2017-07-05 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 5, 2017 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of June 20, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of June 20, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes
c. Acknowledge April 25, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
d. Acknowledge May 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
e. Approve Police Officer Hire
f. Approve Resolution 2017-50 Accept Donations of Mendota Heights 5K and Parks
Celebration
g. Award Contract for Friendly Hills Park Warming House
h. Approve Purchase and Installation of Wireless Network Equipment
i. Accepting Wetland Delineation Report for the Orchard Heights Development
j. Approve Out of State Training – Police Department
k. Authorize Submittal of the Pilot Knob Grant Application
l. Approval of Claims List
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations – none
8. Public Hearing – none
9. New and Unfinished Business
a. Resolution 2017-51 – Approving an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-
guide certain properties from “LR-Low Density Residential” to “MR-Medium Density
Residential”, generally located at the southeast corner of Sibley Memorial Highway and
Lexington Avenue (Planning Case 2017-11: Keith Ostrosky / Talaia Bowen / Raymond
Miller – Applicants)
b. Resolution 2017-52 – Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Amend the 2009 Mendota
Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Final Development Plan, to allow construction of
a new 17,000 sq. ft. office building (Planning Case 2017-12: Mendota Plaza LLC / Gemini
Medical - Applicants)
c. Resolution 2017-53 – Approving an Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy for Temporary
Outdoor Storage Area, located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway (Planning Case 2017-13:
Xcel Energy – Applicant)
d. Resolution 2017-54 – Approving a Wetlands Permit to allow new swimming pool and
related improvements, for the property located at 751 Willow Lane (Planning Case 2017-
15: Bob & Jane Reidell – Applicants)
e. Adopt City Goals for 2017-2018
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, May 20, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, and
Petschel were also present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval.
Councilmember Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for
execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items f) Authorize Early Payment for
Ice Arena Improvements and l) Approval of Revised Resolution 2017-45 Concerning Support for State
Bonding Assistance for Reconstruction of MnDOT Legacy Frontage Roads.
a. Approve June 6, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Approve June 6, 2017 Council Workshop Minutes
c. Approve Resolution 2017-46, Renew Contract For Service and a Memorandum of Understanding
For School Resource Officer
d. Approve Appointments to Traffic Safety Committee
e. Approve Ordinance 512 Fire Code Amendment
f. Authorize Early Payment to City Of West St. Paul for Ice Arena Improvements
g. Approve Resolution 2017-47, Providing For The First Amendment To Educational Facility Revenue
Note (St. Thomas Academy Project), Series 2012
h. Acknowledge May 2017 Building Activity Report
page 3
i. Acknowledge May 2017 Fire Synopsis
j. Approval of May 2017 Treasurer's Report
k. Approval of Claims List
l. Approval of Revised Resolution 2017-45 Concerning Support for State Bonding Assistance for
Reconstruction of MnDOT Legacy Frontage Roads
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
F) AUTHORIZE EARLY PAYMENT TO CITY OF WEST ST. PAUL FOR ICE ARENA
IMPROVEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill explained this is a request from the City of West St. Paul to authorize
the early payment for the ice arena improvements. The City of Mendota Heights has been levying
approximately $65,000 annually for what would be a lump sum payment of approximately $277,000 in
2019 to the City of West St. Paul. The agreement is that the City would accumulate the funds and make
the payment in 2019. However, there are roof issues at the arena that need to be addressed soon. West
St. Paul has asked if Mendota Heights could release the funds collected so far so the roof can be
repaired. Mendota Heights has accumulated one year’s worth of allocations ($65,000), and in July, will
receive its first half property tax payment for another $32,000. Staff also requested that every six
months, as the City receives the tax collection from Dakota County, they be allowed to make the
payment to the City of West St. Paul.
Councilmember Duggan stated that this is a reasonable request.
Councilmember Duggan moved to AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT OF $97,818 TO THE CITY OF
WEST ST. PAUL UPON THE RECEIPT OF FIRST HALF 2017 TAXES PAYABLE, AND
FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF FUTURE LEVIES BEING MADE FOR ICE ARENA
IMPROVEMENTS, AS SOON AS THEY ARE RECEIVED FROM DAKOTA COUNTY.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
L) APPROVAL OF REVISED RESOLUTION 2017-45 CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR STATE
BONDING ASSISTANCE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF MNDOT LEGACY FRONTAGE ROADS
Councilmember Duggan asked if it is possible that the state might only grant assistance to one city and
not the other. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that it was his understanding that the portion
which is located in the City of Mendota would be the responsibility of the City of Mendota Heights.
Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-45 SUPPORT OF SUBMITTAL TO
STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR CAPITAL BONDING REQUEST FOR FUNDING THE
RECONTRUCTION OF PORTIONS OF FORMER MNDOT ROADWAYS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
PRESENTATIONS
A) PRESENTATION OF 2016 AUDIT — MATT MAYER, BERGAN KDV
Mr. Matt Mayer, CPA representing Bergan KDV, presented the results of the 2016 Financial Audit. He
explained that the City has the responsibility to prepare financial statements for the public to show the
financial position of the City at the end of each year. It is Bergan KDV’s job, as auditors, to examine
and give an opinion on those statements so a correct picture of the City’s financial position is presented.
He said that the auditor is required by the state to do compliance testing to make sure various state
statutes are being followed. There were no findings found during the compliance testing. They also do a
review of the internal controls; policies and procedures that safeguard the City’s assets. There was one
small finding which was the lack of segregation of accounting duties. The city has mitigating controls in
place for a smaller office, which Bergan KDV is comfortable with. It was noted by Councilmember
Petschel that this has been the finding each year, and in a city this size, it is common. Mr. Mayer agreed.
Mr. Mayer shared that revenue was up from 2015 from $7.5M to $7.8M, due to the increase in the tax
levy and a small increase in intergovernmental revenue (police aid and fire aid from the state). Spending
went from $7.1M in 2015 to $7.2M in 2016, a 2.8% increase. These trends show the auditors that the
Council has a budget that is consistent and they know where their spending priorities are.
Mr. Mayer encouraged the Council to focus on the general fund balance at the end of each year. He
noted that this year the general fund balance was the highest it has been in the last five years, both from
a dollar standpoint and as a percentage of spending.
Upon the request by Councilmember Petschel, Mr. Mayer explained the relationship between the fund
balance and the City’s bond rating. He stated that it is one of the many factors that come into play as the
bond raters look at the financial health of the City.
Par 3 Golf Course Fund - The Par 3 Golf Course had a small loss this year of approximately $9,600, due
to poor weather conditions. Depreciation is also a significant expense. This fund has a balance of
approximately $43,000; one-third of the year’s spending. This is a comfortable financial position.
Sewer Fund
The Sewer Fund had a positive operating income of $9,600. This fund had a balance of approximately
$600,000 at the end of the year, which is a comfortable place; however, there are not a lot of dollars for
future renewal and replacement. Building this fund balance up or having a plan in place for future
renewal and replacement is something to be conscience of going forward.
Storm Water Fund
The Storm Water Fund has performed well for each of the last five years. This fund had approximately
$250,000 in fund balance; a positive position and enough to cover current operating expenses but not a
lot for renewal and replacement.
page 5
Councilmember Petschel asked what the emerging issues are that were in the report in regards to ‘post
retirement payments and benefits.’ Mr. Mayer replied that when the numbers in the general fund are
reviewed, they look only at things from a budgetary standpoint. There are long-term liabilities and long-
term assets that are not factored into the mix. There are obligations relating to pensions and post
retirement employment benefits that were not on the financial statements. That is a liability that is not
factored in and it is significant.
Mr. Mayer replied that there is a new standard that is actualizing that liability. That amount is
recognized as a liability and would be reflected in the City’s financial statements in future years, under
new accounting standards.
Councilmember Duggan recognized Finance Director Kristen Schabacker as one of the City’s unsung
heroes and is their rock when it comes to finances and numbers. The remainder of the Council shared
their thoughts and appreciation to Ms. Schabacker as well.
Councilmember Petschel moved to accept the auditor’s report as presented.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PUBLIC HEARING
A) ACTIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
Mr. James Lehnhoff, Municipal Advisor from Ehlers, provided the Council with a review of TIF and
provided the financial aspects of the proposed apartment project from Michael Development for the 69
unit project on the soon-to-be-former motel site. Mr. Lehnhoff clarified that the creation of the TIF
District creates the ability to provide TIF assistance; however, it does not obligate the City to provide
TIF.
The development agreement would also include a number of performance requirements, the timeline,
and it must be in conformance with the City Plans, Comprehensive Plans, and Building Permits. This
agreement would also include a ‘look-back’ provision; just to make sure that the developer did not
receive any funds from other sources and they actually needed all of the TIF funds.
There is a Phase II planned in this project and that phase will have a separate pro forma review to
determine if any assistance is justified and a separate development agreement.
Councilmember Petschel asked for an explanation of the difference between a standard TIF and a
blighted TIF. Mr. Lehnhoff replied that there are many different types of TIF. This TIF district is a
‘redevelopment’ TIF district. A certain amount of the lot must be covered or improved and any
buildings on the site must be sub-standard. There are other types of TIF as well that could be pursued
but would not fit for this particular project. Councilmember Petschel clarified that this type of TIF
under consideration is different than the TIF that was done for The Village.
Mr. Lehnhoff stated that Resolution 2017-48 is to approve a modification to the development program
for municipal development district No. 1 and to establish tax increment finance district No. 2. This
page 6
actually creates this redevelopment TIF district for the site and establishes this TIF plan as being in
effect. It sets out that budget and the term is laid out in the plan, which is different than the actual
amount of assistance being provided that will come forth in the development agreement.
Resolution 2017-49 is to authorize an Interfund Loan for Advance of Certain Costs in Connection with
the Tax Increment Financing District No. 2. Ehlers does expect that the developer will reimburse the
City for any costs incurred in creating this TIF district. In fact, they have deposited funds with the City
to cover those costs. This second action is more of a procedural step to make sure that the City is made
whole.
Councilmember Duggan, in reference to item 1.03 in Resolution 2017-48, asked if the Metropolitan
Council (MetCouncil) needed to be notified. Mr. Lehnhoff replied that the Met Council was not
involved.
He then asked, in reference to item 1.04 in Resolution 2017-48, that reads “…but is modifying the
Development Program therefor”, if the word ‘therefor’ should be ‘thereof’. City Attorney Tom
Lehmann stated that he could see either word being used and did not have an opinion. However, this
may be a vernacular that has been used in other agreements.
Councilmember Petschel stated if this is the boilerplate that has been used in other municipalities then
she does not have a problem with it. She believes that this edit would have little effect on the document.
Councilmember Duggan asked for an explanation of the meaning of item 3.01. Mr. Lehnhoff stated that
he believed this to refer to the state statute that authorizes the creation of a redevelopment TIF district.
City Attorney Tom Lehmann noted that State Statute 469 requires that the Council make that finding,
and this is substantiating that it is in the public interest as a redevelopment district.
Councilmember Duggan, referencing item 5.02, asked if ‘further plan’ should be ‘future plans’. City
Attorney Tom Lehmann replied that he believes it reads ‘further plan’ because the City is aware that
there will be further plans. He would take ‘future’ as meaning that there may or may not be other plans.
Councilmember Petschel moved to open the public hearing.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Seeing no one coming forward to speak, Councilmember Duggan moved to close the public hearing.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-48 ADOPTING A MODIFICATION TO
THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1;
ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 THEREIN; AND ADOPTING
A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR.
Councilmember Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 7
Councilmember Petschel moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2017-49 AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND
LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Councilmember Duggan, referencing a portion of section 2.01 of Resolution No. 2017-49 where it reads
“The interest rate shall be 4.00% and will not fluctuate,” asked for an explanation. Mr. Lehnhoff replied
that the interest rate is set by State Statutes.
Mayor Garlock called for the vote.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
B) RESOLUTION 2017-50, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CONSENT FOR THE MNDOT
HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) REHABILITATION PROJECT
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek introduced Ms. Molly Kline and Mr. Dale Gade from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), who were requesting municipal consent for right-of-way and
easement acquisitions for the 2018 Dodd Road (Trunk Highway 149) project.
Ms. Kline explained that the location of this project is on Highway 149 from George Street to I-494 and
also on Highway 13 to Cherokee Heights Blvd. The estimated cost for the project is $7.8M, including a
city trail segment that is being wrapped into this project. The construction is anticipated to begin in
2018.
The project elements include pavement resurfacing, ADA improvements, drainage improvements, signal
replacement, turn lane construction, and removal of ash trees within the MnDOT right-of-way along this
corridor. There will be lane and sidewalk closures intermittently during the summer of 2018 to replace
drainage infrastructure and make any necessary sidewalk repairs. MnDOT is working with the City and
the Chamber of Commerce on timing of this project.
There are 13 parcels MnDOT needs to purchase right-of-way from within Mendota Heights; one is on
Highway 13 and the other 12 parcels are along Highway 149. There are two types of acquisitions
proposed; permanent drainage easement and underlying fee.
Councilmember Duggan asked if the affected property owners had been notified. Ms. Kline replied that
the MnDOT right-of-way office has contacted a few of the property owners, but she did not believe they
had all been contacted. This is part of the title search still underway and the right-of-way office will
contact them to verify the information that is on the title.
Councilmember Duggan proposed that the Council table this item until all of the property owners have
been notified.
Councilmember Petschel suggested the Council open the public hearing tonight, hear from the public
that is available, and to not close the public hearing but to extend it to a later date until those residents
whose property is affected are notified.
page 8
Councilmember Duggan moved to open the public hearing.
No one from the public wished to be heard on this item.
Councilmember Petschel moved to extend the public hearing until such time as the residents, who are
affected by the project, are notified. City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that city staff would make
the notifications. He suggested the hearing be extended to the July 18, 2017 City Council Meeting.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion.
Councilmember Duggan asked if the notifications should be the duty of MnDOT. Mr. Ruzek replied that
MnDOT would be having a right-of-way acquisition process where they would be having conversations
with the homeowners. However, this is a Mendota Heights public hearing.
Mr. Dale Gade, Senior Project Management Engineer with MnDOT, replied that the state statute is very
clear that MnDOT has to request Municipal Consent from the City. The City holds the public hearing
and extends the invite to the affected property owners. If the City did decide to decline municipal
consent, MnDOT would not seek to overturn that decision.
City Attorney Tom Lehmann added that the statute is clear that the City would have to take action
within 90 days from today’s date, otherwise it is deemed accepted.
Mayor Garlock called the vote on extending the public hearing to July 18, 2017.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Councilmember Duggan asked if MnDOT has completed a traffic study of Dodd Road. Ms. Kline
replied that she did not believe so; they know the current count and the 30-year projection but did not do
an official traffic study. Councilmember Duggan asked if those numbers could be forwarded to city
staff.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ORDINANCE 511 AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1 ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES
City Clerk Lorri Smith explained that the Council was being asked to adopt an Ordinance which amends
the Alcoholic Beverages part of the City Code. She said that the current code language is very outdated,
is inconsistent in areas, and needs to be brought up-to-date with current standards.
The current license holders have all been notified of this code amendment and they were made aware of
the major changes being recommended.
If approved, the ordinance would take affect on July 1, 2017 and after its publication. The major changes
to the code are:
• Bringing the Alcoholic Beverages Code more in line with state statutes regulating liquor
• Adding language to allow Off Sale intoxicating liquor sales on Sundays [effective July 2, 2017]
page 9
• Deleting the requirement that a certain percentage of sales must come from food/nonalcoholic
beverages, eliminating the CPA verification of total sales with the renewal application
• Deleting the limits on the total number of licenses allowed in the City for On Sale licenses
• Deleting the requirement of an official public hearing for new licenses and for renewals
• Deleting the requirement of a surety bond
• Amending the amounts and conditions of liquor liability insurance requirements so it is
consistent with state statutes
• Deleting the requirement of verifying political contributions made to candidates for an elected
city office
• Adding a requirement for server training of all employees serving or selling alcohol
Councilmember Miller asked about the hours of the liquor store sales. Ms. Smith replied that the current
code sets the closing time for off-sales at 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. State Statute is set at 10:00
p.m. and the City could make that change also if the Council desires. Councilmember Miller suggested
that this be included in the amendment.
Councilmember Petschel stated that she would support that change. She also noted that the Council held
a work session to discuss these amendments and they are eager to make the City’s liquor ordinance more
user friendly and in line with state statutes.
Councilmember Petschel moved to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 5ll AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 1,
OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, WITH THE CHANGE THAT
OFF-SALE ESTABLISHMENTS CAN BE OPEN UNTIL 10:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH
SATURDAY.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion.
Councilmember Duggan referenced Section 3-1-6 (A) 2, and asked if ‘exclusive’ meant that they only
sell liquor as opposed to some other exclusivity. City Attorney Tom Lehmann replied in the affirmative
and noted that there are establishments that are exclusively liquor stores.
He then asked, in reference to Section 3-1-2 that reads “by reference as if set out at length in this
chapter.” if it should read “by reference as is set out at length in this chapter.” Ms. Smith replied in the
affirmative.
Referencing Section 3-1-6 (D) 5, Councilmember Duggan asked wholesaler of “what”? Attorney Tom
Lehmann replied that it would be wholesaler of alcohol and that should be added to the ordinance.
Councilmember Duggan, referencing Section 3-1-10 (F) 2, asked if this could be clarified. Ms. Smith
replied that this language comes from state statutes. Counsel Lehmann stated that this section is an
opportunity for off-sale liquor licensees to reduce their license fee if they complete certain criteria.
Sellers of liquor are always under an obligation to do a verification of a buyer’s age by checking their
ID. This language specifically comes from the statute allowing the City to reduce the annual license fee.
Mayor Garlock called the vote.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 10
Councilmember Petschel moved to APPROVE THE SUMMARY PUBLICATION of Ordinance 511.
Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
B) SET DATE AND TIME FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONER INTERVIEWS
City Administrator Mark McNeill noted that the City had received seven applications for the Planning
Commission vacancy that was created when Mr. Howard Roston resigned. In the past, the City Council
has interviewed candidates for the commissions. Mr. McNeill suggested Monday, July 17, following the
Facilities meeting at 6:00 p.m. The Councilmembers agreed.
Councilmember Petschel moved to hold the Planning Commissioner interviews on Monday, July 17 at
6:00 p.m.
Mayor Garlock seconded the motion
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
C) REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - CITY ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Mayor Garlock noted that the Council held a closed session meeting prior to this Council meeting and
reviewed the performance of City Administrator Mark McNeill. Comments received were positive and
his hard work, vast knowledge, and ability to meet the needs of the City were recognized.
Councilmember Duggan moved to accept the performance evaluation of the City Administrator.
Councilmember Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Mark McNeill reminded the public that a jointly sponsored fireworks display with
Mendakota Country Club will be held at dusk on July 4, 2017.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petschel recognized Ms. Anni Heck from Visitation, who is the 3A State golf
champion.
Ms. Petschel encouraged the residents to visit City Hall to look at the landscaping the master gardeners
have completed. The plants are pollinator friendly, sustainable, and include a water garden.
Councilmember Duggan echoed the sentiments expressed about the work the master gardeners have
done.
page 11
Councilmember Paper expressed congratulations to outgoing District 197 Superintendent Dr. Nancy
Allen-Mastro on her retirement. He also welcomed the new incoming District 197 Superintendent Mr.
Peter Olson-Skog. It was suggested that he be invited to a future Council meeting.
Councilmember Miller wished a happy mid-summer to everyone and wished everyone safe travels on
July 4th.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Paper seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Work Session
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights City Council was held
at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper and
Petschel were also present. Staff in attendance included City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek, Community Development
Director Tim Benetti, Chief of Police Kelly McCarthy, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
The Mayor and Councilmembers gathered in the Council Chambers for a group photo.
DISCUSSION OF THE HIGHWAY 110 PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek updated the Council on progress made on the construction of a
pedestrian underpass under Highway 110. The contractor encountered excessive ground water being
fed by two springs in the location of the underpass which may affect the design.
At this time, the contractor is working on correcting the issue so the original design can be
maintained.
GOAL SETTING WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP
City Administrator Mark McNeill presented the Council with action steps for the four main goal
areas which were identified at the May 22nd Goal Setting work session. Mr. McNeill reviewed each
action step outlined and updated the Council on where staff is at with accomplishing each step.
The Council was in agreement to the leaving the ranking of the goals as presented at that meeting.
BUDGET
The Council discussed the 2018 budget preparation steps and timeline. Chief Kelly McCarthy
updated the Council on progress made with the recommendations from the McGrath Police Study.
Joel Paper asked how the City of Mendota Heights’ tax rate compares to other large cities in Dakota
County. Finance Director Kristen Schabacker stated that she will research, and will provide this
information to the Council.
The dates proposed for budget meetings were accepted at August 8th, 14th, and if necessary, August
16th. Starting times were determined to be 1:30 PM.
page 13
CLOSED SESSION – CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S ANNUAL EVALUATION
Mayor Garlock stated that, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05 subd. 3(a), the City Council
would be going into closed session to discuss the City Administrator’s performance evaluation.
Councilmember Petschel moved to adjourn to a closed session at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmember Miller seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
The Council returned to open session at 6:55 p.m. Mayor Garlock stated that no action was
taken by the Council in closed session and that this item will be reported on at the Council
meeting.
ADJOURN
Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m.
____________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 14
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
April 25, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April
25, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
Christine Costello
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of February 28, 2017 Minutes
Chair Field noted for the viewers that the Planning Commission did not meet in the month of
March.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-04
RANDY & BECKY PENTEL, 815 DEER TRAIL COURT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OVER-SIZED GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that the application is for a Conditional Use Permit by Randy
and Becky Pentel at 815 Deer Trail Court. This 0.67 acre parcel contains an existing two-story,
4,670 square foot single-family dwelling with 784 square foot three-car attached garage. The
Pentel’s also own the 0.53 acre parcel immediately to the east. Any attached garage more than
1,200 square feet and up to 1,500 square feet requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Pentel’s
wish to add 690 square feet of garage on the opposite side of the existing three stall garage.
The survey does not match-up to the garage layout plans, as the layout plan includes a 4-foot
additional bump-out to the rear of the existing and planned garage addition; however, this does
not take away from the overall intent or purpose under consideration. That will be corrected at
time of the building permit submission.
page 15
Planner Benetti shared images of the proposed garage addition in relation to the existing building
and the site as it relates to the surrounding lots and streets. He also noted they plan to completely
excavate under the entire new garage and existing garage and complete that with a Span Crete or
concrete flooring system. One access point will be allowed from the basement into that lower
level. It is only to be allowed for personal storage – it would not be allowed for any type of
vehicle or recreational equipment storage. Otherwise, if they did that would constitute additional
garage space and would put them well over the maximum. Staff has indicated to them that this
would not be allowed.
Planner Benetti shared the standards for reviewing a Conditional Use Permit request and
explained how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this
application based on the Findings of Fact and with conditions as listed in the staff report.
Chair Field, noting that the Pentel’s own the adjacent lot, asked if they sold that lot sometime
down the road would this garage prohibit someone else from building on that lot. Planner Benetti
replied that the Pentel’s are well within the setback parameters of 10 feet from the lot line –
being 28 to 31 feet from the outer corners of the new addition. Clarification was made that the
vacant lot would be unencumbered if this application were approved.
Randy and Becky Pentel were present and had no comments to add to the staff report and were
available for questions.
Mr. Pentel asked for confirmation that, as for as the overhead garage doors, 36 linear feet is the
maximum. Planner Benetti confirmed. Mr. Pentel asked if the garage doors could then be 18 feet
each or if they had to stay at the current 16 feet. Chair Field noted that these questions were
better suited and would be answered during the building permit process of the application.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-04 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REQUEST FOR OVER-SIZED ATTACHED GARAGE 815 DEER TRAIL COURT BASED
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent
with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
page 16
2. The planned development and use of the 689 sq. ft. of garage addition, resulting in a total
of 1,473 sq. ft. for garage use purposes, is considered a reasonable request, and is
consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage addition easily meets the required setbacks and other standards
established under the R-1 One Family District.
4. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not
seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
5. The proposed garage addition and structure is compliant with the conditions included in
the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The new garage addition, including new exterior building materials and overhead doors
must be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling and garage structure.
2. The planned lower level of the garage will only be accessed from the existing lower level
of the residence, and no part of this area may be used to store or park vehicles (cars,
trucks, recreational vehicles, etc.) ,and no access door(s) will be allowed from the lower
levels to the rear or side yards.
3. A building permit shall be required prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of
the new garage addition.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 2, 2017 meeting.
General Planning Items
A) 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP from Stantec explained that there are five phases to the
2040 Comprehensive Plan project:
Phase 1: Inventory & Analysis
Phase 2: Goals & Vision
Phase 3: Development of Alternatives
Phase 4: Implementation Process
Phase 5: Plan Preparation
The deadline for this project is the end of 2018; however, if it is impossible to meet that deadline
extensions can be granted. Stantec does not believe that the deadline would be impossible to
meet.
Chair Field request a brief synopsis of what would happen after the Planning Commission ends
their work and the plan is submitted to the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil). Planner Carlson
replied that the next step, after the Planning Commission has completed their work, is to forward
page 17
the plan to the adjacent communities and the MetCouncil to review and comment if they would
find anything about the plan that these neighboring communities would want to comment on
[this does not give them veto power, just input in the spirit of cooperation and discussion]. The
MetCouncil has a 10-page checklist they will use when reviewing the plan. The main item the
MetCouncil will be looking for – their charge is to analyze a few key systems in the metropolitan
area. Key among those is transportation; they use the population, households, and employment
data received from the communities in their transportation model to plan infrastructure needs in
the coming 10-20 years. Other areas they are concerned about is parks and trail systems, and
waste water.
When this plan is adopted by the City and approved by the MetCouncil, then it becomes a
guidebook for the Planning Commission, City Council, and staff in future decisions. It would be
a high level document with plans and policies, but by itself it does not have any teeth; it would
guide the decisions, most notably the zoning ordinances and zoning map used to make decisions.
Planner Benetti then made a brief presentation on the background report titled Background
Report: Market and Development Context that was prepared by Tangible Consulting, their
subconsultant on the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Project. The contents of this
report included:
Introduction
Residential Market Context
Retail Market Context
Employment Context
Industrial Market Context
Office Market Context
The full report was made available to the Planning Commissioners as part of their meeting
packet.
B) DISCUSSION OF ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FREESTANDING/PYLON
TYPE SIGNS IN THE B1 LIMITED BUSINESS AND B1-A BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS
Planner Benetti explained he was approached by a business owner of the 1200 Center Pointe
Curve multi-tenant offices requesting to be able to install a freestanding sign in the front-yard of
the commercial property. Upon reviewing the code, he discovered that these types of signs are
not permitted in the B-1 Limited Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. He went back as far
as 1980 and could not find any updates to this ordinance.
There are a number of B-1 and B-1A businesses that do have these types of pylon or freestanding
signs. He noted that a pylon is typically like a single-post sign with a face on it; whereas, a
monument-type sign looks similar to a headstone. They are both referred to as a ‘freestanding’ or
pylon sign. Planner Benetti shared images of pylon signs located in the B-1 and B-1A districts.
Staff requested that the Planning Commission review the recommended edits to the zoning
ordinance to allow freestanding signs in the B-1 and B-1A zoning districts, making any edits as
page 18
they deem necessary, and then staff would return to the next Planning Commission meeting with
a revised ordinance for consideration.
Chair Field suggested that before the Planning Commission directs staff to proceed with
researching and preparing new language for the code that staff approach the City Council at their
May 2 meeting to find out if they would supportive of this. Then it would come to the
commission in a more typical fashion.
Commissioner Roston noted that this thoughts on this were 1) he expressed his appreciation to
Planner Benetti for bring this forward and 2) he believes it is something that needs to be done.
He personally had no problem supporting this action. He suggested that if staff believes this to be
important, and the commission historically has taken that very seriously, then they should bring
something back to the commission for consideration – assuming it is OK with the Council.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he believes this to be important given the fact that of the
number of freestanding signs currently in the B-1 district – a number of non-conforming uses –
it’s bad practice. Also, requests are coming forward for these types of signs which is creating a
situation of ‘the have and the have nots’.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if anyone knew of any specific reasons why it would not be
allowed in the B-1 and B-1A districts. Planner Benetti stated that in his research he was unable to
find any specific reasons or explanations of why it was not included in these districts.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
DIRECT APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF TO PROCEED WITH RESEARCHING AND
PREPARING NEW LANGUAGE AMENDING THE CITY CODE IN ALLOWING
FREESTANDING SIGN ALLOWANCES IN THE B-1 AND B1-A ZONES FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION
AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
City Planner Timothy Benetti provided an update on the 697 Wesley Lane lot split request
brought in by Mr. Mark Gergen. This application has already been extended on the waiver for
the 60 day to 180 days. That expiration date is coming up on May 3 and Mr. Gergen asked to be
extended indefinitely. The other realtor on this application, working for the homeowner, stopped
in and indicated that they are probably looking at withdrawing their application. However, it has
not been officially withdrawn.
