understands the thoughts of the building owner to want another building on the
site. He stated that he would support the request.
Commissioner Johnson stated that her concerns are related to the transition from R-1 to R-3 and
how that is dealt with. She had concerns about the buffer along the highway and believed that
additional trees would assist with buffering from the highway noise. She understood the need and
desire of the community for space and trees, and perhaps there are things that can be built into the
design to mitigate that impact for existing residents. She stated that the request generally fits
within the area, and this could be an area to accommodate additional density, while also preserving
the PUD objectives. She noted the additional housing options that this building would provide
and stated that while she does have concerns with increased density, she believed this to be a
minimal impact and could be a good opportunity.
Commissioner Nath commented that the Council continues to approve increased density and asked
when that stops. He stated that this is a nicely designed building, but was unsure whether he
wanted to continue to support requests above the standard. He recognized that the final decision
Page 6 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10
would be of the City Council, but did not want to support something above the residential standard.
He commented that he also did not like that the existing residents would have a view of a new
building, but recognized that this is also the result of development. He stated that he probably
could not support this as written.
Commissioner Johnson stated that while she agrees with the comments related to density, a PUD
is a tool that allows flexibility in density. She stated that the Council will have discussions related
to the density request, and perhaps additional benefits will be provided in return for that increase.
She recognized that this parcel has available land that would allow for additional development
with minimal impact on others.
AYES: 2 (CORBETT AND NATH)
NAYS: 4
Commissioner Stone asked if a recommendation could be provided to plant additional trees as
suggested by Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Corbett asked about the urgency in building additional apartments.
Commissioner Stone commented that there may not be an urgency, but he understands the why,
as the property owner has a large amount of land that could be built upon. He stated that the Riley
family constructed the project, and he believes that the family will continue to have a vested
interest in the property and maintenance of the property.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the question is not why but whether the request fits within the
parameters, as outlined in the staff report.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that the recommended conditions of
approval have not changed from the previous meeting, noting that 11 conditions of approval were
recommended with this request. She stated that the Commission could choose to add conditions,
as could the City Council. She stated that landscaping is addressed through proposed condition
seven in the staff report and noted that the Commission could modify that condition or choose to
add additional conditions if desired.
Commissioner Goldade asked if there was a discussion related to the number of stories and how
four stories were chosen to move forward.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden stated that an early concept was shared four or
five years ago, which also included a four-story building, as that is the style of building constructed
in this area. She noted that when additional stories are added, different construction materials are
required. She stated that the building as designed is compliant with the standards, recognizing that
the density is a requested flexibility.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there is anything that could be done architecturally to modify the
impact the building will have on the existing 2300 residents, whether that is done through a step
back or a gap.
Page 7 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Goldade stated that when there is an existing development and something new is
added, it should be consistent in height. He asked if the City would want to add a building one
story higher than the existing three-story buildings on the site.
Commissioner Johnson agreed that, ideally, it would be a three-story building or a modified
version.
Chair Field asked if a condition could use the word encourage.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the discussion could include
the thoughts that have been expressed, but the conditions are directives and requirements of the
applicant and not suggestions.
Chair Field stated that he is unsure there is anything that could be done in that regard, as it is the
nature of the application, as this is a preliminary plat.
Commissioner Corbett stated that the Commission is making a recommendation, and the City
Council will have the final vote. He stated that the Commission could recommend denial because
it is four stories instead of three.
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT AND PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEXINGTON
HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ALLOWING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 84-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 2300 LEXINGTON
AVENUE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER SHALL ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
2.THE NEW BUILDING SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ONLY IN CONFORMANCE TO
BUILDING AND SITE PLANS CERTIFIED BY REGISTERED ARCHITECTS AND
ENGINEERS (AS APPLICABLE); AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL
ARCHITECTURAL AND BUILDING STANDARDS FOUND UNDER TITLE 12-4B-
3, SUBPART E “ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS”.
3.THE PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED
TO SAINT PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICE (SPRWS) STANDARDS,
INCLUDING WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN LAYOUT PRIOR TO FINAL
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
4.THE DEVELOPER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL GRADING, UTILITY,
AND SITE PLANS, AND ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR
PERMITTING, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING
PERMIT APPLICATION. BUILDING AND GRADING PERMITS SHALL BE
OBTAINED FROM THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT OF
ANY WORK.
Page 8 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10
5.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AS PART OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDEANCE
DOCUMENT.
6.THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL INCLUDE AN UPDATED LANDSCAPE
PLAN WITH A DETAILED LANDSCAPING SCHEDULE FOR PLANNED PLANT
MATERIALS.
7.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER WILL WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF TO
REVIEW AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIALS WITHIN A BUFFER
AREA BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PATIO COURTYARD, THE REDUCED
SETBACK AREA FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY WITH I-35E,
ALONG THE R-1 PROPERTY LINE, AND IN THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION OF
THE RETAINING WALL AND FIRE TURNAROUND BY INSTALLING
ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS, INCLUDING TREES, BERMS, HEDGES,
OR OTHER LANDSCAPE MATERIALS WHERE FEASIBLE.
8.A PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY THE
APPLICANT IN THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO AT LEAST ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 ½)
TIMES THE VALUE OF SUCH SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.
9.THE DEVELOPER AND/OR THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS SHALL BE JOINTLY
AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL
LANDSCAPING IN A CONDITION PRESENTING A HEALTHY, NEAT, AND
ORDERLY APPEARANCE AND FREE FROM REFUSE AND DEBRIS. PLANTS
AND GROUND COVER WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY AN APPROVED SITE OR
LANDSCAPE PLAN AND WHICH HAVE DIED SHALL BE REPLACED AS SOON
AS SEASONAL OR WEATHER CONDITIONS ALLOW. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS
MUST BE IRRIGATED.
10.THE APPLICANT/DEVELOPER WILL WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL IN DETERMINING FINAL DESIGN, LOCATION, AND
SPECIFICATIONS TO THE FIRE SAFETY ACCESS AREA TO THE NORTH
PORTION OF THE NEW BUILDING.
11.A SEPARATE FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT APPLICATION AND FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY PRIOR
TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE
URBAN FOREST PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT SHALL POST
A TREE REPLACEMENT ESCROW WITH THE CITY AND SHALL MITIGATE
TREE REPLACEMENT IN APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE PROPERTY AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER. IF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT IS NOT FEASIBLE, THE CITY MAY
APPROVE ALTERNATIVE TREE REPLACEMENT MEASURES WITHIN THE
FOREST ALTERATION PERMIT.
AYES: 3
Page 9 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10
NAYS: 3 (CORBETT, GOLDADE, AND NATH)
Commissioner Johnson asked if this would still go to the Council with a 3-3 vote.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that the Commission could
continue to discuss and see if the outcome would change, or this could go forward with the 3-3
vote.