PLANNING CASE #2017-03
Holy Family Maronite Church, 1960 Lexington Avenue
Conditional Use Permit
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2016-43
page 19
City of Mendota Heights
Domestic Chicken Ordinance
• Adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2016-41
Mr. Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway
Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit
• Adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Staff and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Roston noted that Highway 110 is about to be shut down in one direction. He
encouraged the City to pay attention to Marie and Mendota, which may become the preferred
east/west route for drivers. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that Mendota Heights Road
will be under construction as well. Staff and the City will stay on top of these situations.
Commissioner Roston stated that he has been living in Mendota Heights since 1988 and wanted
to make is known that he and his wife have decided to sell their home and move; most likely to
downtown Minneapolis. However, he does not have a timeline on that yet. He wanted to give
notice so staff can start thinking about a replacement on the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Noonan, in reference to something he saw on the City’s website regarding an
‘undeveloped parcel in The Village’ and it was noted that an action was coming to Council to
deal with a potential disposition of that parcel, asked for an update on that situation. Planner
Benetti replied that Trammel Crow was proposing to bring in a plan to develop on the three lots,
and closing off that section of the street. Basically, it was a 160 +/- unit apartments in a five-
story building. A Letter of Intent was approved a number of weeks ago by the Council; however,
last Tuesday [April 18, 2017], a Purchase Agreement was on the docket. A number of residents
showed up and voiced some opposition to that and the Council, by a 4-0 vote, denied the
Purchase Agreement. However, the developer has not gone away. They are working on a traffic
study and they are willing to talk about refining the design, possibly losing the height of the
building, losing a story here or there, but nothing is concrete at this time. They have also offered
to hold a public information meeting [scheduled for May 15 at St. Paul Methodist] and re-engage
the citizens and residents in that area.
Chair Field noted that the Annual City-wide Clean-up Day is Saturday, April 29 at Mendakota
Park from 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. This will be more of a contractor-driven event than it was in
the past; however, some city staff will be on hand assisting with coordination and ensuring it
runs smoothly. List of accepted and not accepted materials can be found on the City’s website
and Facebook, as well as the cost of disposal.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:18 P.M.
page 20
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 1 (Costello)
page 21
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 23, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 23, 2017
in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston,
Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Mary Magnuson and Christine
Costello
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field proposed that the hearings take place in the following order: A) Case 2017-05, B) 2017-06, C)
2017-07, E) 2017-09, F) 2017-10, and D) 2017-08.
Revised Approved with 5 AYE votes.
Approval of April 25, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2017, WITH THE CORRECTION THAT
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO WAS ABSENT
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-05
MR. SEAN HOFFMANN, MANAGER BP/MENDOTA HEIGHTS AUTO SERVICE STATION,
2030 DODD ROAD
PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS
AS A PLACE OF SALE/RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES
Planner Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Sean Hoffmann, the local manager of the BP/Mendota Heights
Auto Service Station on the corner of Dodd Road and Highway 110, approached staff and informed them
that he was in the process of obtaining a motor vehicle dealer license. His desire is to provide for that
service or operation at the local business. Unfortunately, City Code Title 12-1D-13-3, standard F4
currently states that ‘service station premises shall not be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for
display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers.’ Mr. Hoffmann is requesting
an amendment to the code.
The standards listed under this portion of the City Code are applicable to other service stations. The City
has one full service station and two convenient store type gas stations. Planner Benetti also noted that
under Title 12-1F- 4, limited auto sales are permitted only in the B-3 District as follows: “Automobile and
other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building.” This is why there are
page 22
not large scale auto dealerships, such as the ones seen on Highway 110 in Inver Grove Heights or in West
St. Paul.
Mr. Hoffmann explained in his request that he wants to be very limited; he does not want to turn this into
a used car lot. Planner Benetti this would open up the door to a lot of vehicles on the site. Staff suggested,
for the report process, Mr. Hoffmann should modify the request with conditions; such as, no vehicles
shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale’ or similar; vehicles for sale under this
provision will be limited to more than _____ [staff indicated a number determined by the Planning
Commission] vehicles on the site; vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including
a corner front yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the
property as approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Upon researching, Planner Benetti was unable to find other communities in the metro area that would
allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell vehicles on these properties.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this application. However, the
Planning Commission could give some direction or guidance or input as to whether or not, as alternative,
would they allow the applicant to ask for a variance to the Conditional Use Permit that was approved for
the site.
Commissioner Petschel, noting a paragraph of page 3 of the staff report stating that “it does not appear
other cities generally permit or allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell
vehicles,” asked if any other information has been discovered since the issuance of the report. Planner
Benetti replied that during his search he was unable to see that any allowances were made for auto sale
uses and nothing new has been revealed since the preparation of this report.
Mr. Sean Hoffmann came forward and addressed the Commission. He stated that he is trying to obtain his
dealers license to gain access to the wholesale auto auctions. Usually once or twice a month he has a
customer asking for a) where can I get a used car, b) can you help me find a vehicles for my son,
daughter, wife, or myself. It is his desire to cater to these customers. To obtain a dealers license the
property needs to be zoned properly, which is why he is making this request. He believes there is a need
for this in Mendota Heights.
Commissioner Noonan, referencing the comment about needing this approval to obtain his dealers
license, asked if he had to have an actual location or could he just hold a dealers license. Mr. Hoffmann
replied that, per Minnesota law, he has to have a brick & mortar store where it is permissible to sell
vehicles. He has no plans of keeping vehicles on the lot with flags and neon signs, or anything like that.
Commissioner Noonan asked, if the Commission were to recommend the conditions stated above and
inserted ‘zero’ in the blank spot, if that would work for him. Mr. Hoffmann replied in the affirmative. If
someone comes to him he wants to be able to purchase the vehicle from the wholesaler, inspect the
vehicles at his location, and be able to pass that onto the customer at significant savings to that customer.
He anticipated that the longest a vehicle would be on his site would be overnight – but it would not be
sitting out on his lot with a “For Sale” sign on it.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
page 23
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-05, THE REQUEST TO AMEND CITY CODE
TITLE 12- 1D-13-3 TO ALLOW SERVICE STATIONS TO BE USED AS A PLACE OF DISPLAY,
SALE AND/OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Amending the zoning code is not in the best long-term interest of the City of Mendota Heights
2. It is not consistent with the land use and zoning in the area
Commissioner Petschel stated that he has no problem with someone wanting to be a broker on their own
property. The question is whether or not the language can be changed in the ordinance so the City does
not end up with someone purchasing Mr. Hoffmann’s business and putting 10 cars on their lot and selling
them; aside from limiting the number of vehicles.
Commissioner Hennes agreed and commented that this could become a popular thing; it could become
known as a place where a resident could sell their car.
Commissioner Noonan stated that the lot is currently a busy lot; and it is not just this lot, this would apply
to the other gas station lots as well. Changing the ordinance would change the nature of those operations.
If the ordinance speaks for itself in terms of how the City wants to see car dealerships or car operations
handled, then there is no reason to change it.
Commissioner Roston stated that, as stated in the staff report, it is true that the other two stations are both
Super America, and it is unlikely that Super America is going to ever get into this type of business, but
they could also sell out. He also believed that it would be somewhat disingenuous to amend an ordinance
to allow the sale or resale of cars and then to say you cannot have any cars on the lot.
Chair Field noted that one alternative staff recommended was to take more time and look at the possibility
of a variance. The question was asked how the variance would make the situation any different; and
would it meet the variance rules. Commissioner Noonan stated that if it does not stand the test with
satisfying the Commission with respect to use, giving it more time is not going to change things.
Planner Benetti noted that there is a fine line for allowing a variance for a use, because “use variances”
are not permitted by state law. If the Commission wanted to explore an alternative, he would want to get
the City Attorney involved.
Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears that no one wants a used car lot; however, is there a desire to
see someone with the ability to act as a broker for used cars as part of their business.
Commissioner Roston stated that personally he likes the station, he goes to the station and believes that
Mr. Hoffmann is a good operator and he does not have any problem with him having a broker’s license.
The Commission should do whatever it can to encourage whatever business he can; however, he does not
believe this fits here. If there was a way to accommodate his broker license without having the change the
ordinance, he would be in favor of that. He just did not know how to get there with the existing state law.
page 24
Commissioner Noonan noted that even if the Commission adopted the motion to denial, there is nothing
that preclude the pursuit of the sustainable brokerage license. Even if it came back and they want a brick
& stick home, he was unsure that there was support by the Commission for it.
Planner Benetti stated that on the application for the motor vehicles dealers’ license, there is a zoning
approval area where he would have to indicate that it meets the zoning or it does not. Typically, the other
brokerages licenses that he has signed off on, they were typically run out of an office building or an office
suite. The understanding was that, because they were only brokering from party A to party B, he could
write ‘absolutely no parking or display of vehicles would be allowed at this site’ because that was not
allowed. As an office brokerage use, the state will accept that if the City limited it; however, it had to be
provided for in the underlying zoning ordinance that the activity or use would be permitted in that district.
Commissioner Roston also pointed out that the ordinance has to be land use based, not user based.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-06
MR. JASON SANDERS OF THE THOMAS IRVINE DODGE NATURE CENTER
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR DODGE NATURE CENTER PARCEL, GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 656 HIGHWAY 110
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that this request is a simple lot line adjustment. The applicant is Mr.
Jason Sanders of the Thomas Irvine Dodge Nature Center. The request is to simply cleave off a parcel on
the north end. A lot line adjustment is typically used to create an adjustment to lot lines, as the name
entails. However, it is also used in cases where two parties are creating a piece of land or parcel between
the two that would not be used for any type of development purposes, where a lot split would entail a
development right to it.
The 6.53 acre parcel is being taken by Dakota County to assist in the extension of the Lebanon Trail
System and also to provide for a little bit extra space for the underground tunnel or underpass that would
be going under Highway 110 as part of that reconstruction project. The section of land to be separated and
created under this lot line adjustment will not affect or hinder the overall use and purpose of the
remaining 45.5 acre parcel. The separated parcel would be sold to Dakota County subject to this action.
Staff recommended approval of this application.
Commissioner Noonan asked if this newly created parcel could only be sold to Dakota County. Planner
Benetti replied that currently the agreement is strictly between the Dodge Nature Center and Dakota
County. Commissioner Noonan asked for further clarification that if the agreement between the Dodge
Nature Center and Dakota County were to not succeed for some reason, could the shopping center located
adjacent to the newly created parcel purchase it. Planner Benetti replied that he did not believe that could
happen because the entire Dodge Nature Center is covered under a conservation easement, and this parcel
is being created to accommodate a specific need.
page 25
Chair Field noted that he is a former president of the Dodge Nature Center and still serves on the board.
He does not feel that he has any conflict of interest and certainly does not have any economic interest;
however, for the record he acknowledge that and asked if anyone felt that he should stand down from
voting.
Mr. Jason Sanders, Executive Director of Dodge Nature Center clarified that the section under discussion
is not currently under the Dakota County Easement; however, it does have a Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) easement on it.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Keith Kraft, 1314 Furlong Avenue, stated that when Mr. Benetti put up the map and talked about part
of a trail way system, he did not see how the trail could go below – where the trail met up. He asked if the
trail would connect with something to the south. Chair Field replied that it connects through the Mendota
Heights Plaza project. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek further clarified that the trail would connect
with the cul-de-sac at South Plaza Drive, go through the former MnDOT right-of-way, and the underpass
project.
Mr. Al Singer, Dakota County Land Conservation Manager, 49 O’Day Street, Maplewood clarified that
the County Board has already approved the resolution to purchase the property, they have a signed
purchase agreement. This will soothe a lot of public interest on both the City and County’s part.
Mr. Joseph Weiss, 643 Highway 110, asked if this lot line adjustment would impact any of the properties
on the north side as far as taxes or anything else. Chair Field replied that taxes are not the Commission’s
preview and all they could comment on is the land use and the proposed lot line adjustment per the
agreement between Dakota County and Dodge Nature Center. City Administrator Mark McNeill was
unable to find a connection between property taxes and the neighborhood properties and did not believe
there would be any impacts on the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-06 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and can
be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of this request is to create a separate parcel to be sold by Dodge Nature Center to
Dakota County for the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Regional Greenway, which would help facilitate
the completion of a new trail link and tunnel underneath Highway 110.
3. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
4. Approval of this lot line adjustment and creation of this new tract of land will have little, if any
impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, or the overall use, enjoyment and
purpose of the entire Dodge Nature Center area.
page 26
5. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards.
AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED WITH
DAKOTA COUNTY
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-07
JASON (JAY) AND ALICIA JACOBS, 1023 DELAWARE AVENUE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW LARGER GARAGE WITH
REDUCED SETBACKS
Planner Timothy Benetti explained this request was both a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
replacement of a detached garage with a larger garage then is allowed by ordinance and a Variance to a
side-yard setback from ten feet down to three feet. The applicant submitted three letters of support, which
were made a part of the staff report.
The site currently contains a single-family home and a detached one-car garage. The residence is a 1.5
story building with a 2,352 square foot finished floor area. The existing detached garage is approximately
18 feet by 22 feet (396 square feet) and is in very poor shape. The setback is 12.5 feet from the rear lot
line and approximately 9.4 to 9.7 feet from the northerly (side) property line. There is a 7 foot by 12 foot
hard surface pad that exists between the garage and the north lot line. That pad itself is approximately
three feet from the existing property line.
There is an Xcel Energy overhead line that runs along the back lot line. There is no easement for that line;
however, staff spoke with an Xcel Energy executive who stated that they typically like to keep at least a
ten foot spacing between any structures and the power line. So they are hoping that holding back to a 10-
foot setback would be adequate enough.
Planner Benetti shared an image of the property and indicated the location of streets, the home, the
garage, and a sandbox area on the property.
The new garage would be a two-car garage with an attachment for extra storage. They would maintain the
rear yard 10-foot setback and reduce the side yard setback to three feet. The existing driveway is
approximately three feet from the side yard lot line and the location of the new garage would line up with
that driveway. It would also provide for a little bit more ability to maneuver their large vehicles into the
garage.
Planner Benetti then shared the requirements and standards to be met a Conditional Use Permit and
Variance and how this application met those standards. This information was also included in the staff
report.
Commissioner Hennes asked to see the location of the trees that would have to be removed if the garage
were to maintain the 10-foot setback and asked for an explanation of why they would have to be removed.
Planner Benetti showed on the map where the trees were located and explained that the driveway would
page 27
need to be adjusted to allow for the maneuvering of a large vehicle into the garage, thus the needed
removal of the trees.
Commissioner Roston asked to see the location of the driveway in relation to Delaware Avenue and asked
for confirmation that the driveway would not be relocated if this application were approved. Planner
Benetti pointed out the driveway on the map and confirmed that it would not be relocated.
Mr. Jason Jacobs came forward but had not additional comments to make to the report. Commissioner
Petschel asked what the distance was between the house and the proposed garage. Mr. Jacobs replied that
it was 30 feet before and would remain 30 feet afterwards.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR NEW DETACHED GARAGE AT 1023 DELAWARE AVENUE BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 812 sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable
request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use 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 proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City
Code that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The variance requested under this application and layout plan meets the tests in the code for
practical difficulties and appears to be a reasonable request per City Coe and State Statute that
prescribe the authority of municipalities to grant such variances.
6. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
7. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
8. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. No part of the upper storage section of the garage shall be used for livable or habitable space.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of
the new garage addition.
page 28
3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in
compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
4. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with the applicable City Code
performance standards noted in Section 12-1I.
Councilmember Hennes asked for confirmation that the neighbor to the north signed a letter of support.
Planner Benetti confirmed.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 1 (Field)
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 7, 2017 meeting.
E) PLANNING CASE #2017-09
BEN & ERIKA CHRISTOPHERSON, 1897 WACHTLER AVENUE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACKS FROM FRONT (CORNER) YARD
SETBACKS
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that the applicants were asking to reduce the corner yard setback from
30 feet down to 16.9 feet. The subject site currently contains an over 1,500 square foot single-family
home and a 440 square foot two-car attached garage. The property was originally built in 1957 with the
primary frontage on Wachtler Avenue and a very small frontage on Hilltop Road to the north. There is a
double wide driveway entrance from Wachtler and a two vehicle parking pad about half way up the
driveway. The 1.04 acre lot is very rectangular in shape, 150 wide by 300+ feet long.
The dwelling setback is 30.5 feet from the north, over 66 feet from the front lot line, and 30.2 from the
southerly lot line. Planner Benetti shared an image of the lot and explained that it is considered a corner
lot because with Wachtler and Hilltop coming in, there is actually a small segment of right-of-way that is
considered frontage on Hilltop. There is also a teardrop-shaped parcel labeled as a park, created as part of
the platting process, but no one knows why it has been labeled as a park. It serves more as a big chunk of
right-of-way.
The applicants had asked staff if they acquired the teardrop-parcel if it would help them. Staff agreed that
it would; however, it could not be done at this time because of the tight timeline of construction.
Therefore they required a variance. However, staff would like for the land transfer to take place, which
would make the setbacks for the home and garage expansion of 22.2 feet and 30.9 feet, rather than the
requested 16.9 feet.
Planner Benetti then shared the requirements and standards to be met for a Variance and how this
application met those standards. This information was also included in the staff report.
Mr. Ben Christopherson, 1897 Wachtler Avenue, had nothing to add to the staff report.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Diane Smith, 812 Hilltop Road, lives adjacent to Mr. Christopherson. She noted that she and her
husband have no major objections to this variance; however, they would like to maintain the wooded area
page 29
around their home and for assurances that it would not change as a result of this construction. Planner
Benetti was able to provide those assurances.
Mr. Pat Mcquillan, 1909 Wachtler Avenue, noted that he is in full support of this application.
Mr. Christopherson returned and confirmed that, at this point, they have no intention to change any of the
foliage or vegetation on the side of the property abutting Ms. Smith’s property.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-09, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Construction of the proposed dwelling and garage additions onto the existing single-family
dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The existing conditions were not created by the applicant and demonstrate a practical difficulty in
meeting the required setback in order to reconstruct the existing addition in compliance with
applicable codes.
3. The addition onto the existing single-family dwelling can be considered a reasonable request and
use of the property.
4. The encroachment along this wider segment Hilltop Road ROW, due in part to the presence of
the nearby “park” parcel, lends additional support to allowing the encroachment as this should
lessen proximity and visual impacts from this roadway.
5. Due to the subject parcel’s existing condition and location to the abutting Hilltop Road right-of-
way and road surface, a practical difficulty may be evident and was demonstrated in order to
construct said addition to the home.
6. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
7. Granting of the variance sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City Code.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than shown on the survey
included in the application submittal.
2. The new addition will match the overall architecture and design of the existing dwelling.
3. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building permit for
construction of the proposed addition.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
page 30
F) PLANNING CASE #2017-10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PYLON OR MONUMENT TYPE SIGNS IN THE B-1
LIMITED BUSINESS AND B-1A BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that at the last Planning Commission meeting staff asked for direction
on whether or not to pursue a code amendment to allow pylon or monument type signs in the B-1 Limited
Business and B-1A Business Park Districts. The Commission gave direction to pursue with the
understanding that staff should ask the Council. The Council was very supportive of this and gave
directions.
Staff officially requested consideration of this item and prepared a draft ordinance No. 510 with new
language that now includes an added amendment to Title 12-1B-2 Definitions for “Pylon Sign” and
“Monument Sign.” The public hearing was duly noticed and no comments have been received from
residents, either in favor or in opposition.
The new definitions are as follows:
SIGN, MONUMENT: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure that is
mounted on the ground or mounted on a foundation base structure at least as wide as the sign. A
monument sign is typically solid from grade to the top of the structure.
SIGN, PYLON: any freestanding sign independent from any building or other structure that has its
supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and a sign face elevated above ground by a pole(s), post(s)
or beam(s) with an open area below the face of the sign.
The ordinance also amends Title 12-1D-15 with new text or language changes, as outlined in the staff
report. Commissioner Petschel asked if the original limitation in height was to prohibit vertical
obstructions. Planner Benetti replied that he would agree with that assumption.
Councilmember Noonan asked, referencing the last meeting where it was mentioned that a number of
pylon or monument signs existed in the B-1 and B-1A district, if the existing signs meet the new
provisions in the draft ordinance or are they creating non-conforming uses. Planner Benetti replied that,
based on his observations, most of the monument signs do. However, the office building just to the south
of City Hall [Mendota Office Center] is over 200 square feet and would not meet the new provisions. But
that sign plan was approved under that development agreement.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jon Faraci, owner of 1200 Centre Pointe Curve, noted that he would like to install a monument sign
and that is what started this initiative. He respectfully requested that the Commission approve the draft
ordinance. Commissioner Noonan asked if he was comfortable with the recommended size, heights, and
square footage. Mr. Faraci replied that he would like to have 100 square feet, but if it is limited to 80 then
he would work within the limitations. There are twelve tenants in the building so the signage would be
pretty small but he could work with the recommendations.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
page 31
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-10, DRAFT ORDINANCE 510, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE B. RULES AND DEFINITIONS
CONCERNING NEW SIGN DEFINITIONS AND TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL
ZONING PROVISIONS CONCERNING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS IN THE BUSINESS
DISTRICTS AS PRESENTED
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
D) PLANNING CASE #2017-08
MICHAEL SWENSON, MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC
2180 AND 2160-2164 HIGHWAY 13 (SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY)
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO RE-GUIDE FUTURE LAND USE
FROM EXISTING “B–BUSINESS” TO PROPOSED “HR–HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” OR
“HR–PUD HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL–PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT”
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that this request is to change the current land use from B-Business to
HR-High Density Residential or HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development. The
applicant, Mr. Michael Swenson from Michael Development, LLC and the two properties are 2180 and
2160-2164 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway), known commonly as the Larson Garden Center and
the Mendota Motel. Michael Development is proposing to a development on these two sites which will
have complications further down the road for rezoning, conditional use permit, and plating. Currently,
they are initially proposing a development of two 69-unit market rate apartments. The project would
involve the removal of the structures on both sites, clean up, and clearing to make room for the proposed
multi-family development.
Tonight’s action is simply to consider a land use amendment. No one is asking for the rezoning, or
comment, or any approvals of the development plan. The development plan is simply being presented as a
backdrop to why they are asking for the underlying land use. This is the first step in preparation to get the
land use amended, followed by the rezoning. The rezoning must comply with the underlying land use.
Right now, a multi-family rezoning would not comply with the B-Business; so therefore the request is to
change the land use. As part of that land use change, before it comes to the Commission and as a
recommendation to the Council, it also has to be presented officially to the Metropolitan Council (Met
Council) for their official review and recommendation. If they decide this is inappropriate they would let
staff know, hopefully within the next few weeks.
The Larson Greenhouse is a composite of approximately eight different parcels that have been combined
together by the former owner, Robert Larson, to create the Larson Garden Center. This center ran for a
number of years and closed down just a few years ago. The Mendota Motel is situated just south of
Victoria and is currently in operations. The development plan [not under consideration] shows a single
access off of Highway 13. The initial Phase 1 would start with a 69-unit building encompassing the
page 32
Mendota Motel site. Approximately 10 months later, Mr. Swenson would start the process of clearing of
the Larson Property to enable the construction of Phase 2, another 69-unit building.
Planner Benetti shared concept images that were provided at a public information meeting a few weeks
ago by Mr. Swenson, noting the nice design and layout of the proposed buildings. The buildings would
also have underground parking.
In November 2015, a presentation was made for a very similar land use change on the Larson site. Mr.
Swenson was the same developer back then and had asked for a change of that land use from B-Business
to HR-High Density Residential. At that point he was proposing a 70-unit building; however, that
application was later withdrawn at the request of the land owner.
In November 2017, city staff was informed by Mr. Swenson that he had just secured the rights to the
Mendota Motel. Shortly thereafter he informed staff that Mr. Larson had approached him to purchase the
Larson property. Mr. Swenson then had two purchase agreements; one for the Mendota Motel and one for
the Larson site.
Planner Benetti also pointed out that staff, even though they were only required to notify property owners
within 350 feet of the proposed development area, they went a little bit further – approximately a quarter
mile out. They wanted to make sure they informed everyone in the Augusta Shores neighborhood, all of
the residents along the south side down to Furlong and Victoria, and even further out on the west side.
Along with the 5.5 acres of the Larson site and the 2.5 acres of the Mendota Motel site, there is also an
access piece of right-of-way that runs right between the two parcels, which is owned by the City. The City
would allow that to be replatted into the site as part of the property rights.
Chair Field asked for clarification of whether the City would be abandoning their ownership of that right-
of-way as a part of this change in land use or would the change in land use take place but the City would
maintain its ownership. Planner Benetti replied that the intent is to vacate and convey; it has not been
used in years and is from the original platting in the 1890’s.
Again, the current land use is B-Business and the request is to change that land use to HR-High Density
Residential or to HR-PUD High Density Residential-Planned Unit Development. The Augusta Shores
development, located east of this site, is guided low density and is zoned R-1 with 23 duplexes or 46
units. To the south is the Furlong Addition, also guided low density and zoned R-1. Other land uses along
Lemay Lake are single-family, west of Highway 55 is pretty much a nature preserve/cemetery/industrial
park. The proposal is to construct 69 market rate apartments; 2.3 acres would be developed and the
remaining 3.2 acres would be left as green space. The applicant proposes that the apartments would
employ approximately three or four full-time staff members to manage and maintain the sites.
Hopefully by the start of this fall, Phase 1 would be underway and within nine to twelve months, Phase 2
would begin. Each complex would be approximately 25,500 square feet. An assessment was done on both
properties and both sites were considered ‘deficient’ or ‘sub-standard’ by building code standards. Any
potential for redevelopment on both sites as a business is questionable given the poor access.
The statement of proposed financing, the applicant states that the project would be privately appraised and
financed through a local bank. As part of the City’s efforts to help redevelopment they are considering a
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district; this would be a TIF #2 District. This would allow for some
assistance back to the developer as part of a tax increment improvement as made on the site to recapture
some of the tax value that they can use for various items.
page 33
Planner Benetti stated that there is no industrial acreage and there is no commercial development being
proposed. The current Larson site is generating just under $2,000 worth of taxes back to the City; the
Mendota Motel is generating approximately $1,500. Working with the Ehlers Financial Group and the
TIF consultants, staff estimates with the new development that the value could go up to as high as
$100,000.
Staff also did a comparison of other communities around the metropolitan area as to guided density and
found that the trend is towards higher density in appropriate locations; which would include good access
and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff believes this proposed development site would meet
those criteria. Staff believes the current commercial use is struggling and probably will never come back
on this site simply because of high level of access and visibility that a commercial enterprise would need
and is not available on this site. However, a multi-family residential use would not need the same level of
access and visibility. Multi-family uses typically need to be buffered from lower density residential uses
and this site makes that relatively easy; it is very well heavily wooded and separated by the lake.
Planner Benetti concluded his presentation by explaining that designating the site for at least the
requested 25 units/acre is appropriate, the only question would be how this should be accomplished:
1. Amend the High Density Residential land use category in the 2030 Land Use Plan from a
maximum density of 8.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre, then amend the 2030 Land Use Plan
to re-guide the subject site as “High Density Residential”
or
2. Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan for this site to “HR-PUD High Density Residential – Planned
Unit Development”, whereby allowing a higher density to be determined by the City
or
3. Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan to add a new land use category with a maximum allowable
density of 25 units per acre. This could be called “Urban Residential”, then amend the 2030 Land
Use Plan to re-guide the subject site “Urban Residential”
Staff recommended the Planning Commission re-guide the Larson Garden Center/Mendota Motel main
sites to allow multiple-family residential uses up to 25 units/acre, following one of the three options listed
above.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the current maximum density of 8.5 units/acre is city-wide. Planner
Benetti replied that this is the maximum under the high-density land use. Commissioner Hennes stated
that there appears to be a lot of inconsistencies in the number of units per acre in the high-density land use
areas. To him, 8.5 units/acre sounds pretty small. Planner Benetti agreed. Commissioner Hennes then
asked if there has been any discussion of a more consistent level or maybe a higher level of density.
Planner Benetti replied that this application could quite possibly lay the groundwork to explore those
options down the road.
Commissioner Hennes then asked if the Met Council has a recommended standard or do they leave it to
each city depending on circumstances. Planner Benetti replied that the Met Council leaves it up to the
discretion of the local government agency.
Commissioner Roston commented that this is something that Mendota Heights should expect going
forward as a City. Any first ring suburb, like Mendota Heights, is going to have pressure to have more
high density development.
page 34
Mr. Michael Swenson or Michael Development, LLC reiterated the request and noted that without this
land use change the development is just not possible.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Jankowski, 2070 Acacia Drive, is located immediately north of this proposed site. He asked
what the average density currently is in Mendota Heights. Planner Benetti replied that the 8.5 units/acre is
a current density standard in the high density areas. Mr. Jankowski questioned the need to raise that
standard to 25 units/acre. He understands Mendota Heights being a first ring suburb has to anticipate
growth; however, he did not want to see it rush along too rapidly. He asked that consideration be taken
carefully on what 25 units/acre means for the City and the residents who like living there, in terms of the
increase in traffic on Highway 13 and in terms of other residents in the area.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek shared an image of the zoning districts in Mendota Heights and
pointed out the two high density residential zoned areas; the Eagle Ridge Development and the Lexington
Apartments. There are a few PUD locations as far as along the Kensington area, the apartment complex
that went in where the Ecolab site was on Riverside Lane – so there are really very few areas that are
zoned high density residential. The request before the Commission was to re-guide this small area as a
high density planned unit development – similar to the Kensington Development – or just to have it zoned
a high density residential as the other two areas in the City.
Commissioner Hennes clarified that Mendota Heights has a mix of high density sites that have densities
much higher than 8.5 units/acre; and a lot of the reason why is because they were advanced under a
Planned Unit Development, which allows for the negotiation between the City and the landowner to come
forward with an appropriate development at an appropriate density given the site and its properties. To
suggest that the City has a standard 8.5 units/acre is not correct; however, we have a mix up to as high as
60 units/acre in some high density developments. To ask for an average per acre density figure is not
comparing apples to apples – there are R-1 single-family districts – Commissioner Hennes lives in an R-1
district and has one unit on a quarter acre lot. Others in the City live on much larger lots so to suggest that
that a standard density across all of Mendota Heights is a telling characteristic is not accurate. It is
necessary to look at it from the various land use categories in determining the appropriateness of the
density based upon land use considerations.
Chair Field noted that he did not believe the Commission could answer Mr. Jankowski’s question in terms
of the density for the entire City; however, they can give at 60 units what they have at Dodd and Highway
110. It is not a maximum, it is just what has been approved within the City.
Referencing the statement made earlier, staff estimates that with the new development the projected
annual gross TIF value could go as high as $100,000, Mr. Jankowski asked how soon those taxes could
available to the City. City Administrator Mark McNeill replied that under what is being proposed, there
would be a tax increment district and for the first nine years, any taxes above what are currently being
received by the City, the County, and the School District would to reimburse the developer for his costs
involved with the development. In year 10, those would start to get spread and being received by the
individual jurisdictions.
Mr. Steve Kraft, 1314 Furlong Avenue, asked if there was any kind of buffer zone between the high
density PUD’s and the R-1 Residential districts. Planner Benetti, pointing to the zoning map, indicated
that all of the neighborhoods to the south of this area are R-1 Residential. Without delving too much into
the proposed development plan – as it is not final and not under consideration this evening – the plan
would be to have some kind of greenway or buffer between the site and the single-family residential
areas.
page 35
Mr. Kraft then asked if anyone had any idea what affect this development would have on land property
values in the Furlong Addition and to Augusta Shores. The reply was that there really are no ideas and
anything that would be said would be speculative at best.
Ms. Katherine Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive in Augusta Shores, stated that she is happy to see this come
back to the Planning Commission. She challenged anyone to find two greater eye sores within the City.
She would love to see something better and lovelier in this area. She cited many incidents that have
occurred within the area and placed the cause on the disreputable clientele at the Mendota Motel.
Ms. Haight did voice her concern about the location of the multi-family unit proposed to be on the Larson
property appears to be very close to Highway 13. Currently, when coming from Acacia Drive onto
Highway 13, when looking to the left the sight line is very difficult to see. The cars come very quickly
around the curve and she is concerned about that building being so close to Highway 13. Chair Field
noted, assuming this proceeds, staff will come back with some site reviews and these types of comments
would be more appropriate at that time.
Mr. Tom Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive in the Augusta Shores Development, stated that it is his
understanding that on the north side of the Larson property is an old city road that Larson’s acquired. He
questioned what would be happening with that. Planner Benetti replied that there is a segment of right-of-
way along the north side that was brought up at the public information meeting. There has been some
inquiry from Augusta Shores to obtain that or get possession of that as part of this process. Whenever
there is an access of right-of-way, typically it is a half and half; one half goes the other side and one half
goes to the adjacent neighbors. If the other neighbor decides he does not need that, they can give up that
half right. The current tentative TIF area does not include that area. This would be a separate issue.
Mr. Hanschen then noted that it appears to be inevitable that there is going to be high density here and
asked if the Commission were leaders leading the rest of the community or were they following what is
going on in the rest of the surrounding communities. He stated that Mendota Heights does not necessarily
need high density.
Ms. Linnea Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, stated her concerns about the traffic – two buildings,
each with 70 units, equaling 140 units with possibly 180 to 350 people living in the two buildings adding
up to 350 new cars every day on Highway 13; the traffic along Highway 13 has already been increasing
steadily the last few years. To go from no traffic from the Larson property and only 19 rooms at the motel
to a possible increase of 350 new cars – that is a huge increase.
[Note: an email from Tim and Mary Furlong, 2230 Furlong Avenue was received by the city on May 22,
2017, to which a copy was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. Pursuant to
Planning Chair Field’s request, a copy of said email and response from City Administrator Mark McNeill
is being added to the record - attached hereto as “Attachment –A”]
Mr. Swenson had no additional comments or replies to the concerns raised.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
page 36
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-08 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT 2160 – 2180 HIGHWAY 13 (SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY), BY AMENDING
THE 2030 LAND USE PLAN FOR THIS SITE TO “HR-PUD HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL –
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,” BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Commercial development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the City’s
2030 Comprehensive Plan, may not be viable due to access and visibility constraints.
2. Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the existing
vegetation and adjacent commercial use can provide a physical and visual buffer between the
proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing.
3. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would
allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
4. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and
would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
2. The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the proposed
concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval from the Metropolitan
Council.
3. If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation for the subject parcels may
remain in place.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting.
General Planning Items
A) RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 (FOR THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 2180 AND 2160-64 HIGHWAY 13)
Planner Timothy Benetti explained that this is a prepared resolution that is required as part of the
Commission’s official recommendation back to the City Council and to any authorities, that the
Commission is recommending either for or against, approval or denial, of the creation of the Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 2. The creation of this new TIF District would provide limited
financial assistance to a developer, and help facilitate the successful redevelopment of the Mendota Motel
and former Larson Garden Center properties.
For clarification, Planner Benetti stated that the purpose is to modify the Municipal Development District
No. 1 – basically everything within the City boundaries as that is the municipal development district –
and the proposed establishment of TIF 2 is just exactly where the City is going with it.
Planner Benetti then provided a very quick overview of what a TIF does and why it is used:
page 37
• The ability to capture and use most of the increased local property tax revenues from new
development within a defined geographic area
• It encourages certain types of development or redevelopment that would not normally occur
without assistance – commonly known as the “but for” test. It helps redevelop blighted areas;
remediate polluted sites; construct affordable housing; create or retain jobs
TIF District approval can be established by City, County, HRA, or EDA. It must have approval by City
Council following a public hearing. The public hearing on this request is scheduled for June 20, 2017.
County and school district approval is not required; however, it is something that the City does request.
The City’s TIF area number 1 was established in 1981 and was certified in 2007.
The eligible uses for TIF include:
• Land acquisition and relocation
• Demolition and clearance
• Site improvements and parking
• Public utilities
• Construction of affordable housing
• City administrative costs
Ineligible uses include:
• Recreation (parks, trails, ice arenas, etc.)
• City buildings
Chair Field clarified that the applicant for this item is not the developer, Michael Development, LLC, but
it is the City of Mendota Heights.
Even though this was not publicized as a public hearing, Chair Field opened the floor for comments and
questions from the residents.
Seeing no one coming forward, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADOPT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-01, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2
CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF
THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS; IS HEREBY SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION; AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he was very comfortable with this given the fact that TIF is one of the
few remaining redevelopment tools available to cities to help facilitate redevelopment. Everyone has
page 38
experienced, for the last several years, the declining nature of Larson’s and concerns about the motel.
This tool allows the City to allow new development to come forward and to clean or address a situation
that is needing cleaning up or needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Roston agreed with Commissioner Noonan.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments
PLANNING CASE #2017-04
Randy and Becky Pentel, 815 Deer Trail Court
Conditional Use Permit
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
City of Mendota Heights
Direction of a Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Pylon/Freestanding Signs in the B-1 and
B-1A Commercial Districts
Planner Timothy Benetti stated that staff is entertaining a hotel group looking at the Northland Drive and
the Pilot Knob site. Their application will most likely come in for review in the next month or two.
Staff and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Roston announced that he closed on his house today and he will be moving from Mendota
Heights in June 2017. He has been in the City for 18 or 19 years and has loved everything about the City.
He appreciates the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission, it is a great staff, and a very well
run City. He has had nothing but good experiences and he appreciates everyone.
Chair Field wished everyone a happy and safe Memorial Day Weekend.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:18 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello)
page 39
page 40
page 41
Request for City Council Action
DATE: July 5, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Approve Police Officer Hire
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of Anthony Patton for the position of Police Officer.
Background
The Police Officer hiring process began earlier this spring with a position posting. The City
received 40 applications from interested candidates. The process has included two rounds of
interviews, a thorough background investigation, a psychological evaluation and physical
examination to determine qualified candidates.
Staff recommends the hiring of Anthony Patton to the position of Police Officer. Mr. Patton
has a Bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota in Economics and an Associate
degree in Law Enforcement from Minneapolis Community and Technical College.
Anthony’s anticipated start date is July 31, dependent upon approval by the City Council and proper
notice to his current employer.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the hiring of Anthony Patton as Police
Officer. Starting salary will be $4,944 per month based on the 2016-2017 Law Enforcement
Labor Services, Inc. Labor Agreement.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the hiring of Anthony Patton to the
position of Police Officer with the Mendota Heights Police Department.
page 42
DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Donations
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to formally accept donations which were received for the Scott Patrick
Memorial 5K Race, and the City Parks Celebration.
BACKGROUND
By State law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a
resolution.
On June 3rd, the annual 5K Race, and City Parks Celebration were held. A total of 79 different
donors contributed cash, services, or merchandise with a value of $12,787 for the race. Seven
additional businesses or organizations donated an additional $2100 in cash for the Park
Celebration.
The City is grateful for the generosity of all donors.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council accept the donations, by approving Resolution 2017-50.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 2017-50
RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE GIFTS
TO THE CITY AND THE 5K AND THE CITY PARKS CELEBRATION
page 43
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-50
RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE GIFTS
TO THE CITY AND THE 5K AND THE CITY PARKS CELEBRATION
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires to follow Minnesota Statute 465.03
“Gifts to municipalities”; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to accept gifts to
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this
matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their
donations.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights is accepting donations from the following people and organizations in
support of the City Mendota Heights and the Parks Celebration.
VENDOR PRIZE VALUE
2017 5K Door Prizes
Anytime Fitness 3 Months Membership & 3 Training Sessions $900.00
Artititude $150 Gift Certificate $150.00
B.C. Contracting Potted Tree $250.00
Beau $50 Cash $50.00
Best Western-Dakota Ridge 1 Night Stay $140.00
Billy's On Grand 2 - $25 Gift Cards $100.00
Bob & Laurie Murphy Garmin Forerunner 230 $150.00
Bob Brackey 55 Inch LG TV $500.00
Boca Chica 2-$15 Gift Cards $30.00
Bogeys 3 - $50 Gift Certificates $150.00
Bonfire-Grand Ave $25 Gift Card $25.00
Buffalo Wild Wings - Eagan Free Wing Party & Sauces $55.00
Buon Giorno Italia $25 Gift Card $25.00
Cherokee Tavern $25 Gift Card $25.00
Chet's Liquors 2 Bottles Of Wine $25.00
Courtyard-Marriott-MH 10 Complimentary Night Stays $1,000.00
Dahlberg Services Inc $50 Cash $50.00
Dave Lebertini $50 Cash $50.00
page 44
Deerwood Bank Duff $45.00
DeGidio's 4 - $50 Gift Cards $200.00
Dixie's 2- $20 Gift Cards $40.00
Downtowner/Burger Moe's 2 - $25 Gift Cards $50.00
Eagle Street Grille 16 - $25 Gift Cards $400.00
Ed $50 Cash $50.00
Ed Hayes 30 Pair Of Juzo Socks $300.00
Fairfield Mendota Heights 2 Free Night Stays $200.00
Gallagher's 3 - $25 Gift Certificates $75.00
Goodfellows Landscrapes 520 Lip Balms $475.00
Grand 7 4 St Paul Saints Tickets $100.00
Great Moon Buffet 2 - $25 Gift Cards $50.00
Greg Boyle 55 Inch Vizio TV $500.00
Hilltop Family Chiropratic Gift Basket and Gift Card $100.00
Holiday Inn Express-Eagan One Night Stay $100.00
Holiday - Lilydale 2- $25 Gift Cards $50.00
Inver Grove Ford Oil Change $50.00
John Sweitzer $100 Cash $100.00
Julie Fronk $40 Macy’s Gift Card $40.00
Kaposia Tree Service $175 Gift Certificate $175.00
Kay Frye 3- $25 Gift Cards $75.00
Klocke Autoworks $100 Cash $100.00
Kraus-Anderson 4 - MN Twins Tickets $200.00
Landmark Jewelers Pearl Necklace $75.00
Lempelius Racing $100 Cash $100.00
Lilydale Barbers Men's Haircut $21.00
Lilydale Garden Center 2 Planters & 2 Gift Cards $130.00
Lost Spur 2 – 9 Hole Rounds of Golf $72.00
Lucky's - Mendota 10 - $20 Gift Cards $200.00
Mauer Chev 2 - Oil Changes $100.00
Meisinger Construction 2 - $50 Gift Cards $100.00
Mendakota Country Club Round of Golf For 4 With 2 Carts & Lunch $600.00
Mendota Heights BP 2 – Oil Change Gift Cards $200.00
Mendota Heights Par 3 12 Rounds of Golf $156.00
Michelle Patrick 2 - $100 Great Clips Gift Cards $200.00
Mike's Butcher Shop $20 Gift Card $20.00
Moose Country 4 - $25 Gift Cards $100.00
Neil Garlock 55 Inch LG TV $500.00
O'Gara's 4 - $25 Gift Cards $100.00
Pam's Hair Design 12 Tanning Sessions & Style Cut $45.00
Paradise Car Wash 10 Car Washes & One Detail $475.00
Pearson’s Candy Assorted Nut Rolls $250.00
Pepsi 15 Cases of Gatorade & Water $160.00
Perkins - Eagan $50 Gift Card $50.00
Pool & Yacht Club 2 - $100 Gift Cards $200.00
Reggie $50 $50.00
page 45
Romero Auto Repair Oil Change $25.00
Shepard Airport Parking 1 Week Of Parking $75.00
Soapy Joes Car Wash 12 Assorted Car Washes $150.00
Southview Country Club Social Membership $250.00
St Paul Saints 12 Reserve Outfield Tickets $168.00
Steve Morganson 55 Inch LG TV $500.00
Sunfish Cellars 2 - $25 Gift Cards & $50 Gift Card $100.00
Tappers Pub 8 - $25 Gift Cards $200.00
Teresa's Mexican Restaurant 15 - $20 Gift Cards $300.00
The Pizza Shop 3 - $25 Gift Cards $150.00
The Wine Market $20 Gift Card $20.00
Ultimate Events 2 MN Twins Tickets $180.00
Wendy Guzman $50 Cash $50.00
Wild Onion 4 - $25 Gift Cards $100.00
Zerorez $175 Gift Certificate $175.00
$12,787.00
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of July, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
2017 Parks Celebration Donations
Somerset Country Club $50
Valmont $500
Bituminous Roadways $500
Signart $50
STA $250
Southview $250
Mendakota Animal Hospital $500
Total $2,100.00
page 46
DATE: July 5 , 2017
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: Friendly Hills Warming House
Introduction
The City Council is asked to award a contract for building a new warming house at Friendly
Hills Park.
Background
The Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended that the warming houses in the city be
placed on a schedule for replacement. The schedule includes reconstructing each of the City’s
three warming houses warming house every other year, until they have all been replaced. The
Marie Park warming house was replaced in 2015, and the Friendly Hills Park warming house is
scheduled to be replace in 2017.
Staff obtained two quotes to remove the existing warming house and build a new warming
house. They were:
Paper Brothers Construction, Inc. = $40,410.00
Kirchner Contracting, Inc. = $41,120.00
Budget Impact
This project would be paid for out of the Special Parks Fund, which currently has a balance of
$630,000.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends awarding Paper Brothers Construction, Inc. the contract to remove the
existing warming house at Friendly Hills Park and replace it with a new 14 ft. by 28 ft. warming
house.
Required Action
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, award a contract to Paper Brothers Construction,
Inc. to remove the existing warming house at Friendly Hills Park, and replace it with a new
warming house at a total cost of $40,410.
page 47
page 48
page 49
DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
SUBJECT: Purchase and installation of wireless network equipment at City Hall
COMMENT:
Introduction
The City Council is asked to approve the purchase and installation of wireless network
equipment within City Hall.
Background
Staff has been working with LOGIS, our IT support services provider, to evaluate and make
recommendations for improving the wireless network at City Hall. Three areas within City Hall
have been identified as needing a stronger wireless signal and capacity in order to provide
optimal wireless connectivity and better support business operations.
The first area is inside council chambers. The current wireless router is located outside of
council chambers and does not have the signal strength or capacity to handle numerous
connections at one time. LOGIS is proposing an access point inside council chambers be added
in order to increase capacity and strength to handle multiple wireless connections.
The second area is outside the police garage. The Police Department needs to wirelessly offload
large amounts of data from squad cars from outside the police garage. The current wireless
access point is mounted inside the police garage and does not provide sufficient strength or
capacity to receive data from the squad cars. LOGIS is proposing an outdoor wireless access
point to be mounted outside and above the police garage doors. This will allow for faster and
more effective wireless data offloads.
LOGIS also recommends moving the wireless access point that is currently located inside the
police garage to the police muster area. This area currently does not have wireless connectivity.
Wireless access is needed in this area for department operations as well as to allow for
connectivity during an EOC event.
page 50
Budget Impact
LOGIS has submitted a proposal in the amount of $5,887 for the purchase and installation of
wireless network equipment at City Hall. If approved, funds would be available from the Cable
Fund to cover costs.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposal to purchase and install wireless network equipment
at City Hall.
Action Required
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the purchase and installation of equipment
to replace or enhance wireless network connectivity at City Hall.
page 51
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Accepting Wetland Delineation Report for the Orchard Heights Development
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked approve a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit application for boundary
and type of wetland.
BACKGROUND
The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A wetland delineation report for the Olin property
was submitted to the city for approval and acceptance. In the interests of being concise, excerpts
from the full 34 page report are attached. Anyone wanting to see the entire report should please
contact me, and I will be happy to provide that.
The Olin property is a 13.45-acre parcel on Orchard Place in Mendota Heights. The site is located at
1140 Orchard Place. A subdivision is proposed on the site.
DISCUSSION
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data showed two potential water features on the site. The
purpose of this report was to determine if wetlands truly exist on the site. A professional consultant
was hired by the developer and they determined that the features do exist and delineated the
boundaries. Staff met with Dakota County SWCD on site and concurred with the boundaries as
submitted in the report.
BUDGET IMPACT
None, this process is a judicial requirement of the city. If council accepts the report a Notice of
Decision will be sent to respective agencies (Dakota County SWCD, BWSR, LMRWMO, Army
Corps.)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve and accept the report as submitted by Kjolhaug
Environmental Services Company, Inc. for their determination of wetland boundaries and direct staff
to issue the Notice of Decision
page 52
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council wishes to enact the staff recommendation, it should pass a motion accepting the
delineation report and authorizing staff to issue a Notice of Decision. This action requires a simple
majority vote.
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor, Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Kelly McCarthy, Chief of Police / Emergency Manager
SUBJECT: Out of Metro / State Travel
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is asked to approve out of state travel for Chad Wilson of the Police Department as
required by policy.
BACKGROUND:
City policy requires approval by the City Council for out of state travel. Investigator Chad
Wilson will be attending Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center training in Green Bay,
WI on August 22nd to 24th. This is a planned annual training conference.
BUDGET IMPACT:
These are budgeted expenses. The money is available in the Police Department budget to cover
the costs. Those are estimated to be:
• MOCIC Conference: $225
• Lodging: Radisson Hotel and Conference Center. Rate $89 / night. $267
• Meals: 8 GSA maximum rate $162
• Total estimated cost: $654.00
He will be taking a City vehicle, so there would be the additional cost of gasoline.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that Council authorize to attend the training as a representative of the City of
Mendota Heights Police Department.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize Investigator Chad Wilson to attend the
MOCIC Conference in Green Bay, WI, August 22 to 24, 2017.
page 62
DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob Grant Application
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve the submittal of a grant application by others, to fund the hiring
of a consultant for design work at Historic Pilot Knob.
BACKGROUND
The City has recently been approached by Great River Greening (GRG) for approval in making
application to the Minnesota Historical Society for funding to hire a consultant to design
improvements at Historic Pilot Knob. The attached page from GRG describes needed
improvements for trails, signage, and the entryway. The pre-proposal grant application must be
submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society by July 21.
This proposal is supported by the Pilot Knob Preservation Association. An application for
improvements is felt to be timely, by virtue of the recent designation of the Oheyawahe/Pilot
Knob site to the National Registry of Historic Places.
BUDGET IMPACT
The grant application will seek $25,000 for the hiring of the consultant, which would be SFR
Consulting Group. Part of the consultant’s work will be to create cost estimates for the future
improvements. GRG would take the lead in making applications for future grants to help support
those recommended improvements. Cost estimates are expected to take about a year to create.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council authorize submittal of the grant application.
page 63
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize Great River Greening to submit an
application for a grant to fund design work for improvements at Oheyawahe/Historic Pilot Knob.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 64
Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob Historic Site
Historic Landscape Planning Consultant
In partnership with the City of Mendota Heights and at the request of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association, Great River Greening
proposes to lead the next step of site improvements at the historic Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob site. With the designation on the National
Register of historic Places, as well as years of historical interpretation, native plant restoration and preservation that has already
taken place, it is time to improve the visitor experience. Trail erosion on the steeper slopes is a real problem, the signage is all faded,
and the entry is underwhelming.
Great River Greening proposes to apply for a grant from the Minnesota Historical Society and other sources to hire a
consultant to develop a historic landscape plan. The plan for Oheyawahe/Pilot Knob will improve visitor access and services,
including trail layout, interpretive signage and entry. It will coordinate with Dakota County’s plans for the Big River Regional Trail and
the Minnesota River Greenway. Cost estimates will be part of the plan, and Great River Greening will also take the lead in
applying for funds for any recommended improvements.
SRF Consulting Group is the selected team, after an open bidding process. SRF has the creative, technical, historical, and facilitation
experience to address all issues in this historic landscape plan and effectively engage all stakeholders throughout the planning
process. They have years of experience working with diverse stakeholders including the State Historic Preservation Office, Native
American tribal groups, nonprofit groups and community members.
The preproposal grant application to the Minnesota Historical Society must be submitted by July 21.
Work plan (tentative; work proceeds only after receiving grant funds)
Task 1 | Project Start Up / Gather & Assemble Background Information (March 2018)
Task 2 | Site Inventory and Analysis (April 2018)
Task 3 | Concept Alternatives (May 2018)
Task 4 | Draft Plan Recommendations (June 2018)
Task 5 | Final Plan Recommendations & Cost Estimates (July 2018)
Task 6 | Stakeholder Engagement (February – July 2018)
Partner Stakeholder Meetings
Targeted stakeholder groups consist of: Great River Greening, Pilot Knob Preservation Association, State Historic Preservation
Office, Native American Groups, and Mendota Heights City Council
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to Re-Guide
Future Land Use from existing “LR-Low Density Residential” to “MR-Medium
Density Residential” for properties generally located at the Southeast corner of
Lexington Avenue and Sibley Memorial Highway [Planning Case 2017-11]
Introduction
The City is asked to consider an amendment to the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan to the Future Land
Use Plan, by re-guiding certain properties from an existing “LR-Low Density Residential” to “MR-
Medium Density Residential”. The subject properties are generally located at the southeast corner of
Sibley Memorial Highway and Lexington Avenue South, identified as 1680 Lexington Avenue South,
1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, and an unaddressed parcel PID No. 27-02300-50-022.
Background
Keith Ostrosky, owner of 1680 Lexington Avenue, Talaia Bowen, owner of 1104 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
and Raymond J. Miller (unaddressed parcel immediately east of Bowen’s) are collectively seeking the
land use amendment to the city’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. All three properties are currently zoned R-1
One Family Residential. 1680 Lexington and 1104 SMH each have a typical single family residence
situated on the property, while the Miller lot is vacant.
The official request is to change the underlying land use from “LR - Low Density Residential” to “MR -
Medium Density Residential.” There are no related land use applications filed with this land use change
request, such as a rezoning, nor any official redevelopment plans to be reviewed at this time as well.
On June 27, 2017, this item was presented before the Planning Commission under a duly noticed public
hearing process, along with a planning report which contained an analysis, findings and staff
recommendation (attached hereto). The notice was published in the local newspaper; and notice letters of
this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-ft. from the subject properties (including registered
property owners in City of Lilydale). There were a number of comments and questions from the public,
with most being opposed or objecting to this proposed land use change (see attached PC Meeting
minutes).
page 79
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a comprehensive plan amendment
request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and
in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
At the June 27th meeting, the Planning Commission supported this proposed land use change, and
recommended unanimous approval (6-0 vote) of the application, with certain conditions as described in
planning staff report, and which are memorialized in the attached resolution.
If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, please adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2017-51
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY RE-GUIDING
CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIBLEY
MEMORIAL HIGHWAY AND LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH.
Action Required
According to Title 12-1L-9(B) of the City Code, an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the City
Council is required to adopt the resolution authorizing the amendment to the comprehensive plan.
page 80
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-51
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY RE-GUIDING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL”
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
LEXINGTON AVENUE AND SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, Keith Ostrosky, Talaia Bowen and Raymond J. Miller (as Co-Applicants)
have applied for an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide certain properties
from “LR-Low Density Residential” to “MR-Medium Density Residential”, generally located at
the southeast corner of Lexington Avenue South and Sibley Memorial Highway (1680 Lexington
Avenue, 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway and the unaddressed parcel PID No. 27-02300-50-022),
as proposed under Planning Case 2017-11, and legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting of June 27, 2017, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-
up discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval (by 6-0 vote) of the
amendment to the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan for those properties described herein, with
certain findings of fact and conditions of approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide certain properties from “LR-Low
Density Residential” to “MR-Medium Density Residential”, generally located at the southeast
corner of Lexington Avenue South and Sibley Memorial Highway, is hereby approved with the
following findings of fact:
A. The properties are located along the north edge of the community, adjacent to
state highway, and within a small “notched” section of the community and
essentially surrounded on three sides by neighboring City of Lilydale boundaries,
which contains a high level of multi-family residential developments. The impact
of this Medium Density level land use change in this area would appear to be a
reasonable request, and should not cause any negative effects or impacts upon the
surrounding properties.
B. The subject property is logically following or completing an in-fill type land use
pattern that is pre-existing with the surrounding high density land uses.
C. The size(s) of these properties are fairly small in comparison to other high density
uses in this area; therefore, the amount of units that may be available to this area
should be minimal as well and have little impacts to the surrounding land use,
including the existing single family used across from Lexington.
page 81
D. The properties either front (access) directly on Lexington Avenue, a major street
and Sibley Memorial Highway (TH 13), so any additional traffic from a medium
density development on the property would not pass through other quiet, single-
family neighborhood streets.