Commissioner Stone commented that this should move forward with the 3-3 vote, and the City
Council, who are elected officials, can make the decision. The Commission agreed.
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 20, 2026,
meeting.
New and Unfinished Business
A) APPROVAL OF 2026 MEETING CALENDAR
Chair Field explained that the Commission is asked to consider and approve the 2026 meeting
calendar.
Commissioner Stone commented that the March meeting is proposed during the spring break for
the school district.
It was noted that there would not be a quorum at that meeting.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden commented that she could bring alternative
March dates for the Commission to consider. She noted that if a date or quorum could not be
found, the March meeting could be canceled. She stated that the calendar could be approved
without the March meeting tonight.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the May meeting and asked if the Commission could receive
the packet earlier, given the holiday weekend prior to the meeting.
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden noted that she would make a note of it, and the
digital packet could be made available earlier, although the paper packet would still be delivered
on the usual date.
Commissioner Johnson asked if a similar request could be made for the December meeting packet.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
APPROVE THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR AS PRESENTED
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MARCH MEETING DATE.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Page 10 of 44
December 29, 2025 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Manager Sarah Madden provided updates on recent City Council
actions on cases recommended by the Planning Commission. She stated that there are currently
two applications that could come before the Commission at its January meeting. She noted
additional items that will come before the Commission and City Council in the coming year.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NATH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Page 11 of 44
4.a
Planning Commission
Meeting Date: January 27, 2026
Agenda Item: CASE No. 2026-01 MRCCA Permit Application of Homes by Tradition,
LLC, requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit
to allow for the construction of a new single-family home on the vacant
property located at the northwest corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria
Curve.
Department: Community
Development
Contact: Sarah Madden,
Community Development
Manager
Introduction:
Homes by Tradition is the Applicant and Owners’ Representative of the vacant property at the
northwest corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve (PID#27-81251-00-013), and has
requested a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to construct a new
single-family home, with associated site work and improvements.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters
were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public
comments were received as of the submittal of this report.
Background:
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve,
and is generally east of the boundary with the City of Mendota. The subject site is part of the
Valley View Oak 2nd Addition subdivision and has never been developed.
The property has been included within and party to several prior planning case applications.
The most recent application that directly affected this property was in 2023, wherein the
subject site was included in the approval of a lot split, authorized by Resolutions No. 2023-12
and 2023-25, and which established the lot boundaries for the subject site as they are today,
and also referenced future development to be subject to a separate MRCCA Permit review.
The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA),
and is subject to the standards established for this Overlay district that are more restrictive
than the R-1 base zoning district standards. Therefore, the construction of a new single-family
home requires a MRCCA permit.
Proposed Improvements
The existing lot is vacant. The proposed project is to construct a new 4,214 sq-ft home on the
property, generally located at the front of the lot, 33-ft from the front property line abutting
Glenhill Road. The proposed improvements include a new driveway, attached screen porch,
deck, and patio, a new infiltration basin, and the development will include several retaining
walls of varying heights. The application also includes a proposed swimming pool in the rear
Page 12 of 44
yard, with associated surrounding decking and patio area. All of the proposed improvements
are shown to be located outside of the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ), however some improvements,
such as the swimming pool, do encroach on the bluff setback, measured at 20-ft from the Bluff
Impact Zone.
Analysis:
Per Title 12, Chapter 6 Critical Area Overlay District, a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area
(MRCCA) Permit is required for the subject project.
The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
• Establish districts under which building height and structure placement are regulated to
protect and enhance the Mississippi River’s resources and features consistent with the
natural and built character of each district.
• Identify development standards and considerations for land uses that have potential to
negatively affect primary conservation areas and public river corridor views.
• Establish standards that protect primary conservation areas and public river corridor
views from development impacts and ensure that new development is established
consistent with the purpose of the MRCCA.
• Establish design standards for private facilities that are consistent with best
management practices and that minimize impacts to Primary Conservation Areas
(PCAs), Public River Corridor Views (PRCVs) and other resources identified in the
MRCCA plan.
• Establish design standards for public facilities that are consistent with best
management practices and that minimize impacts to primary conservation areas, public
river corridor views and other resources identified in the MRCCA plan while recognizing
that they serve the public interest by providing access to the Mississippi River Corridor
or require locations within the river corridor and therefor require some flexibility.
• Establish standards that sustain and enhance the biological and ecological functions of
vegetation; preserve the natural character and topography of the MRCCA; and maintain
stability of bluffs and critical area steep slopes and ensure stability of other erosion-
prone areas.
• Establish standards that protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment,
nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants; and maintain stability of bluffs, shorelines,
and other areas prone to erosion.
• To create standards for subdivisions and development or redevelopment of sites that
protect and enhance the natural and scenic value of the MRCCA, protect and restore
biological and ecological functions of primary conservation areas, and encourage
restoration of native vegetation where restoration opportunities have been identified in
the MRCCA Plan.
The following summary of the site is provided as reference:
Standard Subject Property Conditions
MRCCA Sub District Separated from River
Bluff on Site? Yes, extending across the property
Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) Yes, the Bluff Impact Zone encompasses
the majority of the property. The proposed
home is setback 34-ft from the BIZ at its
closest point, and the attached patio is
Page 13 of 44
setback 31-ft at its closest point. The
proposed swimming pool and surrounding
decking is 7.5-ft setback from the BIZ at its
closest point.
Significant Vegetative Stands or Primary
Conservation Area (PCA)
Yes, the property is considered to be within
a Significant Existing Vegetative Stand
area.
Subject to Section 12-6A-9 Vegetation
Management
Yes, selective vegetation removal will occur
that is consistent with the minimum
necessary for development.
Subject to Section 12-6A-10 Land
Alteration Standards and Stormwater
Management
Yes. A new home construction is permitted
but stormwater must be diverted from any
BIZ area. The new construction and
earthwork is subject to the Land Alteration
and Stormwater standards.
Subject to Section 12-6A-11 Subdivision
and Land Development Standards
No. The property is not being subdivided,
and is not part of a master-planned or
phased common development plan.
Subject to Section 12-6A-12 Site Plan
Requirements
Yes. Must include Site Plan and
Landscape Plan
As described in Section 12-6A-4 C.3., the Separated from River (SR) sub-district describes
the management purpose as, “...provides flexibility in managing development without
negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative
impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm
water into the river are priorities…” As indicated on the attached GIS maps, the Bluff Impact
Zone (BIZ) crosses and covers the majority of the subject site from the western boundary
towards the building area at the eastern edge of the property. As shown on the Site Plan and
Landscape Plan, the applicant will construct a new single-family home and sod the entirety of
the site, install a new infiltration basin, and plans for enhanced landscaping areas throughout
the developed portion of the site adjacent to the new home. As proposed, the new home will
be setback approximately 34-ft from the BIZ boundary at its closest point. The attached patio
at the south end of the new home will also be setback approximately 31-ft from the BIZ
boundary at its closest point. The current site plan shows a proposed swimming pool and
associated patio/decking area which is 7.5-ft from the BIZ boundary. This encroaches into the
bluff setback required in the SR-District of the MRCCA and is discussed in the “Structure
Height and Placement” section of this report.
There are also Primary Conservation Areas throughout the site, noted as significant vegetative
stands in the DNR’s MRCCA mapping tool. The site is primarily a wooded hillside adjacent to
the bluff area. The attached MRCCA Map illustrates the extent of a Significant Existing
Vegetative Stand of Midwestern White Oak – Red Oak Forest, which encompasses the
entirety of the site. The applicant is proposing to impact this area to allow for the development
of this home, but has limited the impact area to outside of the BIZ and has illustrated
replacement landscaping to comply with vegetation standards established in the MRCCA
ordinance.
Structure Height and Placement
The maximum structure height for a new single-family home in the MRCCA District is
determined by the underlying zoning district. In this case, the proposed home cannot exceed
Page 14 of 44
25-ft in height. A review of the height of adjacent structures is not applicable in this case, as
the subject site is a corner lot, and the property to the north is still undeveloped. The proposed
new home meets the maximum 25-ft height requirement for the R-1 Low Density Residential
zoning district.
The City’s MRCCA Ordinance requires a 40-ft setback from the bluffline for structures and
facilities, including impervious surfaces. This setback includes the first 20-ft of the Bluff Impact
Zone (BIZ), meaning that this setback is measured at 20-ft from the marked edge of the BIZ.
The location of the principal structure on the property (the proposed home) is compliant with
all setback requirements of the base zoning district, as well as the 40-ft bluffline setback.
However, the applicant has also proposed an in-ground swimming pool to the rear of the
home. The MRCCA Ordinance does permit some flexibility to the bluffline setback for patios
and decks, (allowing a 15% reduction within the Separated-from-River District, or 6-ft in this
case) however the swimming pool is not included in that flexibility. Approximately 272 sq-ft of
the swimming pool and surrounding deck/patio area is within the bluffline setback.
This improvement cannot be approved as part of the MRCCA Permit for this new home, and
will either need to be relocated on the plan, removed from the site plan, or the applicant will
need to apply for and receive a Variance for this setback reduction.
Vegetation Management
The applicant is proposing to remove trees within the building pad and construction area, and
has also identified several dead, diseased, or dying trees across the property which will be
removed as part of this project, including invasive buckthorn removal. The City’s MRCCA
Ordinance allows the clearing of vegetation that is dead, diseased, or dying, selective removal
of species, and the minimum clearing which is necessary for development, when associated
with a MRCCA Vegetation Permit approved by the City.
The applicant has provided an existing tree inventory which outlines select significant and
heritage trees on the bluff impact zone portion of the property which would be removed or
retained alongside this project. Five heritage trees will be removed within the Bluff Impact
Zone as part of this MRCCA Permit approval: two red oaks, and three bur oaks.
Outside the Bluff Impact Zone, but within the general construction area on the property, the
applicant has indicated that there are 49 existing trees, 11 of which will be retained. The Tree
Inventory is included as an attachment to this report. Two of the trees which are to be retained
are heritage trees. Of the 38 trees which are proposed to be removed, four are heritage trees,
although only 1 of those trees shows no noticeable signs of decline or disease. In total, 349” of
heritage and significant trees are proposed to be removed. The site will be subject to tree
replacement where feasible, and a tree preservation escrow will be required throughout the
duration of the project to ensure the protection of the preserved/retained trees. The applicant
has submitted the materials for a Forest Alteration Permit, however no action to remove any
trees on site are permitted until the issuance of this permit by City Staff, along with the
approval of a Forest Management Plan.
In addition to the Forest Management Plan, a Vegetation Restoration Plan is required for any
vegetation removed with a MRCCA Permit subject to 12-6A-9: Vegetation Management. The
applicant has provided a landscape plan illustrating the plantings associated with the new
home, including perimeter shrub plantings, perennial gardens, and new tree plantings. A final
Restoration Plan will be required with the building permit submittal to verify the caliper inch of
replacement trees needed for the Forest Alteration Permit, as well as to verify consistency
with the Vegetation Management standards outlined as part of this MRCCA Permit.
Page 15 of 44
Standards specific to Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) are applicable to new subdivision
and larger developments/redevelopment of land under 12-6A-11 of the City’s MRCCA
Ordinance. This application is for one new home on one parcel, and its prior subdivision
application was also exempt from this standard due to size so it is not required to designate
PCAs as protected open space. However, the majority of the site is illustrated as a PCA due to
the existing vegetation on site. The current proposal for a single-family home at the front
setback line limits the impacts to this site and proceeds with a development that is removing
the minimum amount of vegetation necessary for development. The majority of the subject site
will remain undisturbed with the exception of select tree removal of dead or dying trees, or for
invasive buckthorn management. Staff would affirm that this application meets the intent of
these standards, though they are not required in this specific planning case.
Land Alteration Standards
The applicant’s provided site plan illustrates that there are no planned improvements or
impacts within the bluff impact zone. However, many of the improvements and site impacts
are placed just outside of the BIZ boundary. Section 10 of the City’s MRCCA Ordinance
regulates land alteration standards and stormwater management. The ordinance allows
development on steep slopes outside of the BIZ if the applicant can demonstrate that the
proposed development can be accomplished without increasing erosion or stormwater runoff
and the geology is suited to the development.
The applicant has provided a geotechnical report by Braun Intertec (included as an
attachment to this report) which stated that the result of the soil borings showed that the site is
generally buildable for a proposed single-family house. The report also notes that soil
corrections may be needed to prepare the building pad site depending on the depth of the
footings, and provides recommendations for soil corrections if needed.
In addition to the MRCCA standards for land alteration, the application’s approval is subject to
compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Additional conditions
beyond general compliance with these standards have been included in the recommendation
section of this report, noting that erosion control measures must be in place for the duration of
the project, including a dual row of perimeter erosion control to be installed at the back of the
property to protect the bluff, perimeter erosion control around the infiltration basin to protect it
during construction, and erosion control blankets to be placed on any disturbed slopes 3:1 or
greater.
Interagency Review:
Under the MRCCA Ordinance, the city is required to submit the MRRCA permit request to the
MNDNR and the National Park Service (NPS). The plan set and project information was
transmitted to both agencies for their review and comment.
The National Park Service responded and stated that based on the submitted plans, all
proposed structures and grading activities appeared to be outside the Bluff Impact Zone and
they did not identify issues requiring comment. They did note that continued attention to slope
stability during construction was recommended.