E. Allowing twin homes, triplex or other medium density structure would allow the
owner(s) a reasonable use of the land not otherwise possible given the dimensions
and limitations of development of all three properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide certain properties from “LR-Low
Density Residential” to “MR-Medium Density Residential”, generally located at the southeast
corner of Lexington Avenue South and Sibley Memorial Highway, is hereby approved, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan
Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of July, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 82
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions:
1680 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
PID No. 27-02300-50-010
SECTION 23 TWN 28 RANGE 23
PT OF GOVT LOT 5 COM SW COR SEC N ON W LINE 1470.40 FT TO BEG N 83D 45M E
70.12 FT CONT N 83D45M E 70FT N 29D 13M E 89.07 FT N 37D 16M E 120.70 FT N 42D
12M 30S E 136.12 FT N 56D 30M E 36.01 FT N 21D 46M 05S W 232.52 FT TO C/L STH NO
13 SW ON C/L 322.84 FT TO W LINE S ON W LINE 384.78 FT TO BEG
1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
PID No. 27-02300-50-021
SECTION 23 TWN 28 RANGE 23
PT GOVT LOT 5 COM AT PT ON W LINE SEC 23 1469.18 FT N OF SW COR N ALONG W
LINE 387.42 FT TO PT IN CENTER SIBLEY MEM HWY (STH #13) N64D23M E ALONG
C/L 423.89 FT TO BEG S 19D40M50S E 219.47 FT S 56D30M W 93.75 FT N 21D49M W 232
FT TO C/L SIBLEY HWY N 64D23M E 100 FT TO BEG
UNADDRESSED
PID No. 27-02300-50-022
SECTION 23 TWN 28 RANGE 23
PT GOVT LOT 5 COM AT PT ON W LINE SEC 23 1469.18 FT N OF SW COR N ALONG W
LINE 387.42 FT TO PT IN CENTER SIBLEY MEM HWY N 64D23M E ALONG C/L 423.89
FT TO PT OF BEG N64D23M E 100 FT S 15D53M E 201.98 FT S 51D13M W 91.25 FT N
19D40M50S W 219.47 FT TO BEG
page 83
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-11
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Land Use Change)
APPLICANT: Keith Ostrosky / Talaia Bowen
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1680 Lexington Avenue South – AND – 1104 Sibley Memorial Hwy.
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential / LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 17, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Keith Ostrosky, owner of 1680 Lexington Avenue and Talaia Bowen, owner of 1104 Sibley Memorial
Hwy. are collectively seeking a comprehensive plan amendment to the city’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
A vacant lot located immediately to the east of 1104 SMH is owned by Raymond J. Miller, with no
identifiable address. Although not officially part of this shared application (of Ostrosky and Bowen), staff
contacted Mr. Miller directly and agreed to become a willing participant in this amendment application.
The official request is a land use change from LR - Low Density Residential to a new MR - Medium Density
Residential. There are no corresponding or additional applications for rezoning (i.e. from R-1 One Family
Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential) at this time. There are also no official redevelopment
plans to be reviewed at this time as well.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel, including all registered owners (condominium owners)
within the City of Lilydale.
Staff received two written comments via email from neighboring residents (Gerber family - 1081 Douglas
Road and Jim Lennon – Overlook Condos- Lilydale) both included herein), along with a number of phone
calls and inquiries regarding this land use application.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties - 1680 Lexington is 2.33 acres in size; 1104 Sibley Mem. Hwy. site is 0.42 acres;
and the Miller vacant lot is 0.38 acres, for a total combined area of 3.13 acres.
page 84
All three properties are currently zoned R-1 One Family Residence; and guided LR-Low Density
Residential.
1680 Lexington contains a one story, single family dwelling, originally built in 1952, consisting of
approximately 2,075 finished floor square feet. The site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line
along the mostly northerly half segment of the lot (see image below).
page 85
The property at 1104 SMH contains a two story, split-level single family dwelling, originally built in 1977
with 1,714 finished floor square feet.
The unaddressed lot next to 1104 SMH is an undeveloped parcel currently on the market for sale. This lot
is mostly wooded, with evidence of some very steep slopes. \
The following table provides the minimum requirements for either single family or multi-family dwelling
in a Medium Density or R-2 Zone area:
Lot
Dwelling
Lot Area/
Area Lot Unit
Lot
Width
Front
Yard
Side
Yard
Rear
Yard
1 family 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 100' 30' 10' 30' 2
2 family 20,000 sf 1 10,000 sf 100' 30' 1 10' 30' 2
3 family 30,000 sf 1 10,000 sf 150' 30' 1 15' 30' 2
Based on the contours of the lots, the Ostrosky parcel has an estimated “buildable” “space of approximately
0.9 to 1 acres of the overall 2.33 acres; and the Bowen parcel appears to have an estimated 0.3 acres of
buildable space; while the Miller lot is undetermined. At this time, Planning Staff is only representing these
buildable area calculations based on rough estimates from observations made on current aerial photo and
land contour elevation interpretations. Without an accurate survey of these properties, staff is unable to
clearly determine what the exact developable space of each lot may be, or the combined total of all three
lots at this time. That determination will have to be made or determined later should these sites become
available or presented for future development.
(Ostrosky Lot - est. buildable area)
page 86
(Bowen Lot – est. buildable area) (Miller Lot –buildable area undetermined)
ANALYSIS
1) As the Planning Commission is well aware, the City is currently undergoing its own 2040
Comprehensive Plan update, which we expect to be completed by early next year 2018. Without
an established moratorium in place to delay or halt these land use requests, the city can still take
and process comprehensive plan amendments and land use change requests as presented herein.
2) The pattern of land use in Mendota Heights is something over which the City has great discretion.
The City is under no obligation to change the Land Use Plan as requested.
3) The City’s 2030 Land Use Plan defines the two land use categories as follows:
Low Density Residential (LR), (LR-II)
This land use is the most prevalent land use category in the City and provides for single family
development. This designation is intended for a density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre. The
corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential Districts: R-1 (2.9
units per acre), R-1B (1.45 units per acre), and R-1C (2.18 units per acre). The Land Use
Maps identify these areas as “LR-Low Density Residential” or “LR-II.”
Medium Density Residential (MR), (MR-PUD)
This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities
of up to 4.35 units per acre. There is no vacant land within this designation. The
corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-2 (Medium Density Residential District)
and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development). The remaining land
in this category was purchased as a part of the Pilot Knob Open Space project. The Land Use
Maps identify these areas as “MR – Medium Density Residential” or “MR-PUD.”
4) The subject properties are generally located near the intersection of Lexington Avenue and Sibley
Memorial Highway, in the “notch” segment of the city surrounded by City of Lilydale boundaries.
The properties are bounded to the south by the Overlook Condos (107 units - City of Lilydale); the
Riverpointe and Lexington Riverside condos across the highway (130 units - City of Lilydale);
Riverpointe Condos (23 units – Lilydale); and a variety and number of single family dwellings to
the immediate west and surrounding area of the Overlook development.
page 87
5) There appears to be only one other lot in the City zoned R-2, on Vail Drive east of Lexington
Avenue, within an otherwise single family R-1 neighborhood.
6) A change in land use, particularly one from low-density/single family residential to a slightly higher
medium density/two-family residential brings to bear the question of the character of the area. The
immediate neighborhood and bulk of the surrounding properties (even though contained within an
adjacent community) are well established as multiple family residential developments. The single
family uses across the street off Lexington are also well established, but they too also experience
some “multiple family residential” impacts due to the proximity of the Lexington Court townhomes
to the south and even Overlook Condos across the road. These existing multi-family and single
family uses should experience little, if any impacts due to this proposed land use change.
7) In rare cases, some cities may be accused of selectively amending the land uses in small, remote
areas, which leads to the further concern or phrasing of “spot zoning” in zoning discussions. This
illegal act of land use change refers to situations where a smaller property is singled out for different
zoning with no connection to a larger, rational pattern of land use in the vicinity. In this case, re-
guiding from LR Low Density to MR-Medium Density Residential, followed by a possible (and
allowable) rezoning of the subject properties from R-1 to R-2 Two Family Residential, would be
an appropriate change of land use in this area, due in large part to the existing and much higher
density residential developments abutting these properties. Therefore, a reasonable argument can
be made that this is not selective land use changing or even fostering a future “spot zoning” of this
area.
8) If the requested changes were made, the owners would be entitled to all permitted and conditional
uses in the R-2 District (Section 12-1E-7), which includes “dwelling structures containing two units
to twenty-four units” as a permitted use and “manufactured home park” as a conditional use.
STATEMENT on DENSITY
A change in land use from Low Density to Medium Density would not necessarily guarantee the rezoning
from R-1 One Family to R-2 Two Family Residential; nor does this land use change guarantee that only
page 88
two-family dwellings (or twin homes) will be built on these lots, either individually or collectively. The R-
2 Zone allows for single family (detached) dwelling, plus residential dwelling structures containing 2 to 24
units. All single family units require a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. of land area/unit; while any 2-family plus
structure requires 10,000 sq. ft. per unit.
As indicated previously, the proposed Medium Density land use provides for townhome and attached
housing development at urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre. Under the City Code Definitions
section, a lot area is calculated based on the following:
LOT AREA, PER DWELLING UNIT: The number of square feet of lot area required per dwelling unit.
For each parcel, the number of allowable units is calculated as follows:
Ostrosky (1680 Lex.): 2.33 ac. @ 4.35 un./ac. = 10.1355, or 10 units.
Bowen (1104 SMH): 0.42 ac. @ 4.35 un./ac. = 1.827, or 1 unit *
Miller Lot 0.38 ac. @4.35 un./ac. = 1.653, or 1 unit*
All 3 Lots Combined: 3.13 ac. @4.35 un.ac. = 13.62, or 13 units
* Only by combining these two lots would this revise to 0.8 ac. @ 4.35 un/ac. = 3.48 units.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff feels the requested comprehensive plan amendment to change the underlying land use of these three
properties should have minimal impacts upon the surrounding and existing land uses in this area, and
believe the request is generally supported by the current comp plan goals and policies.
Therefore, Staff recommend the Planning Commission approve this comprehensive plan amendment as
from LR - Low Density Residential to MR - Medium Density Residential, for the three properties identified
herein.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment based on the attached findings of
fact;
OR
2. Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment based on certain [revised] findings
developed by the Commission;
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
Attachments
page 89
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Land Use Change)
for
1680 Lexington Avenue South (PID No. 27-02300-50-010),
1104 Sibley Memorial Highway PID No. 27-02300-50-021), and
[Unaddressed Parcel] Sibley Memorial Highway (PID No. 27-02300-50-022)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The properties are located along the north edge of the community, adjacent to state highway, and
within a small “notched” section of the community and essentially surrounded on three sides by
neighboring City of Lilydale boundaries, which contains a high level of multi-family residential
developments. The impact of this Medium Density level land use change in this area would appear
to be a reasonable request, and should not cause any negative effects or impacts upon the
surrounding properties.
2. The subject property is logically following or completing an in-fill type land use pattern that is pre-
existing with the surrounding high density land uses.
3. The size(s) of these properties are fairly small in comparison to other high density uses in this area;
therefore, the amount of units that may be available to this area should be minimal as well and have
little impacts to the surrounding land use, including the existing single family used across from
Lexington.
4. The properties either front (access) directly on Lexington Avenue, a major street and Sibley
Memorial Highway (TH 13), so any additional traffic from a medium density development on the
property would not pass through other quiet, single-family neighborhood streets.
5. Allowing twin homes, triplex or other medium density structure would allow the owner(s) a
reasonable use of the land not otherwise possible given the dimensions and limitations of
development of all three properties.
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYDOUGLAS RD
LEXINGTON AVEJAMES RD
PRIVATE ROAD
KINGSLEY CI
R
N MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RDDOUGLAS CTDakota County GIS
Ostrosky/BowenComprehensive Plan Amendment1680 Lexington & 1104 Sib. Mem. Hwy.
City ofMendotaHeights0290
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/12/2017
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 94
Dakota County, MN
Property Information
June 21, 2017
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.
page 95
A) PLANNING CASE #2017-11
KEITH OSTROSKY, TALAIA BOWEN, RAY J. MILLER; 1680 LEXINGTON
AVENUE AND 1104 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was an official request from
Mr. Keith Ostrosky, Ms. Talaia Bowen, and Mr. Ray J. Miller to only change the Comprehensive
Plan / Land Use for the community. This was not a rezoning and it is not a new development plan.
This is simply the beginning stages of opening a door for development if they so choose. The land
use is just an underlying land use that has to be consistent with any future zoning or current zoning.
The current land use is LR-Low Density Residential and the request is to change it to MR-Medium
Density Residential.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the properties under consideration with Lexington Avenue
and Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) surround it. The Overlook Condos; Riverpointe; and
Lexington Riverside condos surround the property and a limited number of single family dwellings
are immediately to the west and surrounding area of the Overlook development.
1680 Lexington Avenue is a complete 2.33 acre parcel, has a one-story single-family dwelling that
was originally built in 1952, and the site is heavily wooded and impacted by a bluff line along the
mostly northerly half segment of the lot. The useable area of this lot is approximately 1.0 acre in
size.
The house next door, located at 1104 Sibley Memorial Highway, is located on 0.42 acres of land.
It contains a two-story split-level single-family home originally built in 1977. It too is impacted
by woods and grades along the bluff line.
The vacant lot next door is 0.38 acres, undeveloped and has been on the market for sale. This lot
is mostly wooded, with evidence of some very steep slopes.
Mr. Benetti continued by stating that the ‘buildable’ portions of these lots, based on aerial photos
and GID contour elevation interpretations, are as follows:
• The Ostrosky parcel – is approximately 0.9 to 1 acre
• The Bowen parcel – is estimated to be 0.3 acres
• The Miller lot is undetermined
In the future, final determinations would have to be made or determined later should these sites
become available or presented for future development.
Mr. Benetti shared the definitions of the current land use category and the requested land use
category:
Low Density Residential (LR), (LR-H)
• Most prevalent land use category in the City
page 96
• Provides for single family development
• Density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre
• Corresponding zoning district classifications are One Family Residential Districts
Medium Density Residential (MR), (MR-PUD)
• Provides for townhome and attached housing development
• Urban densities of up to 4.35 units per acre
• Corresponding zoning district classifications are R-2 (Medium Density Residential
District) and MR-PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development)
Taking these definitions in consideration and the current lot areas, the current density allowed on
the parcels are:
• Ostrosky parcel – 10 units
• Bowen parcel – 1 unit
• Miller lot – 1 unit
• All three lots combined – 13 units
• Bowen and Miller lots combined – 3 units
Mr. Benetti clarified that these numbers are based only on the parcel acreage; however, the actual
number of units would need to take into consideration the parking, stormwater management, and
setback requirements. If these requirements cannot be met, they may not be able to get 13 units in
there. Mr. Benetti believes (assumptions only) that they may be able to fit only four to six units.
Mr. Benetti then shared the character of the area and how this request in land use would meet those
characteristics. City staff believes the existing multi-family and single-family uses should
experience little, if any impacts due to this proposed land use change and recommended approval
of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Commissioner Hennes asked for a review of the overview map to see how the three properties
related to each other, which Mr. Benetti provided.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this was purely a step to attract a potential developer. Without
speaking on behalf of the owners, Mr. Benetti replied that he believes this is true. Commissioner
Petschel then asked if the Commission could even consider this without Mr. Miller’s signature on
the application. Mr. Benetti replied that Mr. Miller did provide written permission; so yes, this can
be considered.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if there isn’t a plan on the table and this is to have something
available down the road should something occur, why the Commission is being asked to
recommend approval now when the City is in the process of redoing the Comprehensive Plan
anyway. She asked if this shouldn’t be dealt with in the overall contours of the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Benetti replied that he asked Mr. Ostrosky if this could be presented at that time;
however, because the City does not have a moratorium in place to stop these type of land use
applications during the Comprehensive Plan review, Mr. Ostrosky had the ability to apply for the
application and expressed his desire to get it done.
page 97
Commissioner Petschel asked for a primer on what legal rights this would give a combined owner
of these three properties if they were sold together. Mr. Benetti replied that this would be an
outward expression to a potential developer that may be interested but they would have to proceed
at their own risk. This decision would not bind the City in any way.
Commissioner Hennes asked how long this decision would be delayed if the Commission decided
to wait until the Comprehensive Plan was up for review. Mr. Benetti replied that would be
approximately one year from now; the deadline is the end of 2018 but the City is planning on
having it done by June or July 2018. They would then have to layer in the Metropolitan Council’s
approval.
Ms. Talaia Bowen came forward and explained that she and Mr. Ostrosky believe this to be an
opportune time with the housing market and the development market. Hearing that it may look at
a 2020 date to incorporate it into the Comprehensive Plan, it was important to them to come
forward and start this opportunity; knowing that there still some additional steps to be taken.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lucille Collins, 1137 Sibley Memorial Highway, has lived in her home for 50 years. She has
seen Lilydale develop and Mendota Heights does not need it. There are enough problems going on
as all of the land along Lilydale and along Highway 13, and even up into Mendota Heights –
everything is on springs. She is afraid there will be a water problem; more than what they have
currently. They are digging next to her unit to put in water mains because of the problems with the
bluff. Also, the corner there is so bad with traffic – even at night with motorcycles, semi-trucks,
etc. Rush hour is terrible. Chair Field stated that the Commission appreciates her comments and
concerns; however, they are not approving development right now, they are just approving the
land use designation. She continued by stating that it is a bad concept and should not be approved.
Upon request, Ms. Collins showed the location of her townhome in relation to the properties under
consideration.
Commissioner Noonan asked Ms. Collins if she was aware that even if the Council were to deny
this application, redevelopment of the lots could still take place on the three properties. According
to the existing guide plans something in the range of 10 units could be potentially sited on the
Ostrosky property. He also asked if her concerns about single family homes being built there would
be same as what she has expressed about medium-density homes. Ms. Collins replied that her
concerns would remain because of the water problems and the traffic. She would express her
opposition to any additional development occurring on the property, even if it was allowed per
density and zoning codes. Commissioner Noonan continued to press his point that the property
owners have their rights and they could not be denied to exercise those rights.
Ms. Marsha Easton, 1123 Sibley Memorial Highway, expressed the same concerns and objections
as Ms. Collins and also stated that 10 units would be better than 30 units. There are more houses
on the bluff that cannot be sold because they have water issues, mold, and there are springs that
move from day to day. Also, the City would have to provide ponding for all of that water; from
the parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces. Chair Field stated that one of the rules is
page 98
that the testimony provided needs to be relevant to the proposed application. The Commission
does not have any specific application at this time; so it is very hard for them to conceptualize
parking lots, building surfaces, and 30-unit buildings when that is not what is in front of them. He
also explained that the land use guidance is what would be changing, not the actual zoning.
Councilmember Noonan reminded everyone that Mr. Benetti stated that the maximum number of
units that could be put on the combined sites is 13; and then he provided the testimony that in light
of his professional opinion and taking into consideration the steep slopes and the wooded areas, it
would probably be more like 6 units. To suggest 20 or 30 units is misleading.
In response to Ms. Easton’s continued comments about developers cutting down trees and wooded
areas disappearing, Chair Field also explained that these properties are located in the critical area
so the Commission and the Council has more than a few considerations as to respect to protecting
the slopes and the quality of the wooded area and the elevations on these particular lots. This is a
very unique parcel of land and the development potential is exceedingly limited.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification on what exactly the Commission is being asked
to do and what the limitations are; as they are not being asked to approve a development, they are
doing something vastly different. Mr. Benetti replied that what was presented was simply a ‘land
use change’. The land use is simply the beginning process of to rezone a property. If this were
currently guided medium density, the conversation about a rezoning could occur. However, that is
not the case. Under a rezoning package, the City would typically ask a developer why they are
requesting a rezoning; are they proposing new development – the City would want to see that
development plan if they were rezoning. The land use amendment is just to change the underlying
land use; there is no rezoning, there is no proposed development plan. The units per acre is set in
the Comprehensive Plan because that is what is used to guide the land use; how many units does
the City want to see per acre under the single-family, the multi-family, and so forth. In this case,
it is 2.9 units per acre under the single-family (low density) guidance and 4.25 units per acre under
the medium density guidance. That is under a clear case scenario; if this were a beautiful piece of
flat ground with no issues or problems on it. With the impacts of the slope and everything else in
this area, this would include a lot of ‘what if’s’ and ‘hypotheticals’ because there is no plan and
there should not be a plan at this point. This is just the beginning steps of a potential redevelopment
later on down the road – that may never occur. All of the concerns raised would be meted out at
that time; and the critical area is not a fun area to deal with and that is on purpose. The City does
not want people destroying the integrity of the bluff line and the slopes.
Mr. James Lindsey, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, noted that many in attendance are from
Lilydale and asked if they have much to say. Chair Field noted that they are an adjoining
community and are welcome to speak. Mr. Benetti replied that the normal standard of operating
procedure for notifications is typically only those residents in the community that are being
affected. Under this process, he selected to choose all of the residents within 350 feet of the three
sites. Dakota County has the ability to pick all of the property owners within a 350 foot radius of
the property. All of the names came up on the list and all were notified. Normally whenever
something is in an adjacent or abutting jurisdiction, typically a notice is only sent to the official in
charge of the community. Those jurisdictions did receive notices, but so did everyone within the
page 99
350 feet, regardless of their municipality. If the Commission decides that he should continue to do
that in this case, he would be more than happy to do so.
Commissioner Noonan noted, as clarification, that if an individual comes to the meeting and they
live outside of the municipality under consideration but within the 350 feet surrounding it, their
testimony would be heard and taken under consideration.
Ms. Susan Oconnell, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, lives directly above Mr. Ostrosky. She, along
with her neighbors, would prefer to see that the land use does not change to medium density. They
are very concerned about additional units being added below them. They have noise levels that
drive them crazy now, not just from the residents already there but from the traffic on Highway
13. Generally, most of the people living in the building would prefer this to not be multi-use;
however, the do understand that the land could be developed by the owner or by another purchaser.
Any landowner wants to be able to put something on it. However, they would prefer to see it not
as a multi-residential use.
Commissioner Noonan asked why not multi-residential use. Ms. Oconnell replied that there are
simply too many units. If someone were to come forward with a plan to put 10 units on the
property, as is their right, the neighbors would return to express their dislike. Commissioner
Noonan reiterated that medium-density can get them a maximum of 13 but the likelihood, because
of all of the reasons mentioned before, is significantly less than that.
Ms. Joelle Rasmussen, 1101 Sibley Memorial Highway, asked how many acres comprise the
subject property. Mr. Benetti replied that all three properties combined is 3.13 acres. She asked for
clarification on Commissioner Hennes’ comment about the number of units per acre.
Commissioner Hennes replied that he said that changing the land use to medium density would
add one unit per acre.
Ms. Rasmussen then asked if this land could possibly be zoned as rental in the future. Chair Field
replied that the only thing under consideration tonight is the use of the land; not the potential
development of the land. But rental is always a possibility.
Ms. Rasmussen stated that she finds it strange that they are asking for this land use change now
when they could ask for that land use change when they present a plan for development.
Another resident (name/address unknown) noted that when he looked at the documentation that
came out there was a land use program dated April 25, 2017 and it was designated as low-density.
He then asked why, after this study came out, there is an interest now in changing it. Chair Field
replied that, at the end of the day, someone asked the Commission to do this and they paid a fee;
so that is what the Commission is dealing with. He also noted that the last land use plan came out
in 2010. The date on the document he may have seen would have referenced what Comprehensive
Plan edition it was issued under.
Mr. Bruce Westland, 1700 Lexington Avenue South, stated that basically everyone speaking this
evening is sharing their human side of the concerns of what the development may be. He agreed
with Commissioner Noonan that everyone has the right to ask and to request development of their
page 100
property and do a change. As a Commission, he believes their responsibility is to understand what
those changes are and how that affects the city and the overall look. He understands that he does
not have a right to own the sunset that a potential building may block, nor the city line that a
potential development may obscure; however, what are the limitations that Mendota Heights has
to that property in a maximum condition for occupancy – in height and elevations. Chair Field and
Commissioner Petschel replied that, because this is in the critical area, the DNR and the City of
St. Paul would have input into any development on the property. Chair Field noted that he
understands that coming into a public hearing such as this can be confusing; however, the
Commission is just trying to make a decision on what is before them now; not what could possibly
come in the future.
Mr. Westland continued by stating that he understands what is before the Commission; however,
everyone knows that once this change is done the potential development will go through. Chair
Field disagreed and stated that the rezoning is a much bigger issue than the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Petschel stated that the Commission has tried to make it clear that this does nothing
in terms of firm plans. Mr. Westland replied that he understands the position of the Commission
this evening; however, this approval opens the gateway for potential development on that ridge or
just below the ridge. No one knows what that is going to be, including the Commission. He then
asked what the maximum condition and restrictions would be that the City would allow. Mr.
Benetti replied that R-2 is the same as a single-family; it is two stories or 25 feet in height
maximum, the setbacks are 30 feet in the front and in the rear and 10 feet on the side. Commissioner
Magnuson stated that it would be fair to add that there are some building restrictions with respect
to bluff lines because it is in the critical area. This in no way should give anyone false indication
that they can develop to the maximum on these properties; there are restrictions – they cannot clear
cut the woods and plot out 13 units. The reality is that there is not a lot that can be done on these
properties and it would be up to the developer – if any – to meet the rezoning requirements and
that would be very hard to do. The critical area has height limitations, it has limitations on the
color so it cannot stand out from river – limitations designed to preserve the quality of the
Mississippi Corridor. It makes building in that area very difficult.
Ms. Talaia Bowen returned and commented that the discourse and the back and forth is important.
Everyone needs to be heard and it is important that, as neighbors, really understand and recognize
what is important to one another. She expressed her appreciation to the Commission for
recognizing that ultimately, land owners have the right to have some type of open opportunity to
consider what they would like to do with their property and how they move forward with it.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
page 101
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO RE-GUIDE CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM “LR-LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL” TO “MR-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL based on the Findings of Fact
on page 7 of the staff report
Commissioner Noonan comments that when the Commission looks at re-guiding, they look at the
surrounding area and they look at the context. Commissioner Magnuson has said very clearly that
it is not a slam-dunk, it is not an immediate intensive development coming forward; but rather
there are limitations on to what the maximum condition could be. The reality is that it is an
extremely difficult site, it is a site that has unique challenges, and if a matter comes forward a
developer is going to have to find real opportunities here to bring something forward because it is
a considerable cost to bring something forward. It is going to have to come forward with significant
background material to help the Commission address and be satisfied with the myriad of concerns
that have been addressed. That would apply even if the Commission did not re-guide the property
and were to consider a plat under the residential.
Commissioner Magnuson stated that she would vote in favor of this request; however, she wanted
to mention that it is only because the Commission is not looking at anything specific at this point.
It is simply a re-guiding of the land. She knows that if there is a proposal that comes forward, there
would be another public hearing – or more than one public hearing – and Mr. Benetti has indicated
that everyone would be notified as they were this time. She encouraged all of them to come and
provide their input and the Commission would actually have something to look at and would be
able to discuss specifics, issues, problems, or whatever.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
page 102
From:Nancy Gerber
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:comprehensive plan amendment
Date:Monday, June 19, 2017 12:04:50 PM
Dear Mr. Benetti,
We received a notice of hearing for a change in plan amendment for 1680 Lexington. Our home is at
the corner of Lexington and Douglas just down the hill from the property. We strongly object to
more dense housing in that part of the city.
The property is elevated and sound from the site carries very well down the hill and is disruptive and
unpleasant. Currently the home owners play a radio and use heavy equipment often for long periods
of time. Adding to that would be intolerable and change the nature of our neighborhood in a
negative way.
Mendota Heights claims to value a country feel with amenities. Adding population and cutting trees
on the property on the hill would not promote a country feel and certainly would have a negative
impact on the peace, quiet, and property values of the folks who live down the hill. Is this property
not on the protected area for the river? Are there not environmental concerns?
This change to land use is also a traffic concern. Cars travel too fast down the hill on Lexington and it
is risky to pull out of a driveway on the hill because visibility is impaired. Adding to traffic on
Lexington is not a good idea.
The notice says there are no current plans to develop. It seems risky to approve this change of land
use without a plan or proposed project. Could the question be raised once we know what the
consequences of this choice would be?
Do we need to appear at the city council meeting in order to present our concerns?
Thank you for considering our comments,
Clyde and Nancy Gerber
page 103
From:Jim Lennon
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Public Hearing 1680 Lexington Ave
Date:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:01:58 PM
I reside in Unit 211, Overlook Condo, looking directly at property to be use for
Medium Density.
Its the only reasonable request...asking property owners to build single family
homes on busy Hwy 13 is not fair.
I support the request to Medium Density
Jim Lennon
Off: 651-994-9096
Text: 651-357-3537
page 104
From:Kate Abts
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Planning Case number 2017-11 - Opposition
Date:Monday, June 26, 2017 8:51:18 AM
RE: Planning Case number 2017-11 -Opposition
I would like to express opposition to the request to change the underlying land use from "LR-Low
Intensity Residential" to "MR-Medium Density Residential" per the recent notice meeting
notice provided. I would like to be present but for being out of town.
It is my belief that the LR-Low Intensity Residential was rightly put in place in consideration of the
fragile nature and in honor of the bluff area. History is an important lesson for teaching and
correcting mistakes. One only has to look at the water problems caused by Mendota Heights
approving the huge condos only a short distance from lot under consideration and the road/bluff
damage that followed. There are other areas of significant bluff erosion along Hwy 13 near the area
in question as well as further up the road. This vote has further potential to negatively impact
the ground water and water runoff toward River Pointe and the surrounding residential areas.
A decision needs to be based on more than one owner's self interest or tax base revenue but the
likelihood of negatively impacting the bluff in the long term as well as the impact on so many other
persons as well as wildlife. I strongly oppose the change to the underlying land use.
Thank you for your efforts. I hope this matter is not a said and done issue. Rather, it is hoped for
thoughtful consideration of the historical knowledge and perspective, the negative impacts to the
area and persons/residences down from the lot in question, as will as the future impact to this
beautiful area.
Cathy Abts
1111 Sibley Memorial Hwy
#1G
Lilydale, MN 55118
(612 )594-4767
page 105
From:bewestl@comcast.net
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Planning Case 2017-11 resoning to MR
Date:Monday, June 26, 2017 9:10:06 PM
Mr. Benetti,
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed zoning change of the three properties
off Lexington and Sibley Memorial Hwy. There are many concerns over the change
in zoning not just by myself but others residing in the Overlook Condominiums-
located approx. 350-400 feet from the proposed area change.
You state that two people have submitted written comment on above subject from
neighboring residents. You have not provided ample time for residents in Overlook to
respond. Yes, you stated per the requirements per public notice were followed. We
(my wife and I) received our letter of notice June 19th. Many of the residents here in
Overlook did not receive the letter of intent. Schedules and travel are not an excuse
but did play into the delay in our investigating what changes are proposed and what
potential impact this will have on our living condition and value of property (and how
far down the path the Planning Commission has gone on the project .
The letter indicates nothing on the status of process and your committed support to
move forward with the change. Granted we are from Lilydale, but it appears as an
afterthought?
Concerns:
Is it wise to support a zoning change without plans or indications of what the owners
of the properties intend to implement?
Traffic studies/Impact off Lexington and Sibley. Has the Planning Commission
reviewed the significant amount of traffic already experienced on these two
throughways (morning and evening rush)?
13-14 units in maximum condition (combined properties) impacts street volume and
safety conditions?
Lilydale borders (in somewhat unique boundaries) to the properties. Has Mendota
Planning Commission inquired with Lilydale on their position/impact to the changes?
Overlook residents share the majority of the property line to the two existing houses.
Occasionally there has been noise issues under the current condtion of two single
family units.
Current grade / elevation in relation to watershed.
How does this change affect the MRCA designated critical area under the Mendota
Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan?
page 106
Mr Benetti, we would like you to consider 'tabling' the action @ Tuesday night's
meeting until the concerns above can be vetted out and understood by the people
most impacted by the zoning change (Overlook Residents). A minimum of 23 units of
this 43 unit building are affected by this decision. Many of them within a stones throw
from the properties edge.
I trust you will allow the concerns of neighboring residents to be heard their and
hopefully allow a 'stay' on the project until the concerns can be understood, vetted
and satisfied.
Greatly appreciated,
Bruce Westlund
1700 Lexington Ave S
Lilydale
651-231-8105
page 107
From:ocosus@comcast.net
To:Tim Benetti; Mark McNeill
Subject:Re-zoning of Land on Sibley Memorial Highway/Lexington Ave S Case 2017-11
Date:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 8:22:01 AM
I will attend tomorrow's meeting to discuss the parcel of land on Sibley Memorial
Highway adjacent to Lexington Ave South.however, I want to be on record, however,
as urging Mendota Heights to retain the current low density zoning. My reasons
follow:
The issue with the already blind intersection of 13 and Lexington Ave and increase in
traffic in and around that area.
The unknown development of the properties in question could add significantly to an
area that is already dense with condos and apartments plus the addition of multi-
family dwelling could affect the sight lines of our complex units and increase the level
of noise in the area.
Mr. Ostrosky has not been a good neighbor to our complex. He built his driveway on
our property for which we now have no recourse to address so our concern would be
that he oversteps his boundaries in future buildings on this land.
We also are very concerned on the environmental issues for watershed, drainage and
erosion on the hill below us.
For these reasons I would be against re-zoning the land to R-2 medium density.
Sue O'Connell
1700 Lexington Ave S
# 206
St Paul MN 55118
Sue 651-690-5307
page 108
From:Bloomer, Shawn K
To:Mark McNeill; Tim Benetti
Subject:Sibley Memorial Highway/Lexington Ave S. Rezoning project
Date:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 8:52:43 AM
Good morning,
I am a Lilydale resident at 1700 Lexington Ave. S., concerned about the low- to medium-density rezoning you are
considering at this evening’s meeting.
I am writing you to express my opposition to this rezoning. In particular, I am concerned about the drainage and
erosion issues which the City of Lilydale has been dealing with for many years, and the liability and lawsuits that
may result from this issue if the delicate infrastructure of our two communities is disrupted.
Have you discussed the impact this rezoning may have on the watershed infrastructure with your engineers and
that of the City of Lilydale?
Thank you,
____________________________________________
Michael K. Bloomer
1700 Lexington Ave. S.
Lilydale, MN 55118
--
c: (651) 447-3428
page 109
From:Daniel Gore
To:Mark McNeill; Tim Benetti
Subject:Do not rezone Sibley Memorial Highway/Lexington ave s.
Date:Monday, June 26, 2017 10:42:20 PM
I am unable to attend tomorrow's meeting to discuss the parcel of land on Sibley Memorial Highway adjacent to
Lexington Ave South. I urge you to retain the current low density zoning.
My issues are tangible including increased confusion in an already blind intersection of 13 & Lexington. There will
also be increased pedestrian and driver safety hazards. The watershed and drainage and erosion issues are already a
challenge and liability to the area. There is already significant density in the area: condos, apartments and more
condos. The runoff from the developments above this will risk erosion to the existing properties as well as the
proposed unit/s
The potential tax benefit to the city will be insignificant compared to the potential risks. There is also great aesthetic
and perceived real estate value for maintaining some natural beauty, which affects your current retail and residential
population.
Please do not rezone the area to increase the density tomorrow. The benefits are minimal as compared to the costs.
Daniel Gore
1700 Lexington ave south. #110. Lilydale, MN 55118
page 110
From:Tim Larson
To:Tim Benetti
Subject:Neighborhood proposal
Date:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:33:21 PM
Both Timothy and Andrea Larson at 1655 Mayfield Hgts Rd would like to formally but respectfully submit our
objection to the proposed change at nearby property following a discussion with our neighbors Maure Lazarus and
Linda.
Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________
15 Celebs Who Are Big Jerks In Real Life
mydotcomrade.com
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5952b2f1ccf5732f16f62st03duc
page 111
page 112
From:Karen Dudley
To:Mark McNeill; Tim Benetti
Subject:Rezoning of parcel south of Sibly Memorial Highway and East of Lexington Ave S
Date:Tuesday, June 27, 2017 4:27:12 PM
I apologize for the lateness of this message. I have a conflict tonight and I cannot attend the
hearing.
I am a relatively new resident of the Overlook Condominium building at 1700 Lexington Ave
So. and I am thus a resident of Lilydale.
I live on the west side of the Overlook building. My view out my north and west facing
windows could be impacted by whatever is build on the property to be possibly rezoned.
However, my concerns are about different issues.
First: I am concerned that not even a conceptual plan for building was submitted with the
request for rezoning. How can a reasonable decision be made without knowing what the
proposed development will be: only a few duplexes or a massive structure containing 13 units
(I have been told that is what could be built on the rezoned parcel). If Mendota Heights agrees
to the rezoning, will Mendota Heights be prepared to seriously review the final plans?
Second: My major concern has to do with environmental matters. I care very much about the
beauty of the Mississippi River corridor. In the past, too little attention was paid to the
environmental effect of development. Does the state needed be consulted about the impact of
building possibly a large structure on the land just to the south of Trunk Highway 13?
This week I received notice from my state representative, Rick Hanson, telling of a $275,000
grant to Lilydale for the construction of a storm water sewer drop structure along Trunk
Highway 13. If the rezoning goes through, would multi-family structures interfere overly
much with the runoff from the bluff?
I am also concerned about esthetics: will the developer want to build building that will snuggle
into the landscape and preserve the beauty of the drive north along 13 towards St. Paul? Or
will the developer want to make a statement? This property is on the northernmost boundary
of Mendota Heights, but it is visible from across the river.
I thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns about this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen A. Dudley
1700 Lexington Ave. So. #203
Saint Paul, MN 55118-3610
page 113
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Mendota Plaza
Planned Unit Development –Gemini Medical [Planning Case 2017-12]
Introduction
The City is asked to consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Amend the Mendota Plaza Planned
Unit Development (2009), which would facilitate the development of a new 17,000 sq. ft. medical office
building within the Mendota Plaza development. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1K-6-G, amendments to
an approved planned unit development requires approval by conditional use permit.
Background
The proposed development site is identified as Lot 8, Block 1 of Mendota Plaza Expansion, which is
located directly behind the Walgreen’s store and the northeast corner of Dodd Road and South Plaza
Drive. Mendota Plaza was planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential
development area, offices, and connections to existing retail uses and planned off-street trail systems, as
well as public gathering spaces.
The proposed project by Frim Ground is to construct a new 17,000 sf. medical office building for Gemini
Medical, a company currently headquartered in St. Paul, MN. Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex
orthopedic medical devices.
On June 27, 2017, this item was presented before the Planning Commission under a duly noticed public
hearing process, along with a planning report which contained an analysis, findings and staff
recommendation (attached hereto). The notice was published in the local newspaper; and notice letters of
this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-ft. from the subject properties. There were no
comments or objections received on this application (see attached PC Meeting minutes).
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on a conditional use permit request of
this type; and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational,
and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
page 114
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
At the June 27th meeting, the Planning Commission supported the proposed conditional use permit to
amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, and recommended unanimous approval (6-0 vote)
of the application, with certain conditions as described in the planning staff report, and which are
memorialized in the attached resolution.
If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, please adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2017-52
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE 2009 MENDOTA PLAZA
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 17,000 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WITHIN THE MENDOTA PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 115
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-52
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE
2009 MENDOTA PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT –
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LOCATED AT 796-820 HIGHWAY 110
WHEREAS, Mendota Mall Associates, LLC (Paster Properties) has applied for a
conditional use permit to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Final
Development Plan, as proposed under Planning Case 2017-12, for the property located at 796-820
Highway 110, and legally described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the conditional use permit to amend the PUD as comprehended herein would
facilitate the construction of a new 17,000 sq. ft. office building for Gemini Medical; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting of June 27, 2017, and whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up
discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval (by 6-0 vote) of the
conditional use permit to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, with certain
findings of fact and conditions of approval.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit to amend 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Final
Development Plan as proposed under Planning Case 2017-12, is hereby approved with the
following findings of fact:
A. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for
such a development.
B. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility
to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding
land uses and natural resources.
C. Approval and construction of the proposed 17,000 sq. ft. office fulfills the intended
and planned development of this lot with an “office building” type use.
D. This office development helps sustains and supports the ongoing financial success of
the overall Mendota Plaza development; ensures the continued economic benefits to
the community by adding another level of commercial property to the tax rolls; and
provides another important employment base and opportunity for the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional
use permit to amend the 2009 Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development, as proposed under
Planning Case 2017-12, is hereby approved with the following conditions:
page 116
1. The Applicant or Owners shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing
Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project, to be
reviewed for substance and content by the City Attorney, and approved by the City
Council.
2. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety and must be screened from
public view. All ground-level meters, junction boxes, and mechanical utilities shall
be screened with either decorative building materials or natural, year round
vegetation screening measures, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and
verified as part of the building permit review process.
3. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for building utility areas, but
shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, which must be reviewed
by the Planning and Fire Departments, and verified as part of the building permit
review process.
4. As an alternative to sod, portions of the westerly sloped area of the subject site
should be planted with sedge grasses, native plantings or pollinator friendly plantings
(or combination thereof).
5. All trees and landscaped areas, including parking lot islands shall be maintained with
an underground irrigation/sprinkler system.
6. The loading service bay area along the south edge of the building shall be screened
from public view and roadways. Natural materials are recommended; and the screen
shall achieve 75% opacity year round.
7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an
amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening,
landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development
Agreement.
8. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally
responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a
healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and
ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which
have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow.
9. Should this site experience larger than expected parking demands, or if the city
receives numerous complaints from neighboring property owners of illegal parking
on the access road or local streets, the Owners shall agree to install the “proof of
parking” as shown on said plans, per City directive.
10. A final Lighting Plan shall be submitted at time of building permit review that
includes all new proposed building lighting, parking lot lighting, and full details and
specifications of luminaire and light heads.
11. The Applicant (Gemini Medical) and the current property owners (Mendota Mall
Associates, LLP) must acknowledge the existing retaining wall encroachment near
page 117
the northwest corner of the subject site, and provide for the ownership and
maintenance responsibilities of such wall under the amended Development
Agreement.
12. 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.
13. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be
in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well
as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
14. The radiuses of the parking lot entrances and parking aisles shall be such that fire
truck turning movements are unimpeded, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire
Department.
15. The underground storm water structure shall support fire equipment weight if
required to be driven over by a fire truck.
16. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply
and the building shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
17. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of July, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
ATTEST Neil Garlock, Mayor
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 118
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions
PID 27-48401-01-080
Lot 8, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion, Dakota County, Minnesota
page 119
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-12
CUP for PUD Amendment to the Mendota Plaza (Gemini Medical)
APPLICANT: Firm Ground/Gemini Medical (Paster Properties LLC – Owners)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 796-820 Highway 110 – Mendota Plaza
ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD
ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking approval to amend a planned unit development final development plan, which
would facilitate the new development of a new medical office building inside the Mendota Plaza
development. City Code Title 12-1K-6-G requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved
planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development site is identified as Lot 8, Block 1 of Mendota Plaza Expansion, which is located
directly behind the Walgreen’s store and the northeast corner of Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive (below):
page 120
Existing adjacent uses include the Mendota Plaza shopping center, which includes the Walgreens and White
Pine senior/assisted living facility, and the ongoing “The Reserves at Mendota Village” – a four story, 139
unit market rate apartment. Across from South Plaza Dr. is the Boltz Family Martial Art Academy, NIB
Insurance offices and Marketplace Home Mortgage offices. Mendakota Country Club lies on the opposite
side of Dodd Road to the west.
The Mendota Plaza development was planned to be an integrated commercial and high-density residential
development area, with connections to existing retail uses and planned off-street trail systems, as well as
public gathering spaces. The development team includes Mendota Mall Associates and Paster Properties,
who is the owner/manager of the existing shopping center and subject parcels, and At Home Apartments,
the new owner/manager of The Reserves.
The proposed project by Frim Ground is to construct a new 17,000 sf. medical office building for Gemini
Medical, a company currently headquartered in St. Paul, MN (see image below).
Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices. In order to better serve their clientele
of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area, Gemini requires a new building that primarily provides space for
client hospitality and education. Gemini also intends to have this building serve as their primary offices
for business administration and sales teams. Gemini Medical building will also provide an area for shipping
and receiving necessary supplies and inventory. The proposed plan includes roughly 2/3 of the building
area for client hospitality/education and administration and sales, while the remaining 1/3 of building area
is dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
As part of this PUD Amendment request, the Applicants are seeking a slight deviation from the architectural
and building materials standards previously approved and adopted under the original 2009 PUD Agreement.
page 121
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The Mendota Plaza development, including the subject parcel, are guided Mixed-Use PUD in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan:
The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail,
and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development project. Areas of the community
with this land use designation are located near the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road.
The entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned to MU-PUD as part of the previous PUD approval
process. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses are consistent with the
future land use designation.
Proposed PUD Development Plan Amendment
The applicant is proposing to amend the existing PUD Final Development Plan. According to Title 12-1K-
6-G of the City Code:
Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development
plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures
provided below:
1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by
the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan
was approved. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the
council.
2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the
provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made
by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional
use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that
have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the
community.
The proposed amendment qualifies under #2 above and is required to be approved by the City Council by
conditional use permit.
The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD. According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code:
MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to
provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and
nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R-
3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD
district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city
council shall have the authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit.
According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD:
The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and
development of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to
preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types
within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development
project, and to permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless
page 122
and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and
surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD:
Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of
the following standards:
1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development
possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the
preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough
terrain, and similar areas.
2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize
with adjacent projects or proposals.
3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to
assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is
presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council.
4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community.
5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing
or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site.
As part of a previous planned unit development (PUD) review process, Mendota Mall Associates, LLC
(Paster Properties) received approval of an overall PUD Master Plan for the entire mixed-use sites in 2009.
Since that time, the original PUD has been amended five separate times, and this amendment will be known
as the Sixth Amendment. The proposed amendment is driven in response to changes in the real estate
market and additional site opportunities since the original PUD was approved.
The 2009 PUD Agreement specifically identified or prescribed the subject parcel Lot 8 with the following
office building standard:
(o) Lot 8: Lot 8, Block 1 containing approximately 2.3 acres (as designated on Exhibit A) upon which
an approximately 36,000 square foot three-story building for office use will be located to be
constructed as illustrated on the Elevation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B-8.
page 123
The building proposed by Gemini Medical, although considered an “office building”, is not entirely
compliant with or similar to the planned design of this proposed office use parcel. As illustrated above, the
plans called for a three story, 36,000 sq. ft. office facility, with similar designs and materials evident in the
existing Mendota Plaza buildings seen today. It would appear the originally proposed 36,000 sf. office use
was intended to serve multiple office-use tenants.
In this case, Gemini Medical intends to build a single story, single user office facility, which will be owned
and occupied by Gemini only. The change from the original 2009 plan to the proposed design under this
application must be acknowledged and approved under this CUP (PUD Amendment) process.
The 2009 PUD Agreement also contained a very detailed Architectural Standard section, which also
identifies certain standards for building orientation, design (architecture), screening, landscaping, parking,
lighting and signage. Some of these relevant standards are noted as follows:
BUILDING MASS
Policy
• Varying scale of buildings should be encouraged.
• Varying roof line to create interest in design styles encouraged.
Standards
• Building coverage of not more than 40 percent may be accepted.
• Large areas of blank wall surface facing the street front is discouraged. Continuous stretch of
a single facade discouraged unless the building has a singular use.
The site plan for the new 17,000 sf. office building shows it will cover only 16.3% of the 2.3 acre site,
which is well under the 40% threshold. The new building’s elevation plan (previous image) appears to
show varying roof-lines, and the outer walls include varying wall materials and articulations along the front
and rear sides of the facility. The side walls appear to be single flat sided features, which may be acceptable
due to the expected “singular use” allowance.
An important part of this PUD Amendment made under this Conditional Use Permit, is the request by the
Applicant to modify or deviate from the approved building design and architectural standards. The 2009
PUD included the following façade design and building material standards for new developments:
page 124
FACADE DESIGN
Policy
• Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided.
• Undulating facade shall be encouraged.
Standards
• Exterior facade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the
pedestrian.
• Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into facade design.
BUILDING MATERIALS
Policy
• Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which
they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones colors
and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings.
• Materials shall be durable quality.
Standard
• Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete
block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may
be acceptable.
• All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed.
• A minimum of 25 percent of the facade shall be treated with the finished masonry
building material.
• Earth tone colors of exterior materials compatible and complementary to adjacent
buildings shall be encouraged.
• Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25% of decorative masonry variation in color,
texture or surface.
The Applicant provided an elevation image with call-outs or identifiers on the building materials (see image
below):
page 125
Instead of “…exterior walls with brick, natural stone, decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural
metal panels…” the Applicant is requesting painted, decorative tip-up concrete (smooth) wall panels, with
limestone wall panels and aluminum composite (colorized) panels. The PUD Agreement allows for “Other
similar materials may be acceptable….” when considering future developments.
Although this new building design and architecture, including materials and scale is significantly different
from what was originally intended, Staff does not feel this change negatively impacts the ongoing
development in and around the PUD project site, nor detracts from the original intended purpose of
providing a suitable and effective office use development within this PUD site. Pater Properties has agreed
to allow Gemini to present this new building plan under their own PUD Plan, and despite the deviation
from their own architectural design and standards, they have indicated their support of this project by
separate letter (included herein).
Site Plan Design & Layout (Office Building)
The proposed office development includes a new 17,000 sq. ft. building, with spaces dedicated specifically
for offices, medical classroom, labs, surgeons lounge, breakroom and ancillary facilities. The building will
also have a large space dedicated for shipping and receiving, which will accommodate the medical devices
and equipment they provide and service from this facility.
Building Setbacks
As illustrated in the 2009 PUD Master Plan image below, the original 36,000 sf. office building was initially
designed to sit near the access road coming off South Plaza Drive, with parking all around the building.
page 126
In some cases, a PUD district requires that all new structures/developments comply with the underlying
zoning districts that were present when the PUD was created. In this case, the B-4 Shopping Center zoning
was in place in 2009. However, the MU-PUD designation created under this overall PUD Project,
specifically identified certain building sizes, locations (setback allowances) and parking allowances. The
original office intended to have 30 foot setbacks from the front access road; approx. 90-ft. from South Plaza
Drive; 170-ft. from Dodd Road, and 100-ft. from the north line (Walgreen’s lot). The PUD also allowed a
slight reduction in parking from 180 needed stalls down to 138 stalls provided.
The new plan identifies the front of the building with a 96.7 ft. setback from the established easterly property
line, which is actually the centerline of the access drive for this area (coming off South Plaza Drive). Even
holding back a 20-30-ft. offset from this drive, the building would be well over 64+ feet from the front yard
area. The setbacks off South Plaza Drive to the south are measuring 53+ feet; setback from Dodd Road
(west) measures approx. 105-ft. , and the setback from the north measure 80-ft.
Staff does not have any issues or concerns with the setbacks being established under this new revised PUD
development plan for this site.
Parking Plan
As indicated previously, the original PUD lot was approved with a reduced parking ratio from 180 stalls
down to 138 spaces. The original 180 spaces was derived from current City Code Title 12-1D-16 Off
Street Parking standards for “Office Buildings 6,000 sq. ft. or more” – which must provide 1 space for each
200 sq. ft. of floor area [36,000 sf. / 200 sf. = 180 spaces]. The 2009 PUD Agreement allowed the planned
office use to instead provide approximately 0.8 stalls per 200 sf, which equated to 138 stalls.
For this 17,000 sq. ft. building, Gemini intends to provide 60 parking spaces. Applying the current City
Code standard of 1 space per 200 sf. of floor space would mean 85 spaces are needed. In some cases, cities
may allow the parking based on the calculation or break-out of different (identifiable) areas within a
building. In this case - the office use vs. the warehouse/shipping areas. City Code states “warehousing”
uses can provide up to 1 space per 2,000 sf. of floor area.
page 127
For the Geminin Medical building, staff calculated the following:
• Office/General Area: 11,500 sf. [Calc.: 11,500 / 200 = 57.5, or 56 spaces]
• Warehousing Space: 5,500 sf. [Calc.: 5,500 sf. / 2,000 sf. = 2.75, or 3 spaces]
Utilizing this separation factor, the Gemini Office use would only need to provide 59 spaces, which is just
one space less than what is provided on their plan.
In discussions with Geminin Medical representatives (prior to the official submittal of this application), it
was stated that Gemini currently employs 50 persons, and has plans to expand up to 75 employees in the
next 2-5 years. On a daily basis, the offices of the company normally have on average 10-15 full-time
employees occupying the office and warehouse/shipping areas. The bulk of their employees are sales staff
that normally do not use the facility on a daily basis, but periodically do attend training or seminar style
training at the office facility as needed.
Gemini also indicated that periodically throughout the year, they will invite surgeons and other medical
professionals to attend a seminar or presentations at this new facility, to explain, educate and/or demonstrate
new medical devices or surgical techniques they develop. The plan is to have this facility effectively serve
a wide range of clientele and office/sales staff employees on a rotating basis, with no overlaps that would
over park the site or cause visitors/employees to park off site or on the local adjacent streets.
Even with Gemini being able to effectively manage this rotating activates at this site, city staff requested
they provide or show a proof of parking area, which is illustrated on the attached site plan. The Proof of
Parking is shown with 58 stalls, which would bring the potential number of spaces up to 118 stalls, which
is well over the 85 spaces needed when considering the 1 per 200 sf. standard for an office use.
At this time, Staff does not have any issues or concerns with the parking being provide under this new
development plan, provided the Owners can effectively manage and control the on-site parking needed for
this use. Conditions of approval will be made that should this site experience peak parking demands or
situations that are observed the site is not functioning as planned, or complaints received that that
employees/customers are parking illegally on the access road or local streets, the Owners must agree to
provide or install the “proof of parking” shown on said plans, per City directive.
Access & Loading Plan
Access to and from the site will be off the access road coming off South Plaza Drive. Two access points,
spaced accordingly, should provide adequate vehicle movements in and out of this site from the north and
south ends of the property.
The new office facility is shown with two loading bays or berths on the south side it of the building. The
design submitted herein shows a depressed or reversed ramp driveway to the bay along the building. The
architects however, informed staff that this depressed bay is no longer needed; so both loading bays will be
at-grade with overhead doors in this area.
Turning movements for delivery trucks, both small and large (i.e. semi-trucks) is important, and we have
requested the Applicant demonstrate that any truck movements and loading in this area does not require the
trucks to use the adjacent access road to maneuver back into the bays. Although they indicated smaller van
type of short-box trucks will primarily be making these deliveries to this site, large semi-truck traffic may
be needed. Staff has communicated that any truck traffic and maneuvering must take place on the site, and
that any truck movements using the access road must be avoided. Moreover, the Owners are encouraged
to have their deliveries at off-peak hours to avoid any impacts or back-ups along this access road.
page 128
Grading & Drainage Plan
The grading plan for most of the site appears to be fairly simple and easy, due to the relatively level surface
grades that exist over most of the site. There is however, a rather steep, sloped embankment that comes off
the easterly edge of Dodd Road leading down to the level areas of the site. A block retaining wall is also
evident in the far northwest corner of the site, which is part of the wall system installed under the Walgreens
site a few years ago (see photos below).
The original 2009 Plan with the 36,000 sf. office building and parking showed the developer would remove
the small section of the retaining wall in this corner, reinstall a new retaining wall along the entire westerly
edge, and connect the parking areas between the office lot and Walgreens (see image below).
Gemini Medical intends to forgo the removal and installation of the retaining wall for now, and simply
regrade/reshape this westerly section of the lot, which will help provide for future and routine maintenance
of this westerly area. Should the proof of parking needed to be installed (noted previously), a retaining wall
would be required; and the City will make a condition that any future changes to the site involving the
expanded parking and retaining wall, will require Planning Commission review and City Council approvals.
Should Gemini purchase the subject lot outright from Mendota Mall Associates, LLC (Paster Properties),
page 129
there should be an acknowledgement and recognition of the existing retaining wall encroachment, and the
responsibilities of who maintains said wall, if necessary.
The drainage plans are fairly straight-forward as well, with typical catch-basins strategically placed
throughout the site, with all connections made and tied into the overall PUD site’s existing stormwater
systems as needed. A key part of this system is the proposed underground stormwater infiltration/detention
system to be installed on the north edge of the property, which are typical when on-site ponds are not feasible
(see image below).
All of these storm water management systems will be reviewed again at times of building permit submittals,
and approved by the Public Works Director/City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits.
Landscaping Plan
According to Title 12-1D-13-2-D of the City Code, concerning landscaping requirements in commercial and
industrial districts:
2. Minimum Area And Plant Material Required:
a. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass,
approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees.
b. At least five percent (5%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped.
A majority of the new tree and shrub plantings are proposed around the perimeters of the new parking
surfaces and building. These plantings should help create visual interest and year-round color. Their
placement near the access points and parking areas help to define the entrances. In addition, some of the
plantings will serve as a natural screening for the end parking area and trash enclosures.
The tree plantings include a variety of deciduous trees such as red maples and skyline honey locusts; and a
few evergreens consisting of black hill spruce. A number of shrubs consisting of Knockout rose, Dwarf
Korean Lilacs, Northern Charm Boxwoods and junipers, accented by a large number of decorative grasses
and perennials.
According to the plant schedule included in the Landscape Plan, the proposed plantings appear to be
compliant with the minimum size requirements and area planting percentages.
The regraded sloped area to the west, leading back up to Dodd Road is planned for placement of sod
(typically bluegrass and fescue). Staff recommends this area be revised with a low maintenance sedge
grass, native plantings, pollinator friendly plantings or a combination thereof.
Pursuant to Title 12-1D-13-2-D, and the overall PUD Agreement, the proposed Landscape Plan must be
compliant with the following requirements.
page 130
h. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler
system shall be provided as part of each new development except additions to existing structures
which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be
provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in the natural state.