The Minnesota DNR also responded to the application echoing the NPS comments regarding
the attention to drainage, erosion control, and bluff stability.
This e-mail correspondence has been included as an attachment to this report.
Page 16 of 44
Alternatives:
1.Approve the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for Homes by Tradition, which would
allow for the construction of a new single-family home and associated improvements
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, and
with certain conditions; or
2.Deny the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for Homes by Tradition, 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 and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant;
Staff will extend the review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota
State Statute 15.99.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request by Homes by
Tradition for a new single family home on the vacant property at the northwest corner of
Glenhill Road and Victoria Curve (PID#27-81251-00-013), with the following conditions:
1.A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
2.The swimming pool and surrounding pool decking/patio area must be removed from the
site plan, or relocated elsewhere on the site plan outside the bluffline setback prior to
the City taking action on this application. No structures or facilities, including impervious
surfaces, may be located within the bluffline setback.
3.A separate Forest Alteration Permit application and Forest Management Plan is
required to be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance. The applicant
shall post a tree replacement escrow with the City and shall mitigate tree replacement
in appropriate areas of the property as reviewed and approved by the Natural
Resources Manager and Community Development Manager. If compliance with the
tree replacement requirement is not feasible, the City may approve alternative tree
replacement measures within the Forest Alteration Permit.
4.A final landscaping and restoration plan for the developed area of the site must be
submitted for review and approval by the Natural Resources Manager as part of the
building permit submittal package, including seed mix details, native plant species, and
sizing and DSH of replacement trees.
5.In the Bluff Impact Zone, all new vegetation associated with the restoration plan must
be native and suitable for the existing conditions of the slope.
6.In any areas where buckthorn will be removed, a buckthorn replacement groundcover
mix must be installed to prevent erosion.
7.The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Director.
8.All erosion control requirements must be put in place prior to the commencement of any
grading and site work activities and must remain in place for the duration of the
construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed, including a dual
row of perimeter control at the back of the property adjacent to the bluff, perimeter
control surrounding the infiltration basin, and erosion control blankets on any disturbed
slopes 3:1 or greater.
9.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations and codes.
Page 17 of 44
10.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.
Attachments:
1.Findings of Fact for Approval
2.MRCCA Map
3.Narrative Letter
4.Site & Grading Plan
5.Existing Tree Inventory
6.Preliminary Landscape Plan Package
7.Exterior Elevation
8.Geotechnical Evaluation - Braun Intertec
9.NPS and DNR MRCCA Permit Application Comments
Page 18 of 44
Planning Case 2026-01 (MRCCA Permit for 2026-01 (Homes by Tradition)
Page 1 of 1
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
MRCAA -Critical Area Permit
for
Planning Case No. 2026-01 (Homes by Tradition)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed construction of a new single family home and associated improvements meets the
general purpose and intent of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated
from River Overlay District.
2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the new home and associated improvements has
no direct impact to the Bluff Impact Zone, and impact to Primary Conservation Areas within the
MRCCA Plan are limited to the minimum necessary for development, and the project includes
restoration of the area once developed with sod cover and perennial plantings and trees. The
proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay
District that provides for flexibility within the management purpose.
3.The proposed project 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 construction of the home is shown in the plan to 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; and is consistent with the current single-
family development pattern of the neighborhood.
Page 19 of 44
4.a.1.
Page 20 of 44
4.a.2
Page 21 of 444.a.3.
Page 22 of 44
4.a.4
Site: XXXX Glenhill RdMendota Heights, MN 55118Prepared for: Southview DesignPrepared by: Sam Wallace, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #MN-4493BPrepared on: 12/9/2025Tag # Genus Species Common name DBH (in) Height (ft) Condition Notes Action Heritage TreeHeritage Inches -RemoveHeritage Inches -RetainSignificant TreeSignificant Inches - RemoveSignificant Inches - Retain1Quercus macrocarpabur oak 8 20 2 RetainYes - Retain 82Quercus rubrared oak 9 40 3 RetainYes - Retain 93Ulmus americanaAmerican elm 12 30 4 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 124Ulmus americanaAmerican elm 6 30 4 RetainYes - Retain 65Quercus rubrared oak 10 40 4 RetainYes - Retain 106Quercus rubrared oak 12 45 4 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 127Quercus rubrared oak 8 45 4 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 88Quercus rubrared oak 7 35 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 79Quercus rubrared oak 11 45 4 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1110Quercus rubrared oak 11 40 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1111Quercus rubrared oak 14 45 4 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1412Quercus rubrared oak 16 50 4 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1613Ulmus americanaAmerican elm 7 35 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health14Quercus rubrared oak 18 45 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1815Quercus rubrared oak 12 55 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1216Quercus rubrared oak 12 50 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1217Quercus rubrared oak 14 / 9 45 3 2 stem Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1418Quercus rubrared oak 8 30 2 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 819Quercus rubrared oak 10 45 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1020Quercus rubrared oak 10 45 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1021Quercus rubrared oak 10 45 3 RetainYes - Retain 1022Quercus rubrared oak 14 50 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1423Quercus rubrared oak 12 45 3 Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove 1224Ulmus americanaAmerican elm 10 45 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health25Quercusrubrared oak20 50 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove2026Quercusrubrared oak18 50 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove1827Quercusrubrared