The proposed plantings will be watered by an underground irrigation system.
3. Maintenance Of Landscaping: The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and
severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are
required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as
seasonal or weather conditions allow.
The applicant has not indicated a landscape guarantee or maintenance responsibilities after the two-year
warranty period. A condition requiring compliance with this regulation is included as a recommendation of
approval.
4. Bond Requirements:
a. When screening, landscaping or similar improvements to property are required by this
chapter, a performance bond shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least
one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements. The bond, with security satisfactory to the city, shall be conditioned upon
reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal or other fees in
connection with making or completing such improvements. The bond shall be provided
prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to
one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may
accept a letter of credit, cash escrow or equivalent in lieu of a bond in an amount and
under such conditions as the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event
construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by the city council,
the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the
surety.
b. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the
delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer.
Extensions, which may not exceed nine (9) months, may be granted due to seasonal or
weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional
security as it deems appropriate.
A condition requiring the appropriate performance guarantee is included as a recommendation of approval.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable landscaping
policies/standards:
• Plant material is to be utilized within the site area as an aid to provide continuity within the
area and to provide a recognized definition of its boundaries
• Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other streetscape
materials and by correlation with adjacent development.
• Entry points into the areas are to be significantly landscaped and are to be designed with a
common theme.
• Plant material is to be utilized as a screening element for parking and building utility areas.
• Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands within the area, grouped massing of
landscape encouraged in parking lots to maximize landscape impact and allow functional snow
removal and storage.
page 131
• All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from all public roads
and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall
achieve 75% opacity year round.
• Lighting provided in landscaped areas is encouraged and should be directed away from the
public right-of-way.
• The landscape design of each area within the site boundaries is to be reviewed to determine if
the landscape treatment helps to beauty and unify the overall area. Despite this approach,
individual landscape designs that help enhance architectural features, promote individuality,
provide shade, strengthen vistas and axis is encouraged.
• Plant material shall be selected in regard to its interesting structure, texture, color, seasonal
interest and its ultimate growth characteristics.
• Where building sites limit planting, the placement of plant materials in planters or within paved
areas is encouraged.
The proposed Landscape Plan appears to be generally consistent with these Design Standards. However, it
appears the loading area to the south of the building is not adequately screened per this noted requirement of
the PUD Agreement:
• All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from all public roads
and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall
achieve 75% opacity year round.
Staff suggest the Applicant provide additional year round screening with a staggered row of evergreen trees,
either Black Hill spruce or some other mix of evergreen varieties. Furthermore, specific building utility
features (such as outdoor electrical and gas meters, junction boxes, etc.) are not shown on the plans and must
be screened appropriately; a condition which is included as a recommendation of approval.
Lighting Plan
According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards:
Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall
create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or
industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared
property line with residentially zoned property.
In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting
policies/standards:
page 132
• Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area.
• Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape.
• Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the
buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through
the site.
• Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided.
According to the proposed Photometric Plan, the Developer intends to provide 4 new pole lights within the
parking lot areas; and seven (7) new pack or decorative lights spaced along the outer walls of the new
building. A table containing the proposed light fixtures is included on the plan, but was absent of any style
or details. It is assumed that the proposed fixtures will be down-cast cutoff (sometimes referred to as “shoe-
box” style) lights, but staff recommends more detailed specifications are provided for review at time of
building permit review.
It was noted in the previous PUD Amendment approval of 2015 (for the new apartment development) that
since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUD and is part of a larger mixed-use development, the
foot-candle requirements do not apply to the existing lots in the PUD. Nevertheless, the proposed plan
indicates a large majority of the new lighting for this site meets or is within acceptable parameters of the 0.2
foot-candles at the shared property lines, which is commendable on the Applicants part and hereby
acceptable.
Signage Plan
Signage within the existing Mendota Plaza development is regulated by design standards adopted as an
exhibit to the existing Development Agreement, which supersede the City Code standards if specifically
addressed. The Design Standards include the following general signage policies/standards:
• The use of the site’s area identification signs should be encouraged. Such signs should evoke
the intended character of the subject area.
• A comprehensive signage plan will be required for multi-tenant buildings in the site.
• Signs should be located and constructed in a manner considered visually compatible with the
area and tie together both new and existing signs.
• Signs should fulfill their intended purpose (readable business identification) in a non-obtrusive,
aesthetically pleasing manner.
• Signs that complement the scale of the building should be encouraged.
• Signs must provide appropriate business identity.
• The city’s setback standards are to be met in regard to minimum location standards.
• No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half the
minimum required yard setback.
• Signs should be constructed of internally illuminated individual letters, logo allowed,
considered compatible to prominent building materials.
• Signs should be aesthetically compatible to prominent building materials
• Signs should be aesthetically compatible in both area and building they serve.
• Signs shall be illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at
the sign, or internal to it, without causing glare for motorists, pedestrians, or neighboring
premises.
There are no official signs or sign locations identified under this site plan, except for the two wall signs on
the architectural rendering/elevation plan of said building. All new signage must be approved separately
under Sign Permit reviews, which may be done at time of building permit submittals or thereafter. All new
signs will have to comply with the general standards in the Sign Program Plan of the Plaza PUD and City
Code Title 12-1D-15 Signs.
page 133
ALTERNATIVES to RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit to amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit
Development of 2009, which would allow the development of a new 17,000 sq. ft. office building,
based on the attached finding of fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit to amend the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit
Development of 2009, based on the finding(s) of fact as determined by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council.
OR
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to amend the Mendota
Plaza Planned Unit Development of 2009, which would allow the development of a new 17,000 sq. ft.
office building, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. The Applicant or Owners shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development
Agreement required by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed for substance and content
by the City Attorney, and approved by the City Council.
2. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety and must be screened from public view.
All ground-level meters, junction boxes, and mechanical utilities shall be screened with either
decorative building materials or natural, year round vegetation screening measures, to be reviewed
by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process.
3. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for building utility areas, but shall not
obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, which must be reviewed by the Planning and Fire
Departments, and verified as part of the building permit review process.
4. As an alternative to sod, portions of the westerly sloped area of the subject site should be planted
with sedge grasses, native plantings or pollinator friendly plantings (or combination thereof).
5. All trees and landscaped areas, including parking lot islands shall be maintained with an
underground irrigation/sprinkler system.
6. The loading service bay area along the south edge of the building shall be screened from public
view and roadways. Natural materials are recommended; and the screen shall achieve 75% opacity
year round.
7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at
least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other
improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement.
8. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance
and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site
or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions
allow.
page 134
9. Should this site experience larger than expected parking demands, or if the city receives numerous
complaints from neighboring property owners of illegal parking on the access road or local streets,
the Owners shall agree to install the “proof of parking” as shown on said plans, per City directive.
10. A final Lighting Plan shall be submitted at time of building permit review that includes all new
proposed building lighting, parking lot lighting, and full details and specifications of luminaire and
light heads.
11. The Applicant (Gemini Medical) and the current property owners (Mendota Mall Associates, LLP)
must acknowledge the existing retaining wall encroachment near the northwest corner of the
subject site, and provide for the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of such wall under the
amended Development Agreement.
12. 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.
13. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
14. The radiuses of the parking lot entrances and parking aisles shall be such that fire truck turning
movements are unimpeded, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department.
15. The underground storm water structure shall support fire equipment weight if required to be driven
over by a fire truck.
16. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the
building shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
17. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction
commencement.
Attachments
1. Aerial site map
2. Applicant’s Letter of Intent//Owners Letter of Support
3. Gemini Medical Elevation Plan
4. Gemini Medical – Site Plan
5. Mendota Plaza PUD Master Plan (dated 4/29/2009)
page 135
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for PUD Amendment
Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development - 2009
796-820 Highway 110
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the requests:
1. The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development.
2. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance
development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural
resources.
3. Approval and construction of the proposed 17,000 sq. ft. office fulfills the intended and planned
development of this lot with an “office building” type use.
4. This office development helps sustains and supports the ongoing financial success of the overall
Mendota Plaza development; ensures the continued economic benefits to the community by
adding another level of commercial property to the tax rolls; and provides another important
employment base and opportunity for the community.
page 136
page 137
May 26, 2017
Tim Benetti
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Gemini Medical Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Benetti:
Gemini Medical LLC is seeking a conditional use permit for their new office building located at
796-820 Highway 110. Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices. To
reach their clientele of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area, Gemini requires a new building
that primarily provides space for client hospitality and education. Another primary need is
office space for administration and a sales team to operate out of. The third programmatic
requirement Gemini needs is an area for shipping and receiving for inventory. The proposed
plan includes roughly 2/3 of the building area for client hospitality/education and administration
and sales. The remaining 1/3 of building area is dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
The proposed site is part of a PUD. As an office building, Gemini Medical will fulfill the
objectives of the PUD. While Gemini Medical will be shipping and receiving inventory from the
facility, the building’s primary use is client hospitality, education, and sales offices. Most
deliveries made to the building will be in vans sized similar to UPS or Fedex delivery vehicles.
Their current operation uses no tractor trailers, but they would like to have flexibility for them in
the future. They would not expect this frequency to exceed more than one larger truck a week.
Firm Ground proposes painted decorative tip-up concrete walls as the primary façade of the
building. Facing Dodd Road to the west, there is an upscale patio used for hosting clients
outdoors. Limestone panels will accent the façade at this patio. Additionally, blue metal and
limestone panels will accent the main entrance to the building on the east side of the site.
Proof of parking is provided to meet the required number of stalls, though Gemini’s owners do
not anticipate needing that high of number for their needs. This potential reduction in parking
will reduce impervious surfaces and enhance the appearance of the site.
Sincerely,
Jeff Schuler, AIA
page 138
TO Gemini Medical, LLC
DATE: 5/26/17
FROM: Mike Sturdivant, Paster Properties
Subject: Gemini Medical’s Office Project
To Whom It May Concern,
Paster Properties welcomes Gemini Medical’s expansion plans to Mendota Heights. We are supportive of an
increase in jobs and pedestrian activity at the Mendota Plaza developments.
Please find this letter as our support of their efforts.
Sincerely,
Mike Sturdivant
Paster Properties
CC: John Kohler
page 139
Gemini Medical
page 140
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/17REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC0.0TITLE SHEET. .. .. .. .. .. .GEMINI MEDICALMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTASHEET INDEXSHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLEC0.0 TITLE SHEETSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION MAPNSITE SURVEYC0.1UTILITY PLANC4.0ISSUED FOR: CITY SUBMITTALMASTER LEGEND:EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALCURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB (GUTTER TOP)SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALLSOIL BORING LOCATIONSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALLEMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED MANHOLE STORMPROPOSED GATE VALVEPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING LIGHTEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING GATE VALVEEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING ELECTRIC BOXEXISTING STOPBOXPROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARYPROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORMDYH
PROPOSED SIGNEXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATIONINLET PROTECTIONSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEDRAINAGE ARROWDEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER:GEMINI MEDICAL531 PHALEN BOULEVARDST. PAUL, MN 55130ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CIVIL SITE GROUP4931 W 35TH STREETSUITE 200ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416612-615-0060SURVEYOR:GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONSSW1.0GRADING PLANC3.0C5.0C5.1L1.0DETAILSLANDSCAPE PLANSWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONSSW1.1SWPPP - DETAILSSW1.2C2.0 SITE PLANSWPPP - NARRATIVESW1.3DETAILSC1.0 REMOVALS PLANC5.2 DETAILSCLARK ENGINEERING12755 HWY 55 #100PLYMOUTH, MN 55441763-545-9196GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALSWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW1.4SWPPP - ATTACHMENTSSW1.5XXXXXXL1.1LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES & DETAILSEOF=1135.52SB-1TOPROPOSED LIGHTEXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING WATER MAINEXISTING GAS MAINEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSILT FENCE / BIOROLL - GRADING LIMITARCHITECT:FIRM GROUND ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS275 MARKET ST #368MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405page 141
REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC0.1SITE SURVEY. .. .. .. .. .. .01" = 10'-0"10'-0"5'-0"Npage 142
REMOVE EXISTING CURBAND GUTTER, TYP.REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE, TYP.REMOVE EXISTING CURBAND GUTTER, TYP.EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN, PROVIDETREE PROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN, PROVIDETREE PROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.REMOVE EXISTINGLANDSCAPED AREA, TYP.EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING LIGHT POLETO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING RETAINING WALLTO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN, PROVIDETREE PROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.EXISTING SIDEWALKTO REMAIN, PROTECTFROM DAMAGE, TYP.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSREMOVAL NOTES:1.SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION STORM WATERMANAGEMENT PLAN.2.REMOVAL OF MATERIALS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT, STATE ANDLOCAL REGULATIONS.3.REMOVAL OF PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES.4.EXISTING PAVEMENTS SHALL BE SAWCUT IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR THE NEARESTJOINT FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS.5.REMOVED MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TO A LEGAL OFF-SITE LOCATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITHSTATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.6.ABANDON, REMOVAL, CONNECTION, AND PROTECTION NOTES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AREAPPROXIMATE. COORDINATE WITH PROPOSED PLANS.7.EXISTING ON-SITE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT THEDURATION OF THE CONTRACT.8.PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE CONSIDERED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ONTHE DRAWINGS. WORK WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL INCLUDE STAGING,DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.9.MINOR WORK OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS SHOWN ON THEPLAN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.10.DAMAGE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LIMITS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE REPAIRED IN AMANNER APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY.11.PROPOSED WORK (BUILDING AND CIVIL) SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISESHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.12.SITE SECURITY MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROVIDED IN A MANNER TO PROHIBIT VANDALISM, AND THEFT,DURING AND AFTER NORMAL WORK HOURS, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. SECURITYMATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY.13.VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR DELIVERY AND INSPECTION ACCESS DURINGNORMAL OPERATING HOURS. AT NO POINT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT SHALLCIRCULATION OF ADJACENT STREETS BE BLOCKED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.14.ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALLINCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALLPUBLIC STREETS SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BEPERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY.15.SHORING FOR BUILDING EXCAVATION MAY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND ASAPPROVED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.16.STAGING, DEMOLITION, AND CLEAN-UP AREAS SHALL BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS REMOVAL NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES.REMOVALS LEGEND:TREE PROTECTIONREMOVAL OF PAVEMENT AND ALL BASE MATERIAL,INCLUDING BIT., CONC., AND GRAVEL PVMTS.REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ALLFOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS.SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5EROSION CONTROL NOTES:TREE REMOVAL - INCLUDING ROOTS AND STUMPSISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC1.0REMOVALS PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALpage 143
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114
104 SF
STORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122
WOMEN
112
MEN213 689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SF
MED ED. OFFICE126
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT10' PARKING SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACKNO
PARKING 17,000 SF PROPOSED BUILDINGPROOF OF PARKING AREA,58 STALLS @ 9'X20'PROOF OF PARKINGSEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLPROPERTY LINENO
PARKING 20.0'20.0'24.0'9.0'9.0'40' BUILDING SETBACK11.6'15.1'17.2'33.5'20.0'20.0'24.0'9.9'8.0'8.0'9.0'9.0'24.0'5.9'4.7'20.0'24.0'20.0'8.0'5.0'9.0'9.0'27.0'R3.0'R
2
0
.
0
'R3.0'R24.0'R3.0
'R3.0'R3.0
'R10.0'R
1
0
.
0
'R3.0'R3.
0
'R3.0'MATCH EXISTING, TYP.TRASH ENCLOSURE, TYP.COORDINATE WITH ARCH.CONCRETE PED. RAMPPERD MNDOT STANDARDS,SEE DETAILS, TYP.STAMPED CONCRETEPATIO, TYP.MATCH EXISTING, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.BIT. PVMT., TYP.BIT. PVMT., TYP.BIT. PVMT., TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.PVMT. STRIPING, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.B612 C&G, TYP.CONC. WALK, TYP.CONC. WALK, TYP.ACCESSIBLE PARKINGSPACE, INCL.SIGNAGE, STRIPINGAND RAMPS8.2'5.7'7.9'R
1
0
.
0
'R10.0'R1
0
.
0
'R10.0'B618 C&G PER CITYSTANDARDS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDB618 C&G PER CITYSTANDARDS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDB618 C&G PER CITYSTANDARDS UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTEDCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS8154132020' PARKING SETBACK40' BUILDING SETBACK
20' PARKING SETBACK
40' BUILDING SETBACK 20' PARKING SETBACK
23.2'20.0'20.0'20.0'0.8'10.0'9.5'20.0'11.3'12.0'30.5'40.3'79.2'40.0'B612 C&G, TYP.RETAINING WALL, SEEARCH. PLANS FORSPECIFICATIONSDRIVEWAYENTRANCE PER CITYSTANDARDS, TYP.DRIVEWAYENTRANCE PER CITYSTANDARDS, TYP.1.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUTNOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS ANDPAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIREDAFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOOWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFMATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREETOPENING PERMIT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITEIMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.5.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALLBE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OFBUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THEENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUTNOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURBRAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.8.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A.REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.9.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDOR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.10.CURB AND GUTTER TYPE SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS-TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.11.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITEIMPROVEMENTS.13.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.14.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.15.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.16.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.17.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEELANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROWSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLYISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .SITE AREA TABLE:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCONCRETE PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK)PROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOpage 144
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114104 SFSTORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122WOMEN112MEN213689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SFMED ED. OFFICE126
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS1.SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION,EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BYTHE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THESOILS ENGINEER.3.GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.4.PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW-LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5.GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5% MAX. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1% MIN. AND 2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6.PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:17.PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEEREDBY A REGISTERED RETAINING WALL ENGINEER. DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPERGRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES.9.IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTEDBY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE.10.EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLSALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OFBUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.11.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENTTRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHEREELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROMSUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER ORHAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THANORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK.12.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTORSHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILSENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THESTREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESOILS ENGINEER. NO TEST ROLL SHALL OCCUR WITHIN 10' OF ANY UNDERGROUND STORM RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEMS.13. TOLERANCES13.1.THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBEDELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.2.THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THEPRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE.13.3.AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTEDOTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.13.4.TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.14.MAINTENANCE14.1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION, AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.14.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THECONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED ANDMULCHED.14.3.WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALLSCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE, AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL GRADING NOTES:1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALGRADING PLAN LEGEND:SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTERSPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURBSPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRSCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS GRADING NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES.SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5EROSION CONTROL NOTES:ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC3.0GRADING PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALEX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVALSPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINEUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)CURB AND GUTTER (T.O = TIP OUT)EMERGENCY OVERFLOWEOF=1135.52TOpage 145
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114104 SFSTORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122WOMEN112MEN213689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SFMED ED. OFFICE126
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS6" DIP COMBINEDFIRE AND WATERSERVICE STUB TOWITHIN 5' FROMBUILDING, COORD.W/MECH'LEXISTING GATE VALVEAND VALVE BOX(FIELD VERIFY)SANITARY SERVICE.STUB TO 5' FROMBUILDING, COORD.W/MECH'LIE @ STUB=850.19IE @ BLDG=850.2995 LF 6" PVC SDR 26SAN. SERV. @ 2.00%SAN MH ARIM=859.90EX IE (E)=846.05PROP IE (SW)=846.15MAKE CONNECTION TOEXISTING 6" PVC SANITARYSEWER STUB. FIELD VERIFYLOCATION AND INVERTELEVATIONMECHANICAL ROOMMAKE CONNECTION TOEXISTING 6" DIP WATER STUB.FIELD VERIFY LOCATION ANDINVERT ELEVATIONCBMH 11RIM=855.26IE=850.68SUMP=847.68PROVIDE SAFLBAFFLE AND HOODCBMH 1RIM=854.75IE=850.65SUMP=847.65PROVIDE SAFLBAFFLE AND HOODCBMH 2RIM=856.02IE=850.97CBMH 3RIM=856.80IE (N/SW)=851.58IE (W)=852.00CBMH 4RIM=857.54IE=851.92FIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONTRENCH DRAIN 5RIM=854.67BOT=852.3112" IE=852.3178 LF OF 12" RCPSTORM @ 0.50%69 LF OF 12" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%123 LF OF 15" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%65 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%36 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%64 LF OF 15" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%137 LF OF 15" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%CBMH 12RIM=856.15IE=851.00CB 13RIM=855.80IE=851.69MH 1RIM=856.50EX IE (N)=849.11(FIELD VERIFY)PROP IE (S)=850.86 UNDERGROUND STORMWATERINFILTRATION/DETENTION SYSTEM54" PERFORATED CMP (NORTH PIPENON-PERFORATED) 12" SIDE & END STONE, 27" STONEPIPE SEPARATION, 6" STONE COVER AND BASEFOOTPRINT=26.75' X 111.00'BAFFLE WALLS BETWEEN PER. AND NON-PERF PIPES;TOP BAFFLE WALLS=850.50IE STONE=848.50IE 54" CMP=849.00OE 18" ORIFICE=851.00TOP 54" CMP=853.50TOP STONE=854.00100-YR HWL=853.6615" INLETIE=850.5015" INLETIE=850.5011 LF OF 24" PVCSTORM @2.00%(FIELD VERIFYEXISTING MATERIALAND SLOPE)CONNECT TO EXISTING24" PVC STUBIE=828.89 (FIELDVERIFY)18" OUTLETIE=851.007 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 2.00%31 LF OF 18" HDPESTORM @ 0.50%83 LF 6" PVC SDR 26SAN. SERV. @ 2.00%SAN MH BRIM=859.95IE (NE)=847.81IE (W)=847.9114 LF 6" PVC SDR 26SAN. SERV. @ 2.00%SAN MH CRIM=860.10IE (E)=849.81IE (N)=849.91DRAW DOWNRISER, TYP.BAFFLE WALL,TYP.TOP=850.50ACCESS RISER,TYP.12" BUILDING STORM CONNECTIONIE @ STUB=853.87IE @ BLDG=854.00STUB TO WITHIN 5' OF BUILDINGCONNECT ALL ROOF DRAINS & DRAIN TILECOORD. WITH MECH'L69 LF 12" PVC SCH40STORM @ 2.70%1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FORUTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT AREDAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.4. UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINEINSTALLATION" AND "SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OFMINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.5. CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE-USED OR PLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER.6. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 26 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.8. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HDPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.9. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLARED END SECTION.10. UTILTIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 5' OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEFINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS.11. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.15 FEETPER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS.12. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13. HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL.14. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TOMAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS INCIDENTAL.15. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.16. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.17.CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCUTRES SHALL BE CORE-DRILLED.18. COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS.19. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF.20. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BESAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TOSIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROADCLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY.21. ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHERE REQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALLOWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFICLOADING.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL CORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES.23. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATIONSLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES.24. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETIONOF WORK.25.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT. APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTSMUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES.26.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 1109.0.GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:UTILITY LEGEND:CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS UTILITY NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES.ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c44263Matthew R. PavekLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OFMINNESOTA.05/26/1701" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC4.0UTILITY PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALCATCH BASINGATE VALVE AND VALVE BOXSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTMANHOLEFES AND RIP RAPpage 146
DN FDFD REF.100 SF
OFFICE
OPERATION
107
LADDER 10121191413SIDEWALK
736 SFLAB125WETBAR1615656 SFRECEIVING117 56873412114 SF
SALE
109
113 SF
HR
105
103 SF
VP
104
109 SF
MIKE PRES
103
75 SFJANITOR114
104 SF
STORAGE115
PRINTERCOFFEE MEN LOCKER
128
116 SF
B.D.
110
120 SF
FINANCE
111
VEST
100
381 SFAWARD WALLS121
1125 SF
CLASSROOM
129
1124 SFSURGEONLOUNGE122
WOMEN
112
MEN213 689 SFBREAKROOM120
109 SF
OFFICE
106
COFFEE WOMEN LOCKER
127
217 SFPREP123 120 SFSUCTION/MECH124
?
?
?
MEETING
102WORK STATION
108
LOBBY
101
OPEN OFFICE119MECH118
CLOSET
334 SF
SHIPPING
222
179 SFMED ED. OFFICE126
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING CONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITS201 SF205 SF173 SF129 SF398 SF188 SF95 SF25 - KOR7 - MJ5 - BHS63 - NCB47 - NCB42 - NCB3 - DKL3 - DKL5 - DKL11 - CS10 - CS10 - CS10 - CS11 - CS13 - CS10 - CS13 - SDD7 - SDD5 - SDD7 - SDD7 - SDD7 - SDD7 - SDD1 - SHL1 - NRM1 - SHL1 - NRM1 - SHL1 - SHL1 - NRMEDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.EDGING, TYP.LAWNLAWNLAWNLAWN18" DECORATIVE ROCK MULCHMAINTENANCE STRIP, TYP.1.ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S REPSHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL.2.ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IFAPPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.3.PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK,FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIALFOR DURING OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.4.UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THEPLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.5.CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT.LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION DATE.6.ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYER LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDON THE DRAWINGS.7.COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS.CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.8.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.9.REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.10.SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.LANDSCAPE NOTES:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.0LANDSCAPE PLAN. .. .. .. .. .. .PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITESYMQUANT.COMMON NAMEBOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTCOMMENTSDECIDUOUS TREESNRM3NORTHWOOD RED MAPLEAcer rubrum 'Northwood'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHL4SKYLINE HONEYLOCUSTGleditsia triacanthos 'Skycole'2.5" CAL.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMEVERGREEN TREESBHS5BLACK HILLS SPRUCEPicea glauca 'Densata'6' ht.B&BSTRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORMSHRUBS - CONIFEROUS & EVERGREENKNO25KNOCKOUT ROSERosa 'Knock Out'24" HT.CONT.DKL11DWARF KOREAN LILACSyringa meyeri 'Palibin'24" HT.CONT.NCB152NORTHERN CHARM BOXWOODBuxus 'Wilson'24" HT.CONT.MJ7MEDORA JUNIPERJuniperus scopulorum 'Medora'24" HT.CONT.PERENNIALS & GRASSESCS75CARADONNA SALVIASalvia x sylvestris 'Caradonna'#1CONT.SDD53STELLA D'ORO DAYLILYHemerocallis 'Stella D'Oro'#1CONT.LEGENDPROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESSODDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDGOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.05/26/17page 147
1.ENTIRE SITE SHALL BE FULLY IRRIGATED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT IRRIGATION SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2.SEE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IRRIGATION WATER, METER, AND POWERCONNECTIONS.3.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION/INSTALLATION. ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND/ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CORRECTING DAMAGES SHALL BE BORNEENTIRELY BY THE CONTRACTOR.4.SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE PER LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY STANDARDS AND SHALL BE PERNATIONAL AND LOCAL CODES. EXACT LOCATION OF SERVICE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR EQUIVALENT AT THE JOB SITE.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY FOR THE PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SERVICE ANDMETERING FACILITIES.6.IRRIGATION WATER LINE CONNECTION SIZE IS 1-12" AT BUILDING. VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL PLANS.COVAGE.7.ALL MAIN LINES SHALL BE 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE.8.ALL LATERAL LINES SHALL BE 12" BELLOW FINISHED GRADE.9.ALL EXPOSED PVC RISERS, IF ANY, SHALL BE GRAY IN COLOR.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT AT 2'-0" BELOW THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE TOP OF PAVEMENT.EXTEND SLEEVES TO 2'-0" BEYOND PAVEMENT.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK THE LOCATION OF ALL SLEEVES AND CONDUIT WITH THE SLEEVING MATERIAL "ELLED" TO2'-0" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AND CAPPED.12.FABRICATE ALL PIPE TO MANUFACTURE'S SPECIFICATIONS WITH CLEAN AND SQUARE CUT JOINTS. USE QUALITY GRADEPRIMER AND SOLVENT CEMENT FORMULATED FOR INTENDED TYPE OF CONNECTION.13.BACKFILL ALL TRENCHES WITH SOIL FREE OF SHARP OBJECTS AND DEBRIS.14.ALL VALVE BOXES AND COVERS SHALL BE BLACK IN COLOR.15.GROUP VALVE BOXES TOGETHER FOR EASE WHEN SERVICE IS REQUIRED. LOCATE IN PLANT BED AREAS WHENEVERPOSSIBLE.16.IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION SHALL BE VERIFIED ON-SITE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.17.CONTROL WIRES: 14 GAUGE DIRECT BURIAL, SOLID COPPER IRRIGATION WIRE. RUN UNDER MAIN LINE. USEMOISTURE-PROOF SPLICES AND SPLICE ONLY AT VALVES OR PULL BOXES. RUN SEPARATE HOT AND COMMON WIRE TOEACH VALVE AND ONE (1) SPARE WIRE AND GROUND TO FURTHEST VALVE FROM CONTROLLER. LABEL OR COLOR CODEALL WIRES.18.AVOID OVER SPRAY ON BUILDINGS, PAVEMENT, WALLS AND ROADWAYS BY INDIVIDUALLY ADJUSTING RADIUS OR ARCON SPRINKLER HEADS AND FLOW CONTROL ON AUTOMATIC VALVE.19.ADJUST PRESSURE REGULATING VALVES FOR OPTIMUM PRESSURE ON SITE.20.USE SCREENS ON ALL HEADS.21.A SET OF AS-BUILT DRAWINGS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON-SITE AT ALL TIMES IN AN UPDATED CONDITION.22.ALL PIPE 3" AND OVER SHALL HAVE THRUST BLOCKING AT EACH TURN.23.ALL AUTOMATIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVES WILL HAVE 3" MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3/4" WASHED GRAVEL UNDERNEATHVALVE AND VALVE BOX. GRAVEL SHALL EXTENT 3" BEYOND PERIMETER OF VALVE BOX.24.THERE SHALL BE 3" MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF VALVE BOX COVER AND TOP OF VALVE STRUCTURE.IRRIGATION NOTES:01" = 20'-0"20'-0"10'-0"NREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONL1.1LANDSCAPE PLANNOTES & DETAILS. .. .. .. .. .. .PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESDECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA.PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBSYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES ANDPLANTING SIZESPROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEESCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZESFACE OF BUILDING, WALL, OR STRUCTUREMIN. 3" LAYER OF ROCK MULCH AS SPECIFIED. PROVIDE SAMPLE TOLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONFINISHED GRADECOMPACTED SUBGRADEWATER PERMEABLE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AS SPECIFIED18" - VERIFY W/ PLANAGGREGATE MAINTANENCE STRIPN T SSTAKED LANDSCAPE EDGER AS SPECIFIED, SEE MANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS AND SPECS. FOR INSTALLATION AND PLACEMENTSLOPE - MIN. 2%, MAX. 5:1VERIFY W/ GRADING PLAN1GOPHER STATE ONE CALLWWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG(800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE(651) 454-0002 LOCALPERENNIAL BED PLANTINGN T SPLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVESURROUNDING GRADEROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TOENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACTSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDEXISTING GRADEROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPENOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEPMULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT STEMBACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATIONDO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.SIZE VARIESSEE LANDSCAPE PLANMODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON LOCATION OF PLANTMATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OR OVERALL PLANTPLACEMENT4DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANTINGN T SPRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAINNORMAL SHAPE FOR SPECIES)PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVESURROUNDING GRADEROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TOENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACTSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDEXISTING GRADEROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPENOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEPMULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT TRUNKBACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATIONDO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.THREE TIMES WIDTHOF ROOTBALLRULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ONLOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDSOR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT3THREE TIMES WIDTHOF ROOTBALLDECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTINGN T SPRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAINNORMAL TREE SHAPE)THREE 2"X4"X8' WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWNWITH TWO STRANDS OF WIRE TWISTED TOGETHER.STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120° TO ONE ANOTHER.WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBERHOSE COLLARS. ALTERNATE STABILIZING METHODSMAY BE PROPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1"-2" ABOVEEXISTING GRADEMULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OFPLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ROCK OR ORGANICMULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLANNOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2" FROMPLANT TRUNKEXISTING GRADECUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL. IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELYSLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OFPLANTING BEDBACKFILL AS SPECIFIEDCOMPACT BOTTOM OF PIT, TYP.RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ONLOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDSOR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENTLEGENDSOD1" DIA. DECORATIVE ROCK MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC,SAMPLES REQUIREDISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONGEMINI MEDICAL
839-899 S PLAZA DR. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
531 PHALEN BOULEVARD, ST. PAUL, MN 55130
GEMINI MEDICAL
PROJECT
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416CivilSiteGroup.comMatt Pavek Pat Sarver763-213-3944 952-250-200305/26/17 CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT NO.: 17045COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c24904Patrick J. SarverLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.05/26/17page 148
Revisions# Date CommentsDate:5/25/2017These drawings are for conceptual use onlyand are not intended for construction. Valuesrepresented are an approximation generated frommanufacturers photometric inhouse or independentlab tests with data supplied by lamp manufacturers.17x22LS952-2656Sales Agent: Steve HahnDrawn By: Joe FreyScale: 1" = 30'Gemini MedicalSite LightingLuminaire ScheduleCalculation SummaryLabelCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinSymbolQtyLabelAvg/MinMax/MinProp LineIlluminanceFc0.191.7ArrangementLum. LumensLLFDescriptionLum. WattsArr. WattsTotal Watts7XWMSINGLE45530.900XWM-2-LED-04-4038382660.0N.A.N.A.SiteIlluminanceFc1.977.60.36.573XALMSINGLE188740.900XALM-3-LED-SS-40154.1154.1462.31XALM-2SINGLE196660.900XALM-2-LED-SS-4015415415425.33Scale: 1 inch= 30 Ft.MH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMMH: 10XWMXALMMH: 30MH: 30XALMXALM-2MH: 30MH: 30XALM1.8 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.63.2 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.95.1 3.4 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.66.6 4.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.52.1 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.63.2 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.90.94.7 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.15.3 3.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.23.9 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.32.3 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.90.7 1.0 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.71.30.4 1.1 1.8 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.32.91.1 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.44.63.1 3.1 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.64.85.7 4.0 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.53.26.0 4.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.31.73.4 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.52.0 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.91.0 1.9 2.4 2.1 2.1 1.50.8 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.20.3 0.3 0.7 1.9 3.2 4.1 4.1 3.4 3.4 4.1 6.4 7.6 6.8 5.3 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.30.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.20.7 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.9 2.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.0 0.60.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.30.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.30.8 0.9 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.1 1.4 2.0 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.10.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.71.2 1.61.7 1.30.80.4 0.30.2 0.20.2 0.40.50.5 0.40.3 0.20.00.0 0.00.00.10.10.20.30.50.70.60.70.60.40.20.20.10.10.20.30.50.70.60.70.60.40.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0page 149
page 150
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
June 27, 2017
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 27,
2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael
Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. Those absent:
None
Approval of Agenda
Chair Field, after consulting with the other Planning Commissioners, changed the order of the
agenda as follows:
B) Planning Case #2017-12
C) Planning Case #2017-13
E) Planning Case #2017-15
A) Planning Case #2017-11
D) Planning Case #2017-14
All of the commissioners agreed to this change in the order of the agenda.
Approval of May 23, 2017 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2017, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Hearings
B) PLANNING CASE #2017-12
GEMINI MEDICAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MENDOTA
HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was a request for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to amend the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
Mendota Heights Plaza. The property is generally located at 796-820 Highway 110. The applicants
are seeking approval to amend the Planned Unit Development in conjunction with a proposed
page 151
17,000 headquarter office building to locate just behind the current Walgreens facility. The City
Code requires the City Council approval for any amendments to an approved PUD.
Mr. Benetti shared an aerial view of the property under consideration, located immediately behind
the current Walgreens facility, right off of South Plaza and Dodd Road.
Gemini Medical is a partner of Arthrex orthopedic medical devices and feel they would be better
able to serve their clientele of orthopedic surgeons in the metro area with this new facility. This
new facility would serve as their new headquarters/primary offices for business administration and
sales teams, provide area for shipping and receiving necessary supplies and inventory, with 2/3 of
the building area being for client hospitality/education and administration and sales, while the
remaining 1/3 of the building area would be dedicated to inventory shipping and receiving.
The building itself would have some decent architectural features to match the tones and themes
within The Plaza. The Comprehensive Plan says that the intent of the subject area within the
Mendota Plaza development is guided as Mixed-Use PUD; to allow for mixed use developments
that combine residential, retail, and commercial uses into a coordinated, planned development
project.
Mr. Benetti shared the necessary standards that need to be met to amend an existing PUD and
shared how this development would meet those standards.
The site plan shows the building being centrally located on the lot with two access points off of
the access road with parking along the north and the east sides of the building. The backyard area
will not be incorporated parking at this point; however, it is identified as proof of parking. This is
a simple way of saying that if additional parking is needed in the future, this area could be
converted to a parking lot.
Mr. Benetti, along with the site plan, shared the grading plan, utility plan, landscape plan, lighting
plan, and parking plan. All of this information was available in the Planning Commission’s
information packet.
Commissioner Hennes asked if there were any concerns on the city’s part that the proposed project
is a lot smaller than what was envisioned in the original PUD. Mr. Benetti replied that, at this point,
there are no concerns. The City and Paster Properties are happy to see a viable business and activity
coming onto the space. It would also serve an economic need and this project is seen as adequate
and suitable.
Commissioner Hennes also asked if there had been any discussions with city staff about a larger
building, whether it is two or three stories, and leasing out the rest of the space. Mr. Benetti replied
that, to his knowledge, there have been no such discussions.
Councilmember Petschel noted that in the drawings provided the building appears to be two
stories. Mr. Benetti replied that it does appear that way; however, it is only one story. There was a
proposal initially to do a mezzanine level but that was dropped. The warehouse portion of the
building requires a higher roof line and it is easier to build using all one frame.
page 152
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the vehicles would be coming in and out from Dodd Road. Mr.
Benetti replied in the negative, the two access points are on the access road between Subway and
Walgreens.
Mr. Jeff Schuler, 275 Market Street, Minneapolis is the architect of this project; came forward and
stated that Mr. Benetti explained the project very well. He noted that what they are trying to do is
to get a bigger space for Gemini Medical to grow into. They are designing this building and there
have been multiple discussions to ensure that this building will serve their needs for a long time
coming. They have tried to incorporate current colors and building tones of the existing space in
the existing PUD, but have it incorporate a high technical feel.
Commissioner Hennes asked about the timetable. Mr. Schuler replied that they plan to be open in
the spring; hoping to start construction in October 2017.
Commissioner Noonan asked if the rendering that was shown is an accurate representation of the
height, notwithstanding the fact that the mezzanine is not included. Mr. Schuler replied that it is
an accurate representation and that they tried to do that to allow for plenty of height for the shipping
area. They also knew that the original plan was for a three-story building and they tried to respect
the initial planning by making it look taller and have it fit a similar mold.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLAZA, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,000
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING in accordance with the staff recommendations
on pages 15 and 16, with the conditions as outlined on page 17, and the findings of fact on page
17 of the staff report
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
page 153
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving an Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy for Temporary
Outdoor Storage Yard in the B-1A Business Park Zone [Planning Case 2017-13]
Introduction
The City is asked to consider an Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy, which would allow the temporary
outdoor storage of gas pipes and other construction materials on the property located at 800 Sibley
Memorial Highway. The site is locally referred to as the Sibley Gas Plant site.
Background
In 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allows interim uses by permit in certain zoning
districts. The interim use designation allows an identifiable use for a limited period of time that
reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in
the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The Sibley Gas Plant site is approximately 26 acres in size, located just off Sibley Memorial Highway
(HWY 13), directly across from the River Bluffs Center/Joke Joint in Lilydale; and just west of the
Summit of Mendota Heights development. The site is currently zoned B-1A Business Park. The
proposed storage area space is approximately 0.4 acres in size, and is located just inside the plant property
(near the main entry point off Sibley Memorial Hwy.).
Xcel Energy is currently in the process of upgrading and rebuilding the natural gas system that serve the
communities in Dakota and Ramsey Counties. The current project is to rebuild two lines that exit the
station near the intersection of Lilydale Road and Sibley Memorial Parkway, which eventually cross
under Sibley Memorial Highway, past the Yacht Club and proceed eastward, eventually crossing the river
into St. Paul.
The gas line work is scheduled to begin in August 2017, with completion by late October or November
2017. The permit is only valid up to December 31, 2017.
On June 27, 2017, this item was presented before the Planning Commission under a duly noticed public
hearing process, along with a planning report which contained an analysis, findings and staff
recommendation (attached hereto). The notice was published in the local newspaper; and notice letters of
this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-ft. from the subject properties. There were no
comments or objections received on this application (see attached PC Meeting minutes).
page 154
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on an interim use permit request and
has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some
way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Budget Impact
N/A
Recommendation
At the June 27th meeting, the Planning Commission supported this proposed interim use permit request,
and recommended unanimous approval (6-0 vote) of the application, with certain conditions as described
in planning staff report, and which are memorialized in the attached resolution.
If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, please adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2017-53
APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR
STORAGE YARD IN THE B-1A BUSINESS PARK ZONE, LOCATED AT 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL
HIGHWAY.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 155
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-53
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
XCEL ENERGY FOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD IN THE B-1A
BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, Xcel Energy, as Applicants, have applied for an Interim Use Permit, which
would allow the temporary outdoor storage of gas pipes and other construction materials, as
proposed under Planning Case 2017-13, located at the Sibley Gas Plant site, 800 Sibley
Memorial Highway, and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting of June 27, 2017; whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up
discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-0 vote) of the
Interim Use Permit with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
Interim Use Permit, which would allow the temporary outdoor storage of gas pipes and other
construction materials at the Sibley Gas Plant site, located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway, and
as proposed under Planning Case 2017-13, is hereby approved with the following findings of
fact:
A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor
depreciate surrounding property values.
B. The proposed interim storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of
this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance
standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners
during the term of construction.
C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
D. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for
permission of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an
appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any
structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
E. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all
applicable city code standards.
page 156
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Interim
Use Permit for the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway is hereby approved with
the following conditions:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between
Xcel and the City Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and
any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit
3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of
Mendota Heights at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and
approved by the City Council.
4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the
permit, the outdoor storage site shall be restored to its original condition.
5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area;
with no dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept
on the site. All gas main pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored
neatly, and stored as far away from the trail system along Sibley Memorial
Highway.
6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is
secured and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and
debris, free of weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit
term.
7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with
downcast, shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential
area to the east.
8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to
5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday
hours must be approved by the City Council.
9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-
1L-6-1: INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be
periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies
and, if necessary, amended accordingly.
page 157
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of July, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 158
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 800 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mendota Heights MN
PID: 27-01400-75-011
Legal Description:
Real property in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, described as follows:
ABSTRACT PARCELS:
1. LOTS FIVE (5) THROUGH NINE (9), BLOCK TWO (2), CHERRY HILL SECOND ADDITION, ACCORDI NG
TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER IN AND
FOR DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
2. THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH FORTY (40) RODS OF GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2)IN
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE l/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-
THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23),
ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF.
EXCEPT,
THAT PART OF THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH (40) RODS OF GOVERNMENT LOT
TWO (2) N THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW V4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF
SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23),
ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH
FORTY (40) RODS OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2); THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE
THEREOF FOR 409.87 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH LINE "A" WHICH LIES SOUTHEASTERLY
AND NORTHWESTERLY AT AN ANGLE OF 54°30' TO SAID WEST LINE; THENCE SOUTH ALONG
SAID WEST LINE TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 75
FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF SAID LINE "A"; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL
LINE TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A CURVED LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 150 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY, EASTERLY AND NORTHEASTERLY OF LINE "B" DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST FORTY (40) RODS OF THE SOUTH FORTY (40)
RODS OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2), DISTANT 409.87 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY FROM SAID POINT AT AN ANGLE OF 54°30' TO
SAID WEST LINE FOR 173.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF LINE "B" TO BE
DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE LAST DESCRIBED COURSE FOR 100 FEET;
THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 150 FEET, (DELTA ANGLE
140°13'44") FOR 367.12 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT ON A 7°30' CURVE (DELTA ANGLE
34°00') FOR 453.33 FEET AND THERE TERMINATING;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVED PARALLEL LINE CURVING TO THE LEFT TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH A LINE WHICH LIES NORTHEASTERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE TANGENT OF THE 7°30'
page 159
CURVE DESCRIBED ABOVE TO A POINT ON SAID TANGENT DISTANT 413.57 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE POINT OF TERMINATION OF SAID LINE "B"; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT ANGLED LINE FOR 70 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY
ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 80 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF SAID LINE
"B" TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID PARALLEL LINE WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE EAST FORTY
(40) RODS OF THE SOUTH FORTY (40) RODS OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT TWO (2); THENCE
WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
3. THE WEST 375 FEET OF THE SOUTH 30 ACRES OF THE NE ¼ OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF.
4. THE NORTH TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY AND SIX-TENTHS (280.6) FEET OF THE WEST THREE
HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE (375) FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT
(28) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY THREE (23) WEST.
5. A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE1/4),
SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EI GHT (28) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-THREE
(23) WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE ¼ OF SAID SECTION TWENTY-THREE {23),THENCE SOUTH ALONG
THE EAST QUARTER-QUARTER (1/41/4) LINE OF SAID SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), A DISTANCE
OF TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY AND SIX TENTHS (280.6) FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AT A
DEFLECTION ANGLE OF NINETY-THREE DEGREES, THIRTY-FIVE MINUTES (93°35') TO THE RIGHT
A DISTANCE OF THIRTY-NINE AND SEVEN-TENTHS (39.7) FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AT A
DEFLECTION ANGLE OF TWENTY-SIX DEGREES, TEN MINUTES (26°10') TO THE RIGHT A
DISTANCE OF TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX AND FIVE-TENTHS (266.5) FEET; THENCE
NORTHWESTERLY AT A DEFLECTION ANGLE OF THIRTEEN DEGREES, TWENTY-NI NE MINUTES
(13°29') TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF ONE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE AND SEVEN- TENTHS (149.7)
FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AT A DEFLECTION ANGLE OF FORTY-SIX DEGREES, TWELVE
MINUTES (46°12') TO THE RIGHT A DISTANCE OF FORTY-FOUR AND SEVEN-TENTHS (44.7) FEET
TO THE NORTH QUARTER-QUARTER (1/4-1/4) LINE OF SAID SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23);
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH QUARTER-QUARTER (1/4-1/4) LINE A DISTANCE OF THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY AND EIGHT-TENTHS (380.8) FEET TO POINT
OF BEGINNING.
6. ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT SIX (6), SECTION FOURTEEN (14), TOWNSHIP
TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23), WHICH LIES SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTER
LINE OF SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (SUBJECT TO SAID HIGHWAY) AND ALSO THE NORTH
QUARTER (N 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4)
OF SECTION TWENTY-THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-THREE (23),
SUBJECT TO EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY.
EXCEPT,
THE EASTERLY NINE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (945) FEET OF ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT
LOT SIX (6), SECTION FOURTEEN (14), TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY THREE
(23), WHICH LIES SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (SUBJECT
TO SAID HIGHWAY); AND ALSO THE EASTERLY NINE HUNDRED FORTY FIVE (945) FEET OF THE
NORTH QUARTER (N 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
page 160
(NE 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY THREE (23), TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY
THREE (23), SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
ALSO EXCEPT,
THAT PART OF TRACT A DESCRIBED BELOW:
TRACT A. THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23
WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 13 AS NOW LOCATED AND ESTABLISHED; EXCEPT THE EAST 945
FEET THEREOF;
WHICH LIES NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT 60 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY OF LINE DESCRIBED BELOW:
LINE 1. BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 14, DISTANT 1323.6 FEET
NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY AT AN ANGLE
OF 48 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 50 SECONDS FROM SAID EAST SECTION LINE (MEASURED FROM
SOUTH TO WEST) FOR 1174.61 FEET; THENCE DEFLECT TO THE LEFT ON A TANGENTIAL CURVE
HAVING A RADIUS OF 5729.58 FEET AND A DELTA ANGLE OF 8 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 22
SECONDS FOR 850.61 FEET AND THERE TERMINATING.
EXCEPT
THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT SIX, SECTION FOURTEEN, TOWNSHIP TWENTY EIGHT NORTH,
RANGE TWENTY THREE WEST LYING ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN SIXTY FEET SOUTHEASTERLY
OF THE CENTERLINE AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES OF SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, ALSO
KNOWN AS TRUNK HIGHWAY 13, AS TRAVELED ON JULY 17, 1960.
TORRENS PARCEL
1. LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 2, PARK PLACE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF.
page 161
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-13
Interim Use Permit for Temporary Outdoor Storage Yard in the B-1A
Business Park District
APPLICANT: Brian Sullivan (on behalf of Northern States Power Co. – Xcel Energy)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 800 Sibley Memorial Highway
ZONING/GUIDED: B-1A Business Park District / LB-Limited Business
ACTION DEADLINE: August 4, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow the temporary outdoor storage of gas pipes and other
construction materials on the property located at 800 Sibley Memorial Highway. The site is locally referred
to as the Sibley Gas Plant site, owned and operated by Northern States Power Company (now Xcel Energy).
BACKGROUND
The Sibley Gas Plant site is approximately 26 acres in size, located just off Sibley Memorial Highway
(HWY 13), directly across from the River Bluffs Center/The Moose/Joke Joint in Lilydale; and just west
of the Summit of Mendota Heights development (see attached site map).
The site is currently zoned B-1A Business Park. This commercial business district allows for “Essential
Services” such as this gas plant utility site; however, other business uses are somewhat restricted and
limited, and no outdoor storage is either permitted as an accessory use or conditional use.
In 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allows an interim use(s) by permit in certain zoning
districts. The interim use designation allows an identifiable use for a limited period of time that reasonably
utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the
comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The applicant submitted a narrative that explains the need and justification or this permit request:
“Over the past few years Xcel Energy has been in the process of upgrading and rebuilding the
natural gas system that serve the communities in Dakota and Ramsey Counties. The current project
page 162
is to rebuild two lines that exit our station near the intersection of Lilydale Road and Sibley
Memorial Parkway. The pipelines in question cross Sibley Memorial Highway passing near the
Yacht Club and proceed to points east, eventually crossing the river into St. Paul.
The request is to use an existing paved area outside of the secured compound as a staging and
laydown yard. It is anticipated that the construction would start in the summer of 2017 and be
completed by the end of the current year. Proposed uses will include a job trailer, storage of pipe
and equipment and parking for construction workers.”
The proposed storage area space (illustrated below) is approximately 0.4 acres in size, and appears to have
been used for surface parking at one time. It consists of a mix of asphalt and crushed rock surfaces. There
are some mature trees along the south boundary, and wide open or no plantings along the west frontage of
Sibley Mem. Hwy. or the easterly edge. A very large overgrown evergreen is present on the north corner.
The entire gas plant site is accessed from one single two-way driveway directly off Sibley Memorial Hwy.
The entire east edge of this rough paved surface connects directly onto the driveway. Farther down the
driveway the site is secured with a security gate and fence that only permits Xcel workers to enter.
Looking South
Looking South/Southeast
page 163
Looking Westerly (towards SMH)
Looking Northerly
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LB-Limited Business in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Xcel’s request to
establish a temporary outdoor storage yard in this area may be in compliance with the City Code
requirements, subject to meeting certain standards under City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses.
Interim Use Permit
Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use (Staff
response or comments are noted after each standard):
A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate
surrounding property value.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed interim use at this location would be detrimental to
the health, safety and welfare of the community, as this will be a tightly controlled and monitored area.
Access will be limited to Xcel vehicles and contractors only, and since most of the gas line replacement
work is being done in this area, traffic movement should be limited and not cause any hazards to the
surrounding properties.
Xcel does not have any plan to fence or screen the site at this time, due to the temporary nature of this
interim use permit. Although open along the highway side, the area across the street is dense mix of
commercial uses, which should not be affected. To the east is The Summit of Mendota Heights
townhome development. As noted in the site photo below,
page 164
B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going
basis.
Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses states that an interim use is allowed for a
limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the
manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The report acknowledged the subject site is located in the B-1A Business Park zone, which allows for
certain and somewhat limited commercial uses, including “Essential Services” such as this gas plant
utility.
It seems reasonable that as part of Xcel’s efforts to replace and upgrade its main gas line services in
Dakota and Ramsey County areas, that it should be afforded some amount of leeway or courtesy to
provide on-site storage of their equipment, materials and job site trailers to help facilitate and serve
their needs for conducting this project. The proximity of this Xcel gas plant site provides a very
reasonable, suitable and adequate are to properly stage and secure the materials needed for their
project. Since this Interim Use Permit is only granted for a short and limited period of time, there will
be no long-term impacts or concerns by the City that this activity will be expanded, or the site will
become a long-term storage facility that is not normally allowed under this B-1A District.
Staff believe the proposed interim use at this location conforms to the general purpose and intent of the
city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in
conflict on an on-going basis.
C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
Staff Response: The Applicant has indicated the gas line replacement work will begin in “… summer
of 2017 and completed by end of the current year [2017].” Staff is recommending the IUP will be valid
from date of City Council approval (planned date of review July 5, 2017) to December 31, 2017.
D. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the City would be burdened by any additional costs or expects
any need for the public to take this property in the future. Xcel is a very well-established and successful
utility company operating and serving this community, metro area and state, so it seem highly unlikely
the city would ever need to take this or any other utility site over at this or any other time in the future.
Xcel Energy’s goal in this case is to be quick with the gas line replacement project, and return the
vacant space to be used under this permit back to its original form.
page 165
E. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost
of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use
permit.
Staff Response: This report provides certain conditions that will be imposed upon the Applicant as
part of any interim use permit approval on this subject site. Most of these conditions are very
reasonable; and Staff does not have any reason to believe Xcel will not comply or follow these
conditions as part of any approval related to this permit.
Staff has not finalized any financial surety at this time, but does plan to negotiate a fair and reasonable
amount to ensure that this IUP does cease and desist at the agreed upon expiration date, and the site
is cleaned, restored and returned to its original condition (as needed).
F. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes Xcel does not have any long-term plans to
sell or offer this site for development by third parties; so this IUP should not affect or cause any delay
to any anticipated development, since there is nothing planned at this time.
G. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes the subject property on which the use will
be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards.
H. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
Staff Response: The specific interim use requested by Xcel Energy on this site is not specifically
identified or a use allowed as an interim use under the B-1A Zone; however, the interim use ordinance
provides for limited/seasonal allowance of certain uses, provided they are reviewed and given full
consideration by the Planning Commission under the standard public hearing process, and approved
by the City Council. The use must also meet certain standards as noted herein; fulfill the conditions as
prescribed by the City; and said use or operations must cease upon the approved deadline date.
Critical Area Consideration
Although this site is located within the Critical Area of the city, and since no new development, permanent
structures, grading work, or removal of vegetation is taking place under this interim use permit, Staff elected
to forgo the need or processing of a separate critical area permit or review at this time.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3. Table the request.
page 166
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit request in this case, based on the findings of fact that
the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1), with the following conditions:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between Xcel and the City
Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or
revocation of the interim use permit
3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council.
4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the permit, the outdoor
storage site shall be restored to its original condition.
5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no
dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept on the site. All gas main
pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away from the trail
system along Sibley Memorial Highway.
6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured and well
maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of weeds, and well
maintained throughout the duration of the permit term.
7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded
light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential area to the east.
8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between 7:00 am
and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any
expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved by the City Council.
9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM
USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure
compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site Plan
2. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 167
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Interim Use Permit to Xcel Energy
Sibley Gas Plant Facility
800 Sibley Memorial Highway
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed interim storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and
comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met
and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction.
3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
page 168
12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES:
A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to:
1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent
location is under construction.
2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable
to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code.
3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will
not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use
allowed within the respective zoning district.
4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature.
B. Application For Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in
subsection 12-1L-6B of this chapter.
C. Referral To Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the
requirements in subsection 12-1L-6C of this chapter.
D. Planning Commission Hearing And Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are
subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6D of this chapter.
E. Action By City Council:
1. Grant Of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the
council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of
the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing
and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the
proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of
all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if:
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding
property value.
b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an ongoing
basis.
c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is
necessary for the public to take the property in the future.
e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
page 169
2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution
shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No
application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a
period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or
proof of change of conditions found to be valid upon recommendation of the planning commission to
the city council.
F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs
first:
1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a
violation of this code.
2. A violation of laws of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or this code.
3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent
information.
4. An amendment to this code which prohibits the use.
5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use.
7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been
issued within one year after approval.
G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit,
the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six
(6) months after the date of such notice.
H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The
issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right.
I. Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion
that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination
has been met or any other unintended consequences.
J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional
periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. (Ord. 479, 7-7-2015)
page 170
page 171
page 172
I-
3
5
E WACHTLER AVESIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYLILYDALE RDI-
3
5
E
R
A
M
P FARMDALE RDSIBLE
Y
M
E
M
O
R
I
A
L
R
A
M
P
PARK PLACE DR
VI
C
T
O
R
I
A
R
D PARK CIRSTONEBRIDGE RDUPPER COLONIAL DR
LOWER COLONIAL DR KNOLLWOOD LNBLUFF CIR
I-
3
5
E
Dakota County GIS
Xcel Energy Sibley Gas Plant800 Sibley Memorial Highway
City ofMendotaHeights0490
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/12/2017
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 173
page 174
page 175
C) PLANNING CASE #2017-13
XCEL ENERGY, 800 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF
GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Mr. Brian
Sullivan on behalf of North States Power/Xcel Energy. They requested an Interim Use Permit, or
short-term use permit, for an outdoor storage area in their gas plant facility located at 800 Sibley
Memorial Highway.