oak12 / 8 45 2 2 stemRemove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Poor Health28TiliaamericanaAmerican basswood10 50 2Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Poor Health29Quercusrubrared oak10 / 10 55 3 2 stemRemove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove1030Quercusrubrared oak11 / 9 45 2 2 stemRemove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Poor Health31Quercusrubrared oak18 60 4Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove1832Quercusrubrared oak15 55 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove1533TiliaamericanaAmerican basswood10 50 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove1034TiliaamericanaAmerican basswood6 40 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove635TiliaamericanaAmerican basswood7 40 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove736Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash12 35 0 Heavily EAB infestedRemove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Dead37UlmusamericanaAmerican elm18 70 3RetainYes - Retain1838Quercusmacrocarpabur oak36 65 3RetainYes - Retain3639TiliaamericanaAmerican basswood14 55 3Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove1440TiliaamericanaAmerican basswood 10 / 10 / 1050 2 3 stemRemove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Poor Health41UlmusamericanaAmerican elm7 45 2Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Poor Health42Quercusmacrocarpabur oak26 35 0 DeadRemove - Within Building Footprint & Poor HealthNo - Dead43Quercusrubrared oak30 55 4Remove - Within Building FootprintYes - Remove3044Quercusrubrared oak20 65 4RetainYes - Retain2045Celtisoccidentalishackberry20 60 3RetainYes - Retain2046Quercusrubrared oak16 65 3RetainYes - Retain1647Quercusrubrared oak28 65 3RetainYes - Retain2848Quercusrubrared oak30 55 0 DeadRemove - DeadNo - Dead49Quercusrubrared oak30 55 0 DeadRemove - DeadNo - DeadOutside of Building Area - Bluff Area - Completed by Mike Goergen. Registered Landscape Architect. Lic. #56262 12/23/2552TiliaamericanaAmerican Basswood363 Multi stemRemove - Improve Views & Limit Shade to PoolYes - Retain3653QuercusrubraRed Oak240 DeadRemove - DeadNo - Dead54QuercusrubraRed Oak243RetainYes - Retain2455QuercusrubraRed Oak64RetainYes - Retain656QuercusrubraRed Oak244RetainYes - Retain2457UlmusamericanaAmerican Elm104RetainYes - Retain1058QuercusrubraRed Oak103RetainYes - Retain1059QuercusrubraRed Oak120 DeadRemove - DeadNo - Dead60TiliaamericanaAmerican Basswood163Remove - Improve Views & Limit Shade to PoolYes - Retain1661QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak420 DeadRemove - DeadNo - Dead62TiliaamericanaAmerican Basswood123RetainYes - Retain1263Quercusmacrocarpabur oak361Remove - Heavy Trunk Damage & RotNo - Dead/Diseased64QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak242RetainYes - Retain2465QuercusrubraRed Oak240 DeadRemove - DeadNo - Dead66Quercusrubrared oak62RetainYes - Retain667UlmusamericanaAmerican Elm83RetainYes - Retain868PopulusAlbaPoplar84RetainYes - Retain869PopulusAlbaPoplar184RetainYes - Retain1870QuercusrubraRed Oak163RetainYes - Retain1671QuercusrubraRed Oak223RetainYes - Retain2272QuercusrubraRed Oak243RetainYes - Retain2473QuercusrubraRed Oak143RetainYes - Retain1474QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak363RetainYes - Retain3675QuercusrubraRed Oak263RetainYes - Retain2676QuercusrubraRed Oak254RetainYes - Retain2577QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak363RetainYes - Retain3678QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak353RetainYes - Retain3579QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak293RetainYes - Retain2980QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak360 DeadRemove - DeadNo - Dead81TiliaamericanaAmerican Basswood243RetainYes - Retain24Total Inches Removed - Heritage & Significant34982QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak383RetainYes - Retain3883QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak402RetainYes - Retain40Tree Replacement Calculation - 75% of Removed Inches261.7584PopulusAlbaWhite Poplar284RetainYes - Retain2885PopulusAlbaWhite Poplar243RetainYes - Retain24Approximate Escrow Amount ($100/inch)$26,175.0086QuercusrubraRed Oak243RetainYes - Retain2487AcersaccharinumSilver Maple342RetainYes - Retain34Heritage Trees Preserved2388QuercusrubraRed Oak462RetainYes - Retain4689QuercusrubraRed Oak502RetainYes - Retain50Approximate Escrow Credit - Retain Heritage Tree $250/ea-$5,750.0090QuercusmacrocarpaBur Oak283RetainYes - Retain28Rhamnus CatharticaCommon BuckthornHeavily Infested throughout Bluff Area Remove Approx 50' into Bluff Area - Invasive SpeciesTotal Approximate Escrow Amount to City$20,425.00Heritage Tree - Inches RemovedHeritage Trees - Inches RetainedSignificant Tree - Inches RemovedSignificant Tree - Inches Retained30719319263Page 23 of 444.a.5.
E01
Bur Oak
E02
Red Oak
E03
American Elm E04
American Elm
E05
Red Oak
E06
Red Oak
E07
Red Oak
E08
Red Oak
E09
Red Oak
E10
Red Oak
E11
Red Oak
E12
Red Oak
E13
American Elm
E14
Red Oak
E15
Red Oak
E16
Red Oak
E17
Red Oak
E18
Red Oak
E19
Red Oak
E20
Red Oak
E21
Red Oak
E22
Red Oak
E23
Red Oak
E24
American Elm
E25
Red Oak
E26
Red Oak
E27
Red Oak
E28
American Basswood
E29
Red Oak
E30
Red Oak
E31
Red Oak
E32
Red Oak
E33
American Basswood
E34
American Basswood
E35
American Basswood
E36
Green Ash
E37
American Elm
E38
Bur Oak
E39
American Basswood
E40
American Basswood
E41
American Elm E42
Bur Oak
E43
Red Oak
E44
Red OakE45
Common Hackberryh
E46
Red OakE47
Red Oak
E48
Red Oak
E60
American Basswood
E49
Red Oak
E52
American Basswood
E53
Red Oak
E54
Red Oak
E58
Red Oak
E57
American Elm
E55
Red Oak
E56
Red Oak
E59
Red Oak
E61
Bur Oak
E62
American Basswood
E63
Bur Oak
E64
Bur Oak
E65
Red Oak
E66
Red Oak
E67
American Elm
E68
Poplar
E69
Poplar
E70
Red Oak
E71
Red Oak
E72
Red Oak
E73
Red Oak
E74
Red Oak
E75
Red Oak
E76
Red Oak
E77
Bur Oak
E78
Bur Oak
E92
Bur Oak
E80
Bur Oak
E91
American Basswood
E82
Bur Oak
E83
Bur Oak
E84
White Poplar
E85
White Poplar
E86
Red Oak
E87
Silver Maple
E88
Red Oak
E89
Red Oak
E90
Bur Oak
Heritage Tree
Standing Dead
Significant Tree
To Remove
Significant Tree
To Retain
Significant Tree
Poor Health To Remove
Significant Tree
Standing Dead
Heritage Tree
To Retain
Heritage Tree
To Remove
Key
Existing Tree
To Remove
Existing Tree
To Remain
Pool Equip
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone24'-8 1/4"50 ' Setback from Bluff Line5 0 ' S e t b a ck f r o m B l u f f L i n e
50' Setback from Bluff Line
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
A p p r o x im a t e D is t ur b e d a r e a Approximate Disturbed area
Approximate Disturbed areaApproximate Disturbed areaTree Protection Fence -
Typ.
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
2383 Pilot Knob Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-203-3000
Fax: 651-455-1734
SouthviewDesign.com
DateDate Issue NotesRevision Notes
Homes By Tradition - Nelson Residence
Tree Inventory
XXXX Glenhill Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55118Scale:
1" = 10'-0"
This drawing contains proprietary information which belongs to Southview Design Inc. Any
unauthorized duplication or use is strictly prohibited.
Released By:__________________________ Date Released:____/____/________
MG
NO.NO.
Sheet
Sht-1 of 4
Designer:
Design Associate:
Print Date:
File Name:
2025-12-23
2025-12-01_Nelson R2.vwx
Measure Input:
Measure Team:
Site: XXXX Glenhill Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Prepared for: Southview Design
Prepared by: Sam Wallace, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #MN-4493B
Prepared on: 12/9/2025
Tag # Genus Species Common name DBH (in) Height (ft) Condition Notes Action Heritage Tree
Heritage Inches -
Remove
Heritage Inches -
Retain Significant Tree
Significant
Inches - Remove
Significant Inches -
Retain
1 Quercus macrocarpa bur oak 8 20 2 Retain Yes - Retain 8
2 Quercus rubra red oak 9 40 3 Retain Yes - Retain 9
3 Ulmus americana American elm 12 30 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 12
4 Ulmus americana American elm 6 30 4 Retain Yes - Retain 6
5 Quercus rubra red oak 10 40 4 Retain Yes - Retain 10
6 Quercus rubra red oak 12 45 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 12
7 Quercus rubra red oak 8 45 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 8
8 Quercus rubra red oak 7 35 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 7
9 Quercus rubra red oak 11 45 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 11
10 Quercus rubra red oak 11 40 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 11
11 Quercus rubra red oak 14 45 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 14
12 Quercus rubra red oak 16 50 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 16
13 Ulmus americana American elm 7 35 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
14 Quercus rubra red oak 18 45 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 18
15 Quercus rubra red oak 12 55 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 12
16 Quercus rubra red oak 12 50 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 12
17 Quercus rubra red oak 14 / 9 45 3 2 stem Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 14
18 Quercus rubra red oak 8 30 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 8
19 Quercus rubra red oak 10 45 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 10
20 Quercus rubra red oak 10 45 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 10
21 Quercus rubra red oak 10 45 3 Retain Yes - Retain 10
22 Quercus rubra red oak 14 50 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 14
23 Quercus rubra red oak 12 45 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 12
24 Ulmus americana American elm 10 45 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
25 Quercus rubra red oak 20 50 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 20
26 Quercus rubra red oak 18 50 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 18
27 Quercus rubra red oak 12 / 8 45 2 2 stem Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
28 Tilia americana American basswood 10 50 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
29 Quercus rubra red oak 10 / 10 55 3 2 stem Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 10
30 Quercus rubra red oak 11 / 9 45 2 2 stem Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
31 Quercus rubra red oak 18 60 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 18
32 Quercus rubra red oak 15 55 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 15
33 Tilia americana American basswood 10 50 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 10
34 Tilia americana American basswood 6 40 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 6
35 Tilia americana American basswood 7 40 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 7
36 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash 12 35 0 Heavily EAB infested Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Dead
37 Ulmus americana American elm 18 70 3 Retain Yes - Retain 18
38 Quercus macrocarpa bur oak 36 65 3 Retain Yes - Retain 36
39 Tilia americana American basswood 14 55 3 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 14
40 Tilia americana American basswood 10 / 10 / 10 50 2 3 stem Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
41 Ulmus americana American elm 7 45 2 Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Poor Health
42 Quercus macrocarpa bur oak 26 35 0 Dead Remove - Within Building Footprint & Poor Health No - Dead
43 Quercus rubra red oak 30 55 4 Remove - Within Building Footprint Yes - Remove 30
44 Quercus rubra red oak 20 65 4 Retain Yes - Retain 20
45 Celtis occidentalis hackberry 20 60 3 Retain Yes - Retain 20
46 Quercus rubra red oak 16 65 3 Retain Yes - Retain 16
47 Quercus rubra red oak 28 65 3 Retain Yes - Retain 28
48 Quercus rubra red oak 30 55 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
49 Quercus rubra red oak 30 55 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
Outside of Building Area - Bluff Area - Completed by Mike Goergen. Registered Landscape Architect. Lic. #56262 12/23/25
52 Tilia americana American Basswood 36 3 Multi stem Remove - Improve Views & Limit Shade to Pool Yes - Retain 36
53 Quercus rubra Red Oak 24 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
54 Quercus rubra Red Oak 24 3 Retain Yes - Retain 24
55 Quercus rubra Red Oak 6 4 Retain Yes - Retain 6
56 Quercus rubra Red Oak 24 4 Retain Yes - Retain 24
57 Ulmus americana American Elm 10 4 Retain Yes - Retain 10
58 Quercus rubra Red Oak 10 3 Retain Yes - Retain 10
59 Quercus rubra Red Oak 12 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
60 Tilia americana American Basswood 16 3 Remove - Improve Views & Limit Shade to Pool Yes - Retain 16
61 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 42 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
62 Tilia americana American Basswood 12 3 Retain Yes - Retain 12
63 Quercus macrocarpa bur oak 36 1 Remove - Heavy Trunk Damage & Rot No - Dead/Diseased
64 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 24 2 Retain Yes - Retain 24
65 Quercus rubra Red Oak 24 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
66 Quercus rubra red oak 6 2 Retain Yes - Retain 6
67 Ulmus americana American Elm 8 3 Retain Yes - Retain 8
68 Populus Alba Poplar 8 4 Retain Yes - Retain 8
69 Populus Alba Poplar 18 4 Retain Yes - Retain 18
70 Quercus rubra Red Oak 16 3 Retain Yes - Retain 16
71 Quercus rubra Red Oak 22 3 Retain Yes - Retain 22
72 Quercus rubra Red Oak 24 3 Retain Yes - Retain 24
73 Quercus rubra Red Oak 14 3 Retain Yes - Retain 14
74 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 36 3 Retain Yes - Retain 36
75 Quercus rubra Red Oak 26 3 Retain Yes - Retain 26
76 Quercus rubra Red Oak 25 4 Retain Yes - Retain 25
77 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 36 3 Retain Yes - Retain 36
78 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 35 3 Retain Yes - Retain 35
79 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 29 3 Retain Yes - Retain 29
80 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 36 0 Dead Remove - Dead No - Dead
81 Tilia americana American Basswood 24 3 Retain Yes - Retain 24 Total Inches Removed - Heritage & Significant 349
82 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 38 3 Retain Yes - Retain 38
83 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 40 2 Retain Yes - Retain 40 Tree Replacement Calculation - 75% of Removed Inches 261.75
84 Populus Alba White Poplar 28 4 Retain Yes - Retain 28
85 Populus Alba White Poplar 24 3 Retain Yes - Retain 24 Approximate Escrow Amount ($100/inch)$26,175.00
86 Quercus rubra Red Oak 24 3 Retain Yes - Retain 24
87 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 34 2 Retain Yes - Retain 34 Heritage Trees Preserved 23
88 Quercus rubra Red Oak 46 2 Retain Yes - Retain 46
89 Quercus rubra Red Oak 50 2 Retain Yes - Retain 50 Approximate Escrow Credit - Retain Heritage Tree $250/ea -$5,750.00
90 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 28 3 Retain Yes - Retain 28
Rhamnus Cathartica Common Buckthorn Heavily Infested throughout Bluff Area Remove Approx 50' into Bluff Area - Invasive Species Total Approximate Escrow Amount to City $20,425.00
Heritage Tree -
Inches Removed
Heritage Trees -
Inches Retained
Significant Tree -
Inches Removed
Significant Tree -
Inches Retained
30 719 319 263
Page 24 of 44
4.a.6.