The property is currently zoned B-1A, Business Parking. Commercial businesses do allow for
essential services, such as this gas plant, so this is a permitted use in this area. The proposed
outdoor storage area would be in the excess patch of parking on the front edge of the property, just
off of the entry point.
Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met to allow this temporary use and explained
how this project meets those standards. He also noted that although this site is located within the
Critical Area, no new development, permanent structures, grading work, or removal of vegetation
is taking place; therefore, the City has elected to forgo the need or processing of a separate critical
area permit or review at this time.
It was also explained that there will be no storage of any type of hazardous waste or any chemicals
on the site. Basically all that will be seen are gas pipes. The interim use shall terminate by
December 31, 2017; any continuation of this use would need to return to the Commission and the
City Council for approval.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if they were planning on putting up any kind of a fence. Mr.
Benetti replied that there are no plans to install any type of fencing or landscaping because of the
short-term duration.
Mr. Brian Sullivan of Xcel Energy, 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis came forward to address the
Commission and answer questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report. In regards to any
security concerns, the pipes being stored would be 20 inches in diameter and 20 feet long; it would
take more than a football team to move one.
Mr. Jake Sedlacek of Xcel Energy, 3000 Maxwell Avenue, Newport also came forward and
presented on the project taking place across the street from the proposed storage area. Excel Energy
has two transmission or large natural gas lines, which currently go right down the bluff from the
garden center down to the parking lot of the trail. They have been there since 1948 and serve
approximately 400,000 customers in the metro area. The intent of this project is to do regular
maintenance, replace the pipes, and have it operating seamlessly in a way that no one would really
know that they are there. Because of the challenge of construction in this area, there would have
been impacts upon Highway 13, the senior living facility, the garden center, and the vegetation
area. Their proposal is to take the two gas transmission lines and bring them down around the State
page 176
right-of-way, avoiding the other sanitary facilities in the area, and then stop short of the railroad
trestle, stop short of their own electric transmission work, and then cross under the railroad to
where they can hook up with those lines in Lilydale Park. There really is no other area for them to
store these pipes in a safe and reliable manner.
The plan is start construction in early August with an anticipated completion date in October 2017.
Any restoration they would not be able to get into by winter or when the asphalt plants would close
would be completed in the spring. That would be part of the project – not part of this interim use
so there would be no concerns about having to extend the interim use.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this project was related or unrelated to the work being done at the
propane storage facility nearby. Mr. Sedlacek replied that the propane work has been completed
and was last year’s project. Xcel Energy worked east of that area, at the propane plant, and this is
the final piece to have it all tied up in this area.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-13, INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY STORAGE OF GAS LINE PIPES, JOB TRAILER, AND
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT AT THE SIBLEY GAS PLANT PROPERTIES
BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPLIES WITH
THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY CODE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2017.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety (in an amount negotiated between Xcel and
the City Administrator) to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures
upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit
3. Any extension of this interim use permit must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights
at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, and approved by the City Council.
4. Upon completion of the gas main replacement project or the expiration of the permit, the
outdoor storage site shall be restored to its original condition.
5. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no
dumpsters, refuse, and garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored or kept on the site. All
gas main pipes and related material shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away
from the trail system along Sibley Memorial Highway.
page 177
6. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured
and well maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of
weeds, and well maintained throughout the duration of the permit term.
7. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast,
shielded light heads, and all lighting directed away from the residential area to the east.
8. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between
7:00 am and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Saturday only. Any expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved
by the City Council.
9. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1:
INTERIM USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed
to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended
accordingly.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
page 178
Request for City Council Action
MEETING DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Wetlands Permit for Bob & Jane Reidell - 751 Willow
Lane [Planning Case 2017-15]
Introduction
The City is asked to consider approval of a Wetlands Permit for Bob and Jane Reidell, owners of property
located at 751 Willow Lane. This permit would facilitate the installation of a new in-ground swimming
pool, concrete pool deck, small pool house (accessory structure), and new landscaping in the rear yard.
Background
On April 7, 2015, the City Council approved a lot split application and wetlands permit to Elevation
Homes, (per Resolution No. 2015-27) to split an original lot for two new homes, and allow specific
construction and grading work within 100-feet of nearby Marie Creek.
Upon completion of the home at 751 Willow Lane, the Riedell’s requested a separate building permit to
install a new in-ground swimming pool and related improvements. This additional work requires
submittal of a separate Wetlands Permit application, because the permit from 2015 did not cover or
approve any pool or related landscaping work in this area
On June 27, 2017, this item was presented before the Planning Commission under a duly noticed public
hearing process, along with a planning report which contained an analysis, findings and staff
recommendation (attached hereto). The notice was published in the local newspaper; and notice letters of
this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-ft. from the subject properties. There were no
comments or objections received on this application (see attached PC Meeting minutes).
Discussion
The City can use its legislative authority when considering action on an interim use permit request and
has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some
way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public.
Budget Impact
N/A
page 179
Recommendation
At the June 27th meeting, the Planning Commission supported this Wetlands Permit request, and
recommended unanimous approval (6-0 vote) of the application, with certain conditions as described in
the planning staff report, and which are memorialized in the attached resolution.
If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, please adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2017-54
APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW SWIMMING POOL WITH RELATED
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 751 WILLOW LANE.
Action Required
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 180
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2017-54
RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW
A NEW SWIMMING POOL WITH RELATED IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 751 WILLOW LANE
WHEREAS, Bob and Jane Reidell, as Owners and Applicants, have applied for a
wetlands permit, which would facilitate the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool and
related improvements as proposed and described in Planning Case 2017-15, for the residential
property located at 751 Willow Lane and legally described in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting of June 27, 2017; whereupon closing the hearing and follow-up
discussion on this item, the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-0 vote) of the
wetlands permit, with certain findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
wetlands permit, which would facilitate the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool and
related improvements as proposed in Planning Case 2017-15, for the residential property located
at 751 Willow Lane, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact:
A. Construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the purpose
and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage
and utility easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access,
and safeguards to the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion
control work in this are, if needed.
C. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer
area will occur as part of the proposed construction projects.
D. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during
construction.
E. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
wetlands permit for the property located at 751 Willow Lane is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of
Marie Creek; along with a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the
page 181
front and rear property line; and 5-foot wide easements along the two side
property lines.
2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan
with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City
Engineering Department as part of any building permit application.
3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during
construction, shall occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance document.
5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing
vegetation to be re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related
area after construction.
6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of
the City Code. The pol site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations
of all fencing.
7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane
neighborhood, the City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its
workers to park personal vehicles and/or equipment in front of the subject
property only, or farther down the road at Valley Curve Road and Willow Lane.
Parking in front of neighboring residence shall be discouraged and avoided.
8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall
be submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from
completion of all work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, the
buffer/vegetation strip is well established, easements dedicated, and necessary
restoration work to the site has been completed in accordance with this permit
approvals and City Code standards.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of July, 2017.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
________________________________
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
________________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 182
EXHIBIT A
Property Address: 751 Willow Lane, Mendota Heights MN
PID: 27-71050-00-041
Legal Description: That part of Lot 4, SOMERSET HILLS, Dakota County, Minnesota
which lies West of a line extended from a point on the South line of said
Lot 4 distant 109.95 feet southeast of the Southwest corner of said Lot 4,
as measured along said South line, North to a point on the North line of
said Lot 4 distant 80.20 feet southeast of the Northwest corner of said Lot
4, as measured along said North lot line.
page 183
Planning Staff Report
DATE: June 27, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-15
Request for Wetlands Permit
APPLICANT: Mike Fritz, M & M Homes (on behalf of Bob & Jane Reidell)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 751 Willow Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: August 1, 2017
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. Mike Fritz with M & M Homes, acting on behalf of the owners Bob and Jane Reidell, are seeking
approval of a new Wetlands Permit for property located at 751 Willow Lane (see attached property map).
This permit will facilitate the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool, concrete pool deck, small
pool house (accessory structure), and new landscaping (see attached survey and layout plan). All new
construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within a wetland/water resource-
related area requires a wetlands permit.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to
all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 25,866 sq. ft., or 0.59 acres in size, and contains an existing (new) single-family
residential dwelling. The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development.
The northwest corner of the subject parcel is traversed by Marie Creek, which is the wetland/water resource
area that necessitates this permit.
On March 24, 2015, Elevation Homes presented a request for Lot Split and Wetlands Permit for the original
property at 747 Willow Lane. This original lot (Lot 4, Somerset Hills) was a 1.2 acre parcel that was
roughly split into two equal sized lots. As indicated previously, the wetlands permit was needed due to the
proximity of Marie Creek to the rear, which requires any development work within 100-feet of said
waterway features must be approved with a wetlands permit.
page 184
At the April 7, 2015 meeting, the City Council approved the lot split and wetlands permit under Resolution
No. 2015-27 (attached herein).
The first (original) wetlands permit only approved the general layout and expected construction activity of
the two new single family dwellings under the related lot split application. No other activities or
improvements noted under this application were approved in 2015.
The dwelling structure is raised a bit from the front grades coming off Willow Lane. The grades around
the sides of the home are also somewhat steep, and required landscaped boulder walls and terraces between
both neighboring properties. The rear portion of the dwelling has a small sitting area/concrete patio, with
stairs leading down to the current open back yard space, which is where the new swimming pool is planned
to be built. The rear yard slopes away from the back of the home down towards the northwest corner of the
lot, and towards Marie Creek (see photos below):
page 185
ANALYSIS
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.
As shown in the attached survey map, the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area encompasses almost
the upper 1/3 (northerly) portion of the subject parcel. Due to this water resource area, along with the
proposed in-ground pool, deck, pool house and landscaping, all of these new improvements require an
approved wetlands permit.
After construction, all disturbed areas will be restored with new vegetation, including three new white pines
along the back edge of the lot. All necessary erosion control measures will be required prior to start of any
construction work, which will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department as part of the
building permit application.
Stream bank erosion has taken place along Marie Creek in the past. The 25-foot non-disturb buffer area
that is now part of the wetlands permit review process helps to protect stream banks from surface runoff
caused by impervious surfaces. With the non-disturb area in place, erosion is more likely to be caused by
the velocity of water moving within the creek itself than is likely from surface runoff.
As part of the City’s continued efforts to control further erosion in and around the creek and surrounding
properties, the City requested and conditioned under the 2015 Lot Split/Wetlands Permit applications a 25-
foot wide buffer strip from the Marie Creek edge, along with standard (10-ft. and 5-ft.) drainage and utility
easements on the outer perimeter of the new lot. However, it appears through discussions with the
contractor (same as Applicant), that the protective buffer strip easement and drainage/utility easements were
never provided or dedicated prior to the issuance of the new home permit in 2016. The City has once again
re-conditioned the approval of this new Wetlands Permit with the requirement that all easements will be
provided or dedicated prior to the issuance of any new permits for any work requested under this
application.
The City is also requesting a small bond or security be delivered or deposited to the city to ensure all work
covered under this permit approval has been completed to the satisfaction of the city.
Per City Code Title 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, all pool areas must be enclosed with fencing at least five feet
(5') in height, but not exceeding six feet (6'), to prevent uncontrolled access from the street or adjacent
property. The pool site plan does not appear to show a fence or barrier. The Applicant’s plans must be
revised to show said fence.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the wetlands permit request, based on the attached findings of fact that,
with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the wetlands permit request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed
subdivision and associated construction activities are not consistent with the City Code or
Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3. Table the request.
page 186
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit request based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie Creek; along
with a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the front and rear property line; and 5-foot
wide easements along the two side property lines.
2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated
easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any
building permit application.
3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall occur
within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
document.
5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation to be
re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area after construction.
6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of the City Code.
The pol site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations of all fencing.
7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane neighborhood, the
City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its workers to park personal vehicles and/or
equipment in front of the subject property only, or farther down the road at Valley Curve Road and
Willow Lane. Parking in front of neighboring residence shall be discouraged and avoided.
8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall be submitted and
held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all work, to ensure all new
landscaping has survived, the buffer/vegetation strip is well established, easements dedicated, and
necessary restoration work to the site has been completed in accordance with this permit approvals
and City Code standards.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial/Location Property Map
2. Property Survey (2017)
3. Original Lot Split/Wetlands Permit Survey (2015)
4. Swimming Pool and Landscape Plan
5. Planning Application - including supporting materials
page 187
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Request for Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool and related Improvements
751 Willow Lane
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the purpose
and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements
will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property
owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed.
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will occur as
part of the proposed construction projects.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
page 188
page 189
747
755
765
724
737
748
727765
775
720
WILL
O
W
L
N
VALLEY CURVE
RD
Dakota County GIS
751 Willow Lane(Reidell Res.)City ofMendotaHeights060
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/16/2017
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
page 190
page 191
757 Willow Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
N
5’
10’
20’SCALE
POOL
HOUSE
P O O L
entry
G A R A G ED R I V E W A Y
HOUSE
Existing oak
40’Existing creek line vegtation
Qty: 3 Pinus Strobus
white pine
Perennials,
shrubs
& small trees
Quercus ‘Regal Prince’
columnar oak
Amelanch eir
‘autumn brillance’
serviceberry 1224364860page 192
page 193
page 194
E) PLANNING CASE #2017-15
BOB AND JANE REIDELL, 751 WILLOW LANE
WETLANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN-
GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING
WALLS AND LANDSCAPING
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this is a wetlands permit applied for by
Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Homes on behalf of the property owners, Bob and Jane Reidell at 751
Willow Lane. This permit would facilitate the construction of a new in-ground pool, deck, pool
house, and some landscaping. As part of the wetlands permit, whenever any work is done within
100 feet of any wetland or recognized water resource area, a wetlands permit is necessary.
This is being presented under a public hearing and notices had been sent to the owner; no
comments have been received up to this time.
The property was a new lot that was created a couple of years ago under a lot split [April 2015]. It
is over 25,000 square feet, or 0.59 acre parcel. There is an existing brand new single family home
on the site, is currently zoned R-1 Residential, is guided as R-1 or LR, and there are no changes
on that. Marie Creek touches on the back corner of the lot, making this a wetland area.
Mr. Benetti shared images taken of the area in question showing a very well landscaped back yard
and unfinished area, which is the proposed location of the pool, deck, pool house, and landscaping.
He also made sure the commission understood that the proposed items are not located within the
wetland area itself, just within the 100-foot boundary from the wetland. There would be no impact
to Marie Creek. However, staff has recommended that they provide a 25-foot vegetative strip that
is usually required around any water resource areas to help prevent any type of washout or runoff
and to help hold down any fertilizer runoff from the lawn before it reaches the creek.
Due to an oversight in 2015, staff is demanding that easements be replatted or rededicated on this
site as a part of this process. Before any work can begin, easement dedications will be done, simply
as a carryover from the 2015 approvals.
Mr. Mike Fritz of M & M Home Contractors came forward to address the Commission and to
answer any questions. He had nothing to add to the staff report and the Commissioners had no
questions.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joy Cacicia, 724 Spring Creek Circle, stated that her backyard, all 162 feet of it, looks out on
this piece of property. She came to the meeting two years ago and was told that there would be no
building within 100 feet of the wetland. She was also told that a considerable number of pines
would be saved. As of now, 27 of those pines have been removed along with a lot of other trees.
She understands that the house is built and is not looking to make enemies with the new neighbors
as it is their property to do exactly what they want with it. She asked how high the pool house
would be, would there be a fence installed, and how close to the creek will it be.
page 195
Mr. Benetti replied that the edge of the pool would be approximately 40 feet inside the 100-foot
line [approximately 60 feet from the creek] and the pool house itself would basically be an
accessory structure. Therefore, it cannot exceed 15 feet in height per code. The preliminary plans
show that it would be 10 x 14.
Commissioner Petschel asked about the fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it is yet to be determined;
as part of a new pool they are required to have a new fence either around the pool itself or around
the backyard. It must be a five or six foot high fence and is part of the conditions of approval.
The Reidell’s indicated that the fence would be around the backyard.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COSTELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-15, WETLANDS PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL, POOL
HOUSE; POOL DECK; RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPING BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the
purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility
easements will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to
the city and property owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if
needed.
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will
occur as part of the proposed construction projects.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie
Creek; along with a 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the front and rear
property line; and 5-foot wide easements along the two side property lines.
2. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with
associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department
as part of any building permit application.
3. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall
occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
4. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance document.
page 196
5. A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation
to be re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area after construction.
6. The new swimming pool must have a fence or approved barrier per Title 9-2-1 of the City
Code. The pool site plan must be revised to show the layout and locations of all fencing.
7. Due to ongoing complaints of recent construction activities in this Willow Lane
neighborhood, the City requests the Owners and its contractor(s) direct its workers to park
personal vehicles and/or equipment in front of the subject property only, or farther down
the road at Valley Curve Road and Willow Lane. Parking in front of neighboring residence
shall be discouraged and avoided.
8. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $2,500 shall be
submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all
work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, the buffer/vegetation strip is well
established, easements dedicated, and necessary restoration work to the site has been
completed in accordance with this permit approvals and City Code standards.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 5, 2017 meeting.
page 197
DATE: July 5, 2017
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: 2017-18 Goals Adoption
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is asked to adopt goals for the City organization to pursue for the remainder of
2017, and 2018.
BACKGROUND
The City Council and key staff met in a facilitated workshop on May 22nd to identify and
prioritize goals for the City to accomplish for the remainder of this particular City Council’s term
of office. That ends December 31, 2018. At that work session, Individual goals were solicited,
and similar goals were grouped together. Then, the groups of goals were voted upon, resulting in
prioritization.
Initially, there were 4 groups of top goals which were identified. However, there were other
groups which were determined to be things which the City will do in its normal course of
action—i.e., “Implement the 10 Year Budget Plan Based on Ehlers’ Work” is part of the City’s
annual budget consideration, and ongoing mission of fiscal accountability. Therefore, after
individual action steps to accomplish the goals were recommended by staff and reviewed with
Council at a workshop on June 6th, the Council directed that any of the goals which received
votes should be pursued.
That resulted in the following eight goals. These are presented in a descending order of priority,
based on the Council’s vote at the original workshop:
1. Recruit and Retain a Qualified Workforce
2. Address City Facilities, Infrastructure, and Equipment Needs
3. Create an Agreed Upon Vision for Development/Redevelopment Areas in the City
4. Enhance Parks and Recreation Services and Facilities
5. Address Natural Resource and Environmental Sustainability
page 198
6. Implement the 10 year Budget Plan Based on Ehlers Work
7. Establish a Comprehensive Communications Strategy
8. Conduct Dodd Road Traffic Analysis
A summary of the above overall goals, and the 28 Action Items which are being recommended
by staff to support those (along with individual sub-steps) are attached. The summary also
identifies responsible parties, budget needs where currently identifiable, and target timeframes.
The intent is that periodic reports will be provided to the Council, so that the progress towards
attaining these goals may be monitored. It is possible that priorities will change, depending on
circumstances and resources availability.
BUDGET IMPACT
Many of these goals are dependent upon an allocation of resources to fund them. There will be
decisions to be made during the FY18 Budget session.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Council adopt these goals for 2017-18.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the attached Action Plan for 2017-2018 City
Goals.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
page 199
Action Plan for
2017-2018 City Council Goals
Abbreviations:
CA—City Administrator ACA—Assistant City Administrator PC—Police Chief FC—Fire Chief PWD—Public Works Director
CDD—Community Development Director FD—Finance Director RC—Recreation Coordinator
Goal One: Recruit and Retain a Qualified Workforce
ACTION ITEM 1:
Recruitment and Hiring
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Volunteer Coordinator position
o Create job description and assess options for filling CA/ACA/PC 11/1/17
• GIS Assistant position
o Develop job description for a proposed full-time position CDD/PWD 11/1/17
• Communications Coordinator position
o Create job description; consider joint position with potential Volunteer Coordinator ACA 11/1/17
STATUS:
Each of these positions will be dependent upon being included in FY 2018 budget. Communications Coordinator position included in 2017 budget, but
remained unfilled, due personnel funding needs elsewhere in the system.
ACTION ITEM 2:
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Recruit, hire and retain/maintain qualified Police Officer personnel to full FTE compliment
BUDGET:
$
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review McGrath Study and consider future staffing allocation models PC 9/1/17
STATUS:
From the current Police Officer recruitment process three offers were extended and accepted. New members will start mid-June to early-July. Discussion of
other police staffing needs will take place during FY 2018 budget prep.
page 200
ACTION ITEM 3:
Provide incentives for health and wellness among employees
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Develop wellness incentive program within the Police Department
o Consider extending to other city staff, if feasible ACA/PC Decided by 1/1/18
STATUS:
Goal Two: Address City Facilities, Infrastructure and Equipment Needs
ACTION ITEM 4:
Complete a Facility Needs Assessment to determine future space needs and uses
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Schedule presentation of Fire Department building study at future City Council Work Session FC 10/31/17
• Consider and plan for long term space needs/uses for facilities
o Consider “campus” concept—City Hall, Police and Fire at one location
o Include community space, senior center
o Renovate parking lot and sidewalks, as appropriate
CA Mid-2018
• Consider Council Chambers redesign for ADA compliance and efficient use of space CA/ACA 12/31/17
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 5:
Improve Building security at City Hall
BUDGET:
$10,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Complete installation of door access and panic button systems within identified building areas CA/ACA 12/31/17
STATUS:
page 201
ACTION ITEM 6:
Complete remediation of downstairs mold issues and Police Department remodel
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Bid document before City Council for approval CA 7/17
• Award contract at City Council Meeting CA 8/17
• Work start date CA 9/17
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 7:
Upgrade audio-visual system in Council Chambers
BUDGET:
$ TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Seek quote from vendor on a systems design which incorporates replacement technology for TVs,
projector, overhead camera, and possibly video cameras (Coordinate with NDC4) ACA 11/1/17
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 8:
PUBLIC WORKS: Consider purchase of a street sweeper
BUDGET:
$200,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Present cost/benefit analysis of city-owned street sweeper PWD 8/2017
STATUS:
Pricing is available. Discuss during FY 2018 Budget review
page 202
ACTION ITEM 9:
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Establish a Rescue 10 Committee to plan for the replacement of equipment
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Determine replacement plan FC 12/31/17
STATUS:
Rescue 10 committee has been established. There is some question as to when Rescue 10 needs to be replaced. However, it is unlikely to be needed before
12/31/18.
Goal Three: Create an Agreed Upon Vision for Key Development/Redevelopment Areas in the City
ACTION ITEM 10:
Create short and long term visions for development/redevelopment areas within the city
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• City Council to discuss and examine ideas and options (e.g. The Village, Bourne Property)
o Solicit property owners and community input
o Maintain and preserve wild area/spaces
CDD/CA 3/31/18
STATUS:
Village Discussion underway soon; seeking input from local business regarding Bourn Property. Will need to identify alternatives to current Pilot Knob location
for a dog park before a relocation is possible.
ACTION ITEM 11:
Ready Bourne property for sale
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Work with local companies to identify next steps in the purchase/use of the property CDD TBD
• Develop contingency plan/alternatives for site CDD TBD
• Consider relocation of storage for public works materials and opportunities to cover costs of material
relocations PWD Prior to Sale
STATUS:
page 203
ACTION ITEM 12:
Examine appropriate uses of City incentives in support of Economic Development
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Conduct business retention survey (utilize resources through DEED, Dakota County CDA) CDD 12/31/18
• Facilitate/support TIF redevelopment projects CDD As needed
STATUS:
Goal Four: Enhance Parks and Recreation Services and Facilities
ACTION ITEM 13:
Create plan to bridge generational gap through community space/multigenerational facility
BUDGET:
$TBD
• Included with Facility Needs Assessment under Action Item 1
ACTION ITEM 14:
Upgrade parks facilities-e.g. warming house, lights at Mendakota
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review trailway Plan and financing for trail improvements PWD 7/18/18
• Analyze tennis courts infrastructure and determine improvement needs and schedule PWD/RC 7/1/18
• Analyze use and need for lighting at Mendakota; complete cost/benefit analysis of lighting installation RC/
P&R Commission 7/1/18
STATUS:
page 204
ACTION ITEM 15:
Designate/develop additional athletic/soccer fields
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Analyze current use including user data, demand for additional fields , costs and user charges (work with
MHAA)
RC/
P&R Commission 7/1/18
• Investigate joint usage with city of West St. Paul, ISD 197 City Council/CA/RC 12/31/17
• Investigate vacant properties for partnership with local non-profits City Council/CA/RC 7/1/18
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 16:
Expand Community Engagement activities
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Inventory existing community engagement programs and activities CA/ACA/RC 9/1/17
• Conduct a user survey to better understand community/resident needs (senior, youth) ACA/RC 10/1/17
STATUS:
Goal Five: Address Natural Resource and Environmental Sustainability
ACTION ITEM 17:
Consider establishment of an Environmental Review Committee
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Determine Environment Review Committee mission and role
o Storm water treatment
o Invasive plants
o Preservation of existing resources
P&R Commission 3/1/18
STATUS:
page 205
ACTION ITEM 18:
Continue pollinator friendly policies for public property
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Educate the public regarding the benefits of pollinator friendly policies ACA/ with Master
Gardeners 12/31/18
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 19:
Educate the public regarding Emerald Ash Borer
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Share latest information with the public ACA/with Master
Gardeners 12/31/18
• Provide appropriate levels of funding for treatment and eradication City council/
CA/PWD 12/31/17
• Review management plan PWD 5/1/17
STATUS:
Goal Six: Implement the 10 year budget plan based on Ehlers work
ACTION ITEM 20:
Review Sanitary Utility Budget
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review existing I/I studies and review funding sources for sewer maintenance PWD 12/1/17
STATUS:
page 206
ACTION ITEM 21:
Review Storm Water Utility Budget
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review storm water utility funding rate PWD 10/1/17
• Update storm water CIP including pond maintenance PWD 7/1/18
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 22:
Consolidate CIPs into one document
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Create infrastructure CIP including Streets, Sanitary, Storm, Trails, Ponds PWD 7/1/18
STATUS:
Goal Seven: Establish a Comprehensive Communications Strategy
ACTION ITEM 23:
Audit City Communications efforts and tools for effectiveness and outcomes
BUDGET:
$ N/A
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Inventory city communications pieces and tools ACA/CA/PC 2/28/18
• Develop Communications Plan for traditional and social media ACA/CA/PC 2/28/18
STATUS:
If Communications Coordinator position filled, include in the recommendation/decision process.
page 207
ACTION ITEM 24:
Improve timing of communications between staff and City Council regarding financial information
BUDGET:
$ N/A
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Develop and implement quarterly and monthly schedule of information FD 9/1/17
STATUS:
ACTION ITEM 25:
Complete website redesign and content revisions
BUDGET:
$15,000
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Edit and/or rewrite site content incorporating new ideas (linked with online applications and forms, e-
commerce and handouts action item) dependent on fiber availability ACA 10/31/17
STATUS:
Staff continues to work with GovOffice to develop site redesign direction and templates.
ACTION ITEM 26:
Connect to Dakota County Fiber Ring
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Continue to work with LOGIS and Dakota County on fiber connections to the Fire Department, Public
Works, and City Hall buildings—determine timing of installation, project management and financing CA/ACA 9/1/17
STATUS:
City Council approved the release of Request for Quotes, as prepared by LOGIS for installation of fiber to all three buildings, at their June 6 meeting. RFQ’s
were released by LOGIS on June 8 and are due June 30.
page 208
ACTION ITEM 27:
Enhance customer service and communication to residents and consumers
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Research and determine appropriate city use of e-commerce options and other pay methods FD/ACA 2/28/18
• Upgrade online city applications and forms for accuracy and ease of use by residents/consumers All Department Heads 2/28/18
• Update various handouts (Community Development & Engineering) and increase accessibility of
handouts CDD/PWD 2/28/18
• Research signage that informs of potential development/redevelopment of a site (Communications
tool consideration) CDD 9/1/17
STATUS:
Dependent upon connection to fiber optic.
Goal Eight: Conduct Dodd Road Traffic Analysis
ACTION ITEM 28:
Work with MNDOT to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on Dodd Road
BUDGET:
$TBD
STAFF RESPONSIBLE TIMEFRAME
• Review impact of area developments (i.e. Village lots, Vikings development) PWD/CDD 12/31/17
• Seek improvements to current traffic movement issues (review Village traffic study, investigate
roundabouts, etc.) PWD/CDD 8/1/18
STATUS:
page 209