Scale:
2383 Pilot Knob Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-203-3000
Fax: 651-455-1734
SouthviewDesign.com
DateDate Issue NotesRevision Notes
Homes By Tradition - Nelson Residence
Primary Conservation Areas
XXXX Glenhill Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 551181" = 10'-0"
This drawing contains proprietary information which belongs to Southview
Design Inc. Any unauthorized duplication or use is strictly prohibited.
Released By:______________ Date Released:__/__/____
MG
NO.NO.
Designer:
Design Associate:Measure Team:
Measure Input:
Print Date:
File Name:
2025-12-23
2025-12-01_Nelson R2.vwx
Sheet
Sht-2 of 4
E01
Bur Oak
E02
Red Oak
E03
American Elm E04
American Elm
E05
Red Oak
E06
Red Oak
E07
Red Oak
E08
Red Oak
E09
Red Oak
E10
Red Oak
E11
Red Oak
E12
Red Oak
E13
American Elm
E14
Red Oak
E15
Red Oak
E16
Red Oak
E17
Red Oak
E18
Red Oak
E19
Red Oak
E20
Red Oak
E21
Red Oak
E22
Red Oak
E23
Red Oak
E24
American Elm
E25
Red Oak
E26
Red Oak
E27
Red Oak
E28
American Basswood
E29
Red Oak
E30
Red Oak
E31
Red Oak
E32
Red Oak
E33
American Basswood
E34
American Basswood
E35
American Basswood
E36
Green Ash
E37
American Elm
E38
Bur Oak
E39
American Basswood
E40
American Basswood
E41
American Elm E42
Bur Oak
E43
Red Oak
E44
Red OakE45
Common Hackberryh
E46
Red OakE47
Red Oak
E48
Red Oak
E60
American Basswood
E49
Red Oak
E52
American Basswood
E53
Red Oak
E54
Red Oak
E58
Red Oak
E57
American Elm
E55
Red Oak
E56
Red Oak
E59
Red Oak
E61
Bur Oak
E62
American Basswood
E63
Bur Oak
E64
Bur Oak
E65
Red Oak
E66
Red Oak
E67
American Elm
E68
Poplar
E69
Poplar
E70
Red Oak
E71
Red Oak
E72
Red Oak
E73
Red Oak
E75
Red Oak
E76
Red Oak
E77
Bur Oak
E78
Bur Oak
Pool Equip
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
PCA OVERLAY - FROM PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREA MAPPING APPLICATION
- APPROXIMATE AREA OF CLEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION - 27,200 SF
- APPROXIMATE AREA OF REMEDIATION (PLANTINGS, TREES< GRASS, SEED, ETC) - 17,350 SF
24'-8 1/4"50' Setback from Bluff Line5 0 ' S e t b a c k f ro m B l u f f L i n e
50' Setback from Bluff Line
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
A p p r ox im at e D is tu r b e d a re a Approximate Disturbed area
Approximate Disturbed areaApproximate Disturbed areaTree Protection Fence -
Typ.
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Page 25 of 44
Scale:
2383 Pilot Knob Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-203-3000
Fax: 651-455-1734
SouthviewDesign.com
DateDate Issue NotesRevision Notes
Homes By Tradition - Nelson Residence
Grading Plan & Drainage
XXXX Glenhill Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 551181" = 10'-0"
This drawing contains proprietary information which belongs to Southview
Design Inc. Any unauthorized duplication or use is strictly prohibited.
Released By:______________ Date Released:__/__/____
MG
NO.NO.
Designer:
Design Associate:Measure Team:
Measure Input:
Print Date:
File Name:
2025-12-23
2025-12-01_Nelson R2.vwx
Sheet
Sht-3 of 4
Pool Equip
No-Mow Fescue on steep
slopes. Hydroseeded with
outcropping boulders to
assist with hillside
stabilization - Approx
2500 SF
Infiltration Basin
Rain Garden Planting plugs. Typical plants:
- Lobelia, Iris, Rudbeckia, Polemonium, Monarda, Phlox,
Verbena, Eupatorium, Geum
- Planted around the edge of the infiltration basin
- Approx 250 SF
Larger woody shrubs
planted on steep slope within
Fescue planting
42" tall fence
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
PCA OVERLAY - FROM PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREA MAPPING APPLICATION
- APPROXIMATE AREA OF CLEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION - 27,200 SF
- APPROXIMATE AREA OF REMEDIATION (PLANTINGS, TREES< GRASS, SEED, ETC) - 17,350 SF
24'-8 1/4"50' Setback from Bluff Line5 0 ' S e t b a c k f ro m B l u f f L i n e
50' Setback from Bluff Line
NDS Catch Basin - Typ.
Pool Deck Strip Drain -
Piped to Infiltration basin 4" PVC Drain Lines - typ.
Tree Protection Fence -
Typ.
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Page 26 of 44
Scale:
2383 Pilot Knob Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-203-3000
Fax: 651-455-1734
SouthviewDesign.com
DateDate Issue NotesRevision Notes
Homes By Tradition - Nelson Residence
Preliminary Landscape Plan
XXXX Glenhill Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 551181" = 10'-0"
This drawing contains proprietary information which belongs to Southview
Design Inc. Any unauthorized duplication or use is strictly prohibited.
Released By:______________ Date Released:__/__/____
MG
NO.NO.
Designer:
Design Associate:Measure Team:
Measure Input:
Print Date:
File Name:
2025-12-23
2025-12-01_Nelson R2.vwx
Sheet
Sht-4 of 4
11 North wind Switch Grass
10 Blonde Ambition Grass
6 Korean Feather Reed Grass
6Star of Beauty Masterwort
4 Ruby Star Coneflower
5Dwarf Fountain Grass
16 Standing Ovation Bluestem
5 Caradonna Meadow Sage
3Butterfly Weed
3 Phantom Joe Pye Weed
12 Flame Pink Garden Phlox
8 Blue Fortune Agastache
7 Robustissima Anemone
17Junior Walker Nepeta
8Ostrich Fern
7Cinnamon Fern
19 Millenium Allium
12 Kobold Liatris7 Becky Shasta Daisy
3 Slowmound Pine
1 Dwarf Globe Blue Spruce
1Little Devil Ninebark
9 Nearly Wild Rose
14 Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle
11 Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac
3 Cardinal Dogwood
3 Arctic Fire Red Twig Dogwood
2 Red Sprite Winterberry
2 Jim Dandy Winterberry
4 Emerald Fountain Hemlock
8Autumn Magic Chokeberry
4 Glow Girl Spirea
5Bobo Hydrangea
2 Medora Juniper
E01
Bur Oak
E02
Red Oak
E04
American Elm
E05
Red Oak
E21
Red Oak
E37
American Elm
E38
Bur Oak
E44
Red OakE45
Common Hackberryh
E46
Red OakE47
Red Oak
E60
American Basswood
1 Swamp White Oak
8 Whitespire Birch
3 Northern Red Oak
3Blue Beech
E52
American Basswood
E54
Red Oak
E58
Red Oak
E57
American Elm
E55
Red Oak
E56
Red Oak
E62
American Basswood
E64
Bur OakE66
Red Oak
E67
American Elm
E68
Poplar
E69
Poplar
E70
Red Oak
E71
Red Oak
E72
Red Oak
E73
Red Oak
E75
Red Oak
E76
Red Oak
E77
Bur Oak
E78
Bur Oak
Pool Equip
No-Mow Fescue on steep
slopes. Hydroseeded with
outcropping boulders to
assist with hillside
stabilization - Approx
2500 SF
Infiltration Basin
Rain Garden Planting plugs. Typical plants:
- Lobelia, Iris, Rudbeckia, Polemonium, Monarda, Phlox,
Verbena, Eupatorium, Geum
- Planted around the edge of the infiltration basin
- Approx 250 SF
Larger woody shrubs
planted on steep slope within
Fescue planting
42" tall fence
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Sod Lawn
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Bluff Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
PCA OVERLAY - FROM PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREA MAPPING APPLICATION
- APPROXIMATE AREA OF CLEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION - 27,200 SF
- APPROXIMATE AREA OF REMEDIATION (PLANTINGS, TREES< GRASS, SEED, ETC) - 17,350 SF
24'-8 1/4"50' Setback from Bluff Line5 0 ' S e t b a c k f ro m B l u f f L i n e
50' Setback from Bluff Line
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
Remove Invasive Buckthorn in this area
NDS Catch Basin - Typ.
Pool Deck Strip Drain -
Piped to Infiltration basin 4" PVC Drain Lines - typ.
Tree Protection Fence -
Typ.
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
Significant Existing Vegetation Stand Zone
1 Picea pungens 'Globosa'
4 Tsuga Canadensis 'Monler'
2 Juniperus scopulorum 'Medora'
3 Pinus mugo 'Slowmound'
5 Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln'
6 Calamagrostis arundinacea brachytricha
11 Panicum virgatum 'North wind'
16 Schizachyrium scoparium 'Standing Ovation'
7 Leucanthemum x 'Becky'
10 Bouteloua Blonde Ambition
8 Agastache foeniculum 'Blue Fortune'
3 Asclepias tuberosa
5 Salvia nemorosa 'Caradonna'
7 Osmunda cinnamomea
12 Phlox paniculata 'Pink Flame'
17 Nepeta x faassenii 'Junior Walker'
12 Liatris spicata 'Kobold'
19 Allium 'Millenium'
8 Matteuccia struthiopteris
3 Eupatorium x 'Phantom' P.P.# 18354
7 Anemone tomentosa 'Robustissima'
4 Echinacea purpurea 'Ruby Star' (E.p. 'Rubinstern')
6 Astrantia major 'Star of Beauty'
3 Cornus stolonifera 'Farrow' P.P. #18523
8 Aronia melanocarpa 'Autumn Magic'
5 Hydrangea paniculata 'ILVOBO'
3 Cornus sericea 'Cardinal'
14 Diervilla lonicera
4 Spiraea betulifolia 'TorGold'
11 Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'
2 Ilex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'
1 Physocarpus opulifolius 'Donna May'
9 Rosa 'Nearly Wild'
2 Ilex verticillata 'Red Sprite'
3 Carpinus caroliniana
3 Quercus rubra
1 Quercus bicolor
8 Betula platyphylla japonica 'Whitespire'
Page 27 of 44
Page 28 of 444.a.7.
Page 29 of 444.a.8.
Page 30 of 44
Page 31 of 44
Page 32 of 44
Page 33 of 44
Page 34 of 44
Page 35 of 44
Page 36 of 44
Page 37 of 44
Page 38 of 44
Page 39 of 44
Page 40 of 44
Page 41 of 44
Page 42 of 44
This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security
Operations Center.
From:Huinker, Taylor (DNR)
To:Henriksen, Holly R; Sarah Madden
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] New MRCCA Permit Application - Mendota Heights
Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 11:14:08 AM
Attachments:image002.png
Hello,
DNR agrees with the comments from NPS regarding the attention to drainage, erosion control, and
bluff stability.
Thank you,
Taylor
From: Henriksen, Holly R <holly_henriksen@nps.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 1:12 PM
To: Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov>; Huinker, Taylor (DNR)
<Taylor.Huinker@state.mn.us>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] New MRCCA Permit Application - Mendota Heights
Hi, Sarah -
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed project. Based on the submitted plans, all
proposed structures and grading activities appear to be outside the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ), and the
NPS does not identify issues requiring comment.
We do, of course, recommend continued attention to slope stability during construction,
particularly near the BIZ boundary. Implementing and maintaining erosion control measures and
monitoring for any signs of instability will help ensure long-term protection of the bluff and adjacent
areas.
Thank you, and please let us know if there are any changes to this project moving forward.
Best,
Holly Henriksen
Planner
Phone: 651-293-8470
Email : holly_henriksen@nps.gov
Mississippi National River & Recreation Area
111 Kellogg Blvd E, Suite 105
St. Paul MN 55101
www.nps.gov/miss
Page 43 of 44
4.a.9.
From: Sarah Madden <SMadden@mendotaheightsmn.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 11:59 AM
To: 'taylor.huinker@state.mn.us' <taylor.huinker@state.mn.us>; Henriksen, Holly R
<holly_henriksen@nps.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New MRCCA Permit Application - Mendota Heights
This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening
attachments, or responding.
Good Morning,
The City of Mendota Heights has received a new MRCCA Permit request from Homes By Tradition,
LLC for a new single-family home at the vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Glenhill Road and
Victoria Curve. (PID#278125100013) and has marked it complete.
The application materials are attached. This is a larger parcel, just under 3 acres in size, however
the area outside of the BIZ is limited. The developer will be using as much of the available space as
they are able, illustrated on the site and grading plan. The plans do show that the extent of the
grading work will be right up to the boundary of the BIZ boundary on the property, and will include
an 8-ft retaining wall just before said boundary.
Please let me know if you have any comments/questions!
Website | Connect
Sarah Madden
Community Development ManagerCity of Mendota HeightsD: 651-255-1142
smadden@mendotaheightsmn.govPronouns: she/her
Page 44 of